Is the mainstream media biased against Ron Paul?

[David S]

Ron Paul wins most of the internet polls. He won 17 of 36 straw polls and both of Fox News' text message polls. Yet the mainstream media rarely mentions him.

This article in MSNBC is a classic example: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/14/410525.aspx The article reports that Ron Paul won the GOP straw poll following the Conservative Leadership Conference with 33% of the vote. Romney came in second with 16%. From there the article goes on to talk about Romney, not Ron Paul. And the title of the article is not "Paul wins straw poll." Its "Romney loses straw poll."

[David S]

Internet polls, straw polls, and text message polls don't mean jack sh!t so no. As far as real polls go the most I've ever seen him at is 2%.

Given that the article I linked to is about the straw poll, wouldn't it make sense to discuss the winner rather than the loser?

[David S]

Not any more so as they are against Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter, Richardson, Biden, etc.

The difference with the republicans you mentioned is that they are not doing well in any polls.
They didn't win the Fox news text message polls or very many internet polls. And in head to head competition with Ron Paul in straw polls they all lose badly.

Ron Paul's Head-to-Head Records (Win-Lose-Tie):
Ron Paul v. Rudy Giuliani 31-5-0
Ron Paul v. Mitt Romney 24-12-0
Ron Paul v. Fred Thompson 21-14-0
Ron Paul v. John McCain 32-3-0
Ron Paul v. Mike Huckabee 30-4-1
Ron Paul v. Sam Brownback 32-2-1
Ron Paul v. Tom Tancredo 33-1-0
Ron Paul v. Duncan Hunter 32-2-0

source:http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

[David S]

You do realize what a "straw poll" is, right?

The only polls that count are the primaries and the general election. But if you want to gage a candidates popularity prior to that then you need some other poll. The internet polls, straw polls and fox news text message polls usually follow a debate and the people who participate are usually people who saw the debate and were interested enough to take the poll. The mainstream polls usually telephone "likely voters" who are deemed to be representative of the overall population. Many of those folks did not see the debate and never heard of Ron Paul.

[David S]

the media is biased toward him for not exposing his ridiculous platform...

Peace, freedom and a belief in the constitution. Yes those are ridiculous ideas or at least they are to some Brits, which is why we kicked them the hell out of our country 200 years ago.

If you want socialism, tyranny and unending wars then Ron Paul is not your guy.

[David S]

the media is biased toward him for not exposing his ridiculous platform...

Peace, freedom and a belief in the constitution. Yes those are ridiculous ideas or at least they are to some Brits, which is why we kicked them the hell out of our country 200 years ago.

If you want socialism, tyranny and unending wars then Ron Paul is not your guy.

To be fair to Harry, I think he was talking about Paul's desire to abolish things like the department of Education and the like, which I can imagine a Liberal would have a bit of a problem with. Still, for Libertarians such as ourselves, Paul’s platform is music to our ears. I personally think Paul is a bit extreme on some issues, but I support him because he’s an honest, logical man who would also end the war faster then any of the “frontrunners“- Republican or Democratic. He’d also get the debt under control, or at least make more of an effort in doing so then any of our recent past presidents, and that is the other big issue to me. 

And the Brits are cool. Not as much as the Germans though, ha ha.

Well first I don't mean to be insulting to the Brits, or for that matter even to Harry. But I do like to rattle his cage from time to time when he makes some outrageous comment.

With regard to the Department of education - before 1980 it did not exist and most education was handled by the states or local  communities. But were our schools worse off or better off then? Before that American students were among the best in the world, but today they rank much lower. Before 1980 school shootings were very rare, but today they are common. When I started college back in  1967 tuition was $180 per term, but now it is much higher even when inflation is considered. So before the feds got involved education was cheaper, better and schools were safer. Furthermore there is no constitutional basis for federal involvement in education so under the 10th amendment they should not be in it all. So how crazy is it to advocate eliminating the dept?

[David S]

the media is biased toward him for not exposing his ridiculous platform...

His domestic policy is probably the most rational of all the ones being proposed in either party. His foreign policy, OTOH, is a bit on the loopy side.

Several of the other Republicans have proposed using nuclear weapons against Iran, a country that has not done anything to us.
Obama has suggested he might attack Pakistan, a country that has been somewhat helpful to us and which by the way has nuclear weapons.
Hillary says she would remove most of the troops from Iraq but leave a small force behind. But she doesn't say what she will do when that small force comes under heavy attack. She will either have to beat a speedy retreat while under attack or send  more troops back in for reinforcement or leave them there to be slaughtered.

Ron Paul would remove all the troops as quickly as is safely possible. He would also encourage peaceful trade relations with all nations but entangling alliances with none, and no empire building. This is exactly what the founders recommended.

So who is loopy?

[David S]

Yes. The mainstream media is just mind-bogglingly awful across the board.

Somehow, the mainstream media breaks the primary candidates into tiers. So, why isn't Ron Paul considered first-tier? Because Americans have never heard of him. Why have Americans never heard of him? Because the media ignores non first-tier candidates, and thus creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hmmm, you probably haven't driven on 494 lately. Because anyone who saw those overpass bridges the last time I did knows who he is (and that apparently he has some "Revolution"). And that's not the only bridges I've seen those signs on.

Paul is also the ONLY candidate I have yet to see lawn signs for.

I'm surprised the political signs are going up already. I haven't seen any here.

[David S]

... but his message of hate will never gain traction in America.  I hope

Good grief!  Peace, freedom, and adherence to the constitution is Ron Paul's message. How in the world does that translate to hate?

[David S]

... but his message of hate will never gain traction in America.  I hope

Good grief!  Peace, freedom, and adherence to the constitution is Ron Paul's message. How in the world does that translate to hate?

Well, I was just deliberately using the most provocative word to provoke a response

Telling flagrant lies will usually provoke a response alright.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does your candidate put some other country first? Possibly he or she should run for president of that country.

But please elaborate on your point. Do you think Ron Paul is unfair to other countries? If so how? And please do "continue from there".

[David S]

Ron Paul is an interesting guy, however, he does not believe in Social Security.  So there you have it, the .000000000001% of Americans who don't want Social Security in any form.

Therefore, Ron Paul as a presidential candidate is a non issue for anything more than entertainment.

I like "some" of the Libertarian platforms, but these extreme philosophies make them a joke in the face of reality. 

That's right, take a stand America.  Proudly cast your vote for someone who thinks that those of us who work hard in life will be cared for in old age by corporations.  I hardly think so.

You have some bad information.

This is what Ron Paul really said:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/social-security/

Our nation’s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken.

Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible public spending.

The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals.

Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors’ income and raise their standard of living.

Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.

It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.

We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.

Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors.

[David S]

Well Ron Paul won last night's debate with 34% of the vote in Fox News' text message poll. That makes three in a row for him even though he was off his game last night. He is also ahead in World Net Daily's poll today with 49% of the vote. That says a lot because WND is much more of a conserative site than a Libertarian one, so it isn't the best forum for Ron Paul.