Media Blackout of Ron Paul
Before MSNBC deletes these reader comments, I'm posting them here (MSNBC doesn't have copyright over other's comments). The following is an exhaustive listing of all of the comments up to the point of this posting. Despite winning MSNBC's own polls, and winning Fox News' listener polls, Ron Paul has been blacked out. It seems pretty clear that the way the nomination system works, and the way the mainstream media works, is to make it impossible for anyone but the "favored candidates" to have a chance. See Ron Paul 2008 for a video of Ron Paul's answers in the debate.
not much of a story...just a comment really, if i didn't know who ron paul was before reading this, i certainly wouldn't know after...you dont even mention he's running for president or that he is a current senator...
Roy, Denver, CO (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:24 PM)
So, based on what you read and heard, what is the "Ron Paul Revolution" all about?
Steve Dasbach, Falls Church, VA (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:36 PM)
Actually, he's a current Representative.
Bill, Springfield, Oregon (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:38 PM)
Well, since the article was so short in details, here's some of facts about Ron Paul: He has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. He has never voted to raise congressional pay. He has never taken a government-paid junket. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against regulating the Internet. He voted against the Iraq war. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year. Ron Paul is a representative of Congress from Texas's 14th district. He is currently seeking the Republican party nomination for president.
Stephen, San Jose, CA (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:44 PM)
Ron Paul won your own viewer poll. Yet, you are barely are willing to acknowledge his existence! It's disgusting - and obvious to viewers! It is also quite obvious to all of us that Ron Paul is not one of MSNBC's "annointed" candidates. The hypocrisy you show is astonishing. Is MSNBC part of a free press? Nope! You are part of a "machine" press that wants to tell us what to think. And you make it so blatant it would be funny if it weren't so repulsive. Now go do a story about Paris Hilton.... it's about all you can muster.
JJH NewYork, NY (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:50 PM)
As a Congressman, Paul has: -Read the Patriot Act, and voted against it -Voted against going to war in Iraq -Wants to abolish the IRS -Wants to get rid of the Federal Income Tax Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion - a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels?
Anthony, New York, NY (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:53 PM)
Ron Paul is a Republican representative from Texas who has never voted to raise taxes nor has he voted for an unbalanced budget. He voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Check him out, he's a great candidate! The Ron Paul Revolution, in my understanding, is simply a group out promoting Dr. Paul and his message. Here's his campaign website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Matthew Peterson, Mobile, Alabama (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:54 PM)
"Ron Paul Revolution" isn't actually endorsed by his campaign to the best of my knowledge. And I also would like to comment that it would be nice if you would actually mention who he is in the article.
John Mac, Hudsonville, Michigan (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:09 PM)
If you're looking for info about Ron Paul Revolution you can find them on youtube. They have a bunch of videos. It's great to see they were out there at the debate tonight :)
Jen, Chicago, Illinois (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:10 PM)
Ron Paul is the only congressman that keeps his oath of office. He returns money to Washington that he doesn't need to spend in his district. He has turned down the lucritive congressional retirement. He has EARNED more respect than anyone who has graced the hill, but he gets NO respect from the media.
Flo Greenville, Ohio (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:31 PM)
You guys are actually reading MSNBC.com looking for *information*?!?!? That's rich.
Rob, Binghampton, NY (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:45 PM)
OH MAN!!! I am so impressed by the people posting on here...they are really telling the truth! Whom knew that when you turn off mainstream media you could become a well informed patriot!!! Look this is the guy that will allow us to take our country back from the current administration whom has no interest in the american citizen but only corporations. Bottom line the government should work for the people not the other way around....wouldn't be a democracy! He is willing to remove the IRS as it is an "ILLEGAL" entity!. Bring back Security to our Borders...correction Bring back the Republic and Security to our borders. For the brain-washed google NAFTA AND CAFTA ... North American Empire...yup it's coming with no say from you and I. Yes RON PAUL is against it! He will bring the troops home...I know we should keep them there until we win...although I don't think GW knows what a good definition of victory is. (Soverign Nation with secuirty, army, and peace 2004 / no car bombs 2006 / less secualr violance 2007.) Most of all he is talking about building a stronger United States. Yea reminds of some GW's propoganda right....right before shipping hundred of thousands of off-shore. No I don't hate GW besides he's not really in control anyway. Google Rockefeller...predicted 9/11 before it happened 11 months before it did...scare people to create endless war on terror! Not crazy talk...GOOGLE IT!! Watch out Venezuela is next!!
Roberto Gonzales (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:45 PM)
I am impressed with Congressman Ron Paul's dedication to the US Constitution. I believe he would be the best President because he would restore peace, preserve our liberties, and enable real prosperity. He has my support.
George Whitfield, Seoul, Korea (absentee voter in Florida) (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:50 PM)
Ron Paul is featured in the movie "America: Freedom to Fascism"....you can watch it free on Google video....I'd love to see a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich 2008 ticket....they'd be unstoppable!.....Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition
911truthdotorg (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:56 PM)
Roberto Gonzales....right on, my man! The people in this country had better wake up to the fact that the fascists running this country right now are mass murderers. They made their "new Pearl Harbor" happen to give them the eternal green light to destroy The Constitution, our rights and ultimately, this country. We NEED someone like Ron Paul to help us undo the nightmare of these barbarians. But I fear that he will end up like Kennedy if he does get elected. JFK had signed Executive Orders to abolish the Federal Reserve and the CIA and a few months later they killed him. Ron Paul wants to do the same with the Federal Reserve and the IRS, not sure about the CIA. We need to help Ron Paul!!....Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition
911truthdotorg (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:20 PM)
Alright! Glad to hear about the activity on the ground.
iRonPaul.com (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:51 PM)
Name another politician who refuses to take a nickel of his fat Congressional pension and strictly abides by the Constitution. Ron Paul is the real slash big government deal. As for MSNBC's deliberate censorship of the Paul campaign and his first-place finish in their own poll, it's just proves they're a modern version of the old Soviet-era Pravada.
Al Doyle, Oshkosh, WI (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:10 PM)
I wanted to come out there so bad! I learned about Ron Paul 3 months ago. There is no one else to vote for! He is such a statesman--even if you don't agree w/ him on everything (how could you agree 100% w/ anybody?), there is no denying that this man speaks from his heart...and he speaks the truth.
Aaron, Bloomington, IN (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:26 PM)
RonPaulRevolution dot com and .org will provide you with a great deal of information. The most important of which is how you can make use of material provided by other individuals to start your own RonPaulRevolution near you without any permission slip from the government.
Ernest Hancock Phoenix, Arizona (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:32 PM)
Not only is Ron Paul the only real conservative running for president he is the only candidate that isnt a total corporate sellout. We need to get the disenfranchised Democrats and Rebublicans to realize this fact. The left right paradigm has held the country back for many years. We need to wake the citizenry up and it seems that there is a real chance to do that but Ron Paul supporters MUST get the word out. The MSM has proven its not going to do it. I think it is also important to stress getting back to the CONSTITUTION and the BILL of RIGHTS. No other candidate will touch those subjects. The people want to hear about it but until now havent had that choice. Now we all have a real canididate to vote for! Vote Ron Paul 2008 www.ronpaul2008.com DONATE what you can!
Jason Virginia (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:33 PM)
Congressman Paul a major candidate tonight. Anyone who pays attention can practically feel the oceanic swell of his suporters, national as well as international. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and John Locke would be proud! Godspeed to you, Dr. Paul!
Antony, Hopkins, Minnesota (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:35 PM)
Actually Ron Paul voted against the USA PATRIOT ACT because he couldn't read it. Nobody did. That was his first objection, as he so stated on the floor at the time ... the legislation they were voting on was unavailable for ANYONE other than the Speaker to read at the time. So your Congressman voted your rights away without even knowing, or obviously caring, what he was voting on if he voted for the PATRIOT ACT. Business as usual from the Washington Party.
Fascist Nation, Phoenix, AZ, USA (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:42 PM)
Ron Paul will have a chance only when you, the media, start reporting him. How can he poll high if the people ---who's job it is for you to inform--- haven't heard of him? How can he win if the people ---who's job it is for you to give unbiased coverage--- are repetedly told he has no chance? The after-debate coverage of the May 3rd debate was a disgrace. While the paid talking-heads were opining about anyone but Paul, the public was voting him to the top of the GOP candidates. We choose our candidates, not the media!
JTaverner, AZ (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:45 PM)
The 'Ron Paul Revolution' is a grass roots campaign that started in Phoenix AZ and is now nation wide to promote Ron Paul for president. Instructions on how to be a part of it can be found here: ronpaulrevolution.com. Through this election, the MSM will be exposed for the censorship that they have imposed on the electoral process. I hope that this article is an attempt by MSNBC to save themselves by reaching out to the people. I welcome this and hope to see more.
Tom Westbrook, Mesa AZ (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:02 PM)
ronpaul2008.com Vote for Ron tonight on FOX by texting them R7 to 36988
NH4RonPaul (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:20 PM)
Thanks for the story MSNBC! There is a poll using your cellphone up on foxnew.com it is sort of complicated, so take your time.
Jones, Springfield, MO (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:23 PM)
Ron Paul is this country's last hope - he really is. All the top tier people are bought and paid for and so is the bulk of the press. The more they try to ignore RP and pretend he doesn't exist by simply making no mention of him, the more comical and obvious it becomes.
NickT, San Antonio, Texas (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:57 PM)
Ron Paul is the voice of americans that are tired of seeing their country and liberty being stolen or sold to global elites, tired of being kicked out of their homes so government can line their pockets off of the profits of a wealthy buisness owner.. tired of being presumed guilty before innocent and becoming the focus of unwarrented survellience and searches.. tired of their income being taxed and given to others in the form of healthcare, welfare or corporate subsidies. while the richest corporations in this country pay little or no taxes.. tired of fiat currency and the devaluation of the US dollar.. tired of our government lying to our face and policing the world.. tired of government backing corporate interests before that of its people and participating in the fleecing of common americans, such as enron&worldcom or the california energy crisis.. we need to look back to our constitution and what this country was founded upon because our government is guiding us to communism and away from our democratic republic..
john gomes, sacramento, ca (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:10 PM)
MSNBC WAKE UP!!! The people got to see a genuine candidate, who had something different to say FOR ONCE, and EVERY major newscorp ignores him! LOOK AT YOURSELVES
m jackson, portland,oregon (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:31 PM)
I'm watching the debate right now and they are not asking Ron Paul hardly any questions at all. Now they're ignoring him on the stage!...Ron Paul is amazing!! He does not shrink from saying the "unpopular" thing. They just tried to trip him up with an Iraq question when he mentioned 9/11 and that schmuck Giuliani jumped down his throat and demanded he retract his statement. Ron didn't do it....We need to get him in the White House!!....Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition
911truthdotorg (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 10:24 PM)
In response to tonight's debate, I thought it worth mentioning that Giuliani's attack on Ron Paul was cowardly and severely harmful to his standing in the Republican primary race. As a scholar of international relations, Ron Paul's perspective was a regurgitation of the consensus on the causes of 9-11. Giuliani attacked him in an attempt to prey on the fears of the American people. Right now I'm going out to my car, removing the Giuliani 08 sticker, and replacing it with Ron Paul.
Joe Smith, Athens, Georgia (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 10:41 PM)
OMG! In the post debate Fox Noise spin, they're crucifying Ron Paul for what he said...especially that fraud, Giuliani....If I was advising Ron Paul, I'd tell him to withdraw from the debates because they're never going to give him a fair shot....Ron Paul needs to come out for 9/11 Truth...he knows it's a lie!.... Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition
911truthdotorg (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 10:43 PM)
Ron Paul is the only Academic choice!!!!!
Dan Smith, Garland, NC (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 10:54 PM)
Ron Paul rebuttal to Giuliani's political grandstanding was pure genius. However, when Giuliani asked ROn Paul to retract his statement....the audience cheered! Face it! The GOP has completely been hijacked by neocons :(
Justin Foard, San Jose, CA (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 10:55 PM)
Ron Paul OWNED tonight. Only the ignorant disagree that 9/11 was caused by blowback from American foreign policy. Ron Paul is America's candidate. Visit www.ronpaul2008.com. Friend request him on myspace. Watch and vote positive on his youtubes. Now is the time for change in America, and the neo-cons have lost their opportunity. Long live true republicanism!
V, New York, NY (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:07 PM)
Ron Paul is an esteemed intellectual when it comes to American foreign policy. However, this hurts him in our dumped-down, foreign policy hubris infested society.
Justin Foard, San Jose, Ca (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:21 PM)
Ron Paul has my Vote..
Don - Channahon,IL (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:31 PM)
Ron Paul is leading the text message poll on Fox News. Can this be real? I host his campaign web site and traffic is way up, although not as much as after the first debate. Part of that may be due to the later timeslot. Did anyone else think Fox News set Ron up for Rudy to make his indignant (and ignorant) remark? It looked staged to me and as soon as the debate ended, Hannity and the other talking heads started talking about cutting Ron from future debates. Now they are interviewing everyone but Ron. Can you say "rigged game"?
Kent White (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:32 PM)
Ron Paul is currently placing first in the foxnews poll. He is the only civil libertarian that EITHER party is running. He is truly the only man running for the White House that will preserve what this nation stands for.
Matt Shroy, Greenville, SC (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:33 PM)
watch America:Freedom to Fascism on youtube that is your best introduction to Ron Paul and what he stands for. If you want more information go to thomas.org
Troy Lawrence, Byers, Colorado (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:35 PM)
Ron Paul in 2008! Show the media how they cannot spin and silence his views. He still wins the polls.
Jeff, Warwick, RI (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:37 PM)
Man, NeoSean really hates Ron Paul. He is such an ass when he is losing an argument. The post debate interview was priceless . . .
Kent White, Orlando, FL (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:45 PM)
Ron just owned Sean Hannity, and insisted on continuing the debate even after Hannity and Colmes attempted to break for commercial. RON PAUL WON TONIGHT.
V, New York, NY (Sent Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:47 PM)
they are right now trying to knock out ron paul micheal steel is a dum knuckle head. ron paul won romeny
ferl ball (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:08 AM)
It's sad to see that a so-called 'news event' was so clearly controlled to benefit just a few candidates. There was no clear attempt to give the American people a chance to see what each candidate had to say on a given question. How about a debate that's truly fair to all parties involved. One where the same questions is posed to ALL participants, and ALL participants get equal time to respond. Dr. Paul certainly deserves that much (actually more) based on his un-wavering many years of service to the American people, with such a high-level of integrity in the face of so much opposition and propaganda. Not to mention the fact that he's probably smarter in the area of foreign policy than the sum total of all the candidates combined. To assume that the American people are now too stupid to see a blatant censorship like that which happened tonight on Fox is to assume that all is lost here in America. Thank God for the internet, the one and only last resort for FREE SPEECH for the American people. America - for your children's sake, PLEASE WAKE UP.
Bill Kosloskey, Petoskey MI (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:10 AM)
Presidential Candidate Ron Paul has my vote. Thank God he has the integrity to stand his ground and defend this nation, our forefathers and the United States Constitution.
Jim Theriault, Sarasota FL (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:14 AM)
It's sad to see that a so-called 'news event' was so clearly controlled to benefit just a few candidates. There was no clear attempt to give the American people a chance to see what each candidate had to say on a given question. How about a debate that's truly fair to all parties involved. One where the same questions is posed to ALL participants, and ALL participants get equal time to respond. Dr. Paul certainly deserves that much (actually more) based on his un-wavering many years of service to the American people, with such a high-level of integrity in the face of so much opposition and propaganda. Not to mention the fact that he's probably smarter in the area of foreign policy than the sum total of all the candidates combined. To assume that the American people are now too stupid to see a blatant censorship like that which happened tonight on Fox is to assume that all is lost here in America. Thank God for the internet, the one and only last resort for FREE SPEECH for the American people. America - for your children's sake, PLEASE WAKE UP.
Bill Kosloskey, Petoskey MI (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:15 AM)
MSNBC and Fox now have both spiked the news that Ron Paul won their republican presidential debates.
David (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:21 AM)
Tier 1, Tier 2, what a bunch of BS. Who is the media to tell me what to think, whatever happened to objective journalism?? Big media won't deter from supporting Ron Paul and I would ask of them to please give him more airtime he deserves it, we deserve it, do it for the Republic!! We are not a democracy, we are a constitutionally limited Republic!!
benny benfari, briarwood, new york (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:22 AM)
Ron Paul tied with Romney for the winner of the fox cell poll after leading for nearly an hour. Hannity and some pollsters then call their own poll worthless because 'there is no way Paul won that debate, no way.' I can not describe how frustrated that makes me fell. I am an Iowan Republican and I support Ron Paul out of this current crop. If no one else comes into the race, I encourage all other Iowa Republicans to vote for him in the caucus. I hope the Libertarians and Democrats will help him in the caucus as well. Ron Paul is right for America. God Bless.
Matt, Dubuque, Iowa (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:26 AM)
Start covering this guy more. I'm going to tell everybody about him. I believe he is what the people want. Of course, he doesn't fit into your agenda........does he.
John Stump (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:28 AM)
Ron Paul is the only traditional conservative running for the Republican nomination.
Robert Moore, Huntsville, AL (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:30 AM)
Please donate to Ron Paul. If only five or ten dollars, it all helps. I will be supporting him in the caucus state.
Matt, Dubuque, Iowa (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:36 AM)
Ron Paul proves that,the founding fathers vision of the country still ALIVE..RUN RON RUN
Michael , ventura , ca (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:43 AM)
Congressman Paul, I want to let you know that I am absolutely appalled at your misuse of our trust in your misrepresentation of yourself and your views when you ran for election in our district. You are completely aware that you ran on a strong military support stance, you know that we support the anti-terrorism war in Iraq, and you know that you are a charlatan in running under the cloak of strong conservative values. Now you embarrass us with you diatribes against our men and women's efforts on national television. Shame on you and shame on your dishonesty to your constituents. I will work will all of my energy to recall your election to office on the grounds of misrepresentation and no confidence. I am embarrassed that you are from the State of Texas.
barbara sherrill, Alvin, TX (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:44 AM)
RON PAUL ROCKS! Period! GO RON GO!! He just won the FOX debate too! Take that Military Industrial Complex!!
AJ Severino, Parkville, MO (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:46 AM)
MSNBC, thank you for not censoring Ron Paul comments like abc.com does.
Tom Westbrook (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:47 AM)
I usually vote democrat, but I will vote for Ron Paul if the neocons don't keep him from getting nominated. The republicans have a choice. Either nominate Ron Paul or possibly have a democrat in the white house.
Ryan Mann (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:56 AM)
Go, Ron, go!
B Iman, Chewelah, Wash. (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:57 AM)
If he doesn't get the nominatation, we'll just write him in. I'm not a republican by any means, but I'd vote for Ron Paul.
Jane, Southern Mississippi (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:00 AM)
Ron Paul is the only true republican presidential candidate. I had left the republican party and now, I'm going to register as a republican and vote for RON PAUL in the primary elections. RON PAUL is the only one, who actually voted against the Iraq War. Did Hilary or any of those other democrats? NO. RON PAUL is the only candidate that with enough experience and consistently voting with his princples and constitution in mind. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!!! THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!!!
Jacob, San Antonio, Texas (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:02 AM)
I wonder how long it will take the major news media to realize that they're missing the boat as long as they portray Dr. Paul as some sort of abberation. He has always spoken his mind and his position is clear. How can the same be said for the other candidates? It just can't. I will register as a Republican ONLY if Dr. Paul is on the primary ticket. Otherwise, it will be anyone who is NOT on the Republican ticket. No votes for drones for me!
Louie, Burleson, TX (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:07 AM)
Ron paul is an alright guy. He is a little more like that gravel fool on the democrat side, but at least he tells you the way it is. I disagree with him on Iraq, but other then that, he would make a good president. If the democrats are still in power if he gets elected, I think they will shut him down myself. I remember when he was running for congress against some liberal moron named Sneary. The folksy voice on the radio would tell everyone what this liberal moron's position would be and how he would help destroy america. At the end of the ad, you would hear "there's something lerry about that fellow sneary". Of course Ron Paul won hands down. He is a good man, but there is something gravel-esque about him and that is why he probably won't win. Still, it would be fun if he was running against Obama and he tried to do an ad like he did earlier, just have to find something to rhyme with Obama.
jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:25 AM)
Paul is the ONLY consistently coherent, constitutionally-based candidate in the race. The other clowns on both sides are pandering to the lowest common denominataors, preying on the innocent, and are an insult to the average person's intelligence. It's AMAZING to see that people are responding so positively on this site....almost makes one believe there is still some hope.
Charlie, Arizona, USA (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:31 AM)
Awesome, I disagree with Paul on some of his social issues, but his view on foreign policy and the nature of government far outweighs my fears over his anti-abortion stance. The only sane choice is to vote for Paul. I am a liberal and will vote for him.
josh, new york, NY (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:43 AM)
Awesome, I disagree with Paul on some of his social issues, but his view on foreign policy and the nature of government far outweighs my fears over his anti-abortion stance. The only sane choice is to vote for Paul. I am a liberal and will vote for him.
josh, new york, NY (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:44 AM)
Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate for President with the courage, integrity, intelligence, knowledge and voting record to get us out of this mess. The set up question on 911 proves the bias of Fox. Dr. Ron Paul won this debate as he won the first debate.
David Kay Snider, Mt Vernon, Oregon (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:02 AM)
I caught the debate end in the spin room with Hannity and Colms,live, watched the debate repeat, and then watched the spin room repeat (I'm in WA state). FOX NEWS CUT THE INTERVIEW WITH RON PAUL IN THE SPIN ROOM ON THE REPEAT!!!
E. J. "Ed" Pole II, Lacey, WA (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:09 AM)
I won't complain that this short article doesn't talk about who Ron Paul is. I take it as a sign that MSNBC reporters/bloggers think there's no need to do so. Just like they wouldn't need to explain who the other TOP candidates are. He did, after all, win all of their polls!
Pat Davis, Ava, Missouri (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:11 AM)
Ron Paul all day everyday. Class act.
Charles Pete (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:48 AM)
Words to describe Congressman Paul - Integrity, Statesman, Experienced, Reserved, Tenacious, Committed, Honest, Independent, Dedicated, Admired, Courageous, Solid, Unwavering, Sincere, Leader, Skilled, Diplomat, World Leader. Michigan For Ron Paul - 2008. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!
Bill Kosloskey (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:50 AM)
Miss the debate? Learn about Ron Paul: http://www.tinyurl.com/yoagoh
John, Brooklyn, NY (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:35 AM)
Wow this news site did a disgrace by not even mentioning that he is running for president. I think the American big media companies are pretty much just like censored Communist media in Russia. What a disgrace. I am voting for Ron Paul if I get the chance and when I look to see how he is doing in the news, they don't even hardly bother mentioning him.
Scooter Chanman (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:45 AM)
MSNBC is owned by people who make weapons of war. Ron Paul is not. It's as simple as that.
Jeremiah Patoka, Austin Texas (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 4:33 AM)
Ron Paul was right about 911 and Rudy needs to shut-up and take some history lessons.
Jimmy Brown, Kingsport, TN (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:55 AM)
It doesn't suprise me at all that Ron Paul is receiving no coverage. And of this morning, he has trounced all the others in MSNBC's own poll. I'm sure that even this clear evidence isn't enough to evn have his name mentioned. Paul supporters must persevere.
M. Gish (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:11 AM)
I just wanted to take a moment and thank MSNBC for not deleting our comments. It's important to respect public opinion, even if you have no respect for yourself and your country. You do a great disservice to us all and the freedom of the press when you report stories like this one. With that said, we're more than happy to pick up where you left off, provided you leave the comments without deleting them. By the way, if you want a story, you should consider investigating the deletion of comments on YouTube and Google Video.
Mark, Atlanta, GA (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:35 AM)
Ron Paul: finally a politician who will speak the truth courageously and articulately. Rudy Giuliani should be condemned not only for his cheap, opportunistic attack on Ron Paul, but also because of his sheer lack of knowledge WHY militant Islamists decided to attack the United States. If he would read the 1996 & 1998 fatwas issued by Bin Laden, he would KNOW: the attacks were in retaliation for American meddling in the Middle East.
Gene Trosper (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:54 AM)
Yes, our "mainstream media" is bought and paid for, kind of like Pro wrestling...it's all for show. The good news is that more and more people are waking up to that fact everyday. The propaganda machine is destroying itself over Ron Paul. The Neocons are going down ! **********Ron Paul 2008**********
Cindy, Texas (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:14 AM)
Based on what I heard, Ron Paul didn't justify the 9-11 terrorists' attacks, he explained why Muslim extremists are targeting the United States. Thoughout history, empires have been attacked and challenged by disgruntled peasants and barbarians.
Stuart, Nashville, TN (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:33 AM)
Ron Paul made me proud last night. It cost his campaign 25,000 to enter that debate and I'm very glad I contributed so he could educate me, FoxNews viewers, and not least Guliani and Hannity. Great, great points about Lebanon, Iran and Iraq.
Karl P, Atlanta, GA (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:02 AM)
If you want to know more about Ron Paul, take a look at U.S. House Con. Res. No. 40 of the 110th Congress. You will see that he co-authored that piece of legislation, currently PARKED PURPOSEFULLY BY THE CORPORATE CONGRESS, in committee, never to see the light of day. But to know where America is right now, you need to read every word. Go get em Dr. Paul!!!!!!!!
Gary Conner, Dripping Springs Texas (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:17 AM)
Ron Paul won the Fox News poll after the debate. No mention. That just illustrates that the people don't decide these matters, it's a handful of elitist party bosses and media spinsters that do. I watched the debate. He never said 9/11 was America's fault, yet that's the spin. Very Soviet like. We're watching a propaganda machine mobilizing to destroy Ron Paul before our eyes, proving that this political system is corrupt beyond repair.
larry blythe vinton, iowa (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:47 AM)
Rudy Guillani: I have never seen that commetn made at a Republican Presidential Debate. He's right. The last time a comment was made like that(regarding entagnling alliances) was from Thomas Jefferson.
Mike, Pittsburgh (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:49 AM)
Ron Paul stood his ground in the South Carolina debate 5/15/07. He spoke the truth, and those who twisted his words can be found throughout big media. Listen to the entire set of debates if you want to know how threatened FOX and big reporters - as well as the favored candidates are - by Ron Paul. They want to silence him or freeze him out, or, failing that, mischaracterize him. Take a good look at Ron Paul. Listen to the man. Then ask yourself: what sort of person would be threatened by this man? A crook? A monster? A war profiteer? Someone who gets in the way of reindustrializing the United States? Oh. Yeah. Ron Paul for President 2008 if it takes bake sales and potato races make it happen.
Jo, Hampton, VA (Sent Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:57 AM)
Comments (58)
As an aside - Andrew Sullivan is slowly warming to Paul as the best candidate. He's also been following some of the egregious bashing Paul is getting from both the press and his fellow candidates. Sullivan put the debate winners down as Paul and McCain, while clearly favoring Paul.
Published: May 16, 2007 11:52 AM
When a true genius appears in the world,
You may know him by this sign, that the dunces
Are all in confederacy against him.
-Jonathan Swift
Keep on fighting Ron.
Published: May 16, 2007 12:01 PM
Ron Paul is the truth to power, and the MSM are a bunch of whores.
Published: May 16, 2007 1:04 PM
On second thought, my apologies to the whores.
Published: May 16, 2007 1:05 PM
Why would a bunch of pro-State journalists want to report or give credit to a decidedly anti-State candidate? Sure, if they actually followed their own journalistic ethics, they would accurately report Ron Paul's strong standings in the online polls rather than write him off as a kook.
Statism keeps these people employed. It is job security as long as politicians want to be on television.
Published: May 16, 2007 1:44 PM
The media's contention that so many polls are being manipulated in favor of Ron Paul does not stand up well to scrutiny. It asks that you believe either or both of two equally laughable propositions.
1. Only Ron Paul supporters are morally depraved enough to rig polls.
2. Only Ron Paul supporters are smart enough to rig polls.
So, the supporters of all eleven of the other republican candidates are either saints or technological dimwits. Hmm. Maybe the second proposition isn't so laughable after all...
Published: May 16, 2007 2:21 PM
I have notice that the Neo-conservative establishment, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, are savagely attacking Ron Paul. A testament to Neo-conservative hatred for Libertarians. I have no doubt that if Ron Paul continues to do well, his life will be in serious danger.
Published: May 16, 2007 3:14 PM
As an aside, Dr. Paul is a Rep. or Congressman (not a Senator).
But anyway, all the campaigns try to 'rig' these polls. ESPECIALLY these kinds of polls.
Second, all those political clowns are either statistically ignorant or intentionally manipulative. I vote the latter. They compare polls that Paul is in and that Paul has a chance to let his name be known to those random polls where Paul isn't even an option (and random people only know the names of people whose names the MSM repeats Ad Nauseam).
Published: May 16, 2007 3:15 PM
do these guys really not know that 9-11 was inspired by our foreign policy? that's in the 9-11 commision report, michael scheuers book, it's as basic to foreign policy as supply and demand is to economics. ( note: inspiration is not justification. I don't believe we deserved 9.11)
let the media ignore ron paul. the more they ignore him, the more obsolete they become. If he won, or his ideas got out there, the beltway would be virtually flattened. who'd need pundits or think tanks if there were no wars ? no problems, no need for experts.
Published: May 16, 2007 3:20 PM
i saw ron paul he did a great job in he clearly won hands down his whole campain is more proof that 9-11 truth is more than true its a discrace our goverment thinks we dont know because fox paper veiw jews tells us lies all day long the internet tells the truth i have researched all of this since 2003 and found most of 9-11 truth to be true israel would never stand for ron paul thats who we are up against the answer is the more freinds you can tell of the great ron paul standing up for america he won last night hands down he was probablly 80%of the votes if fox gave him 40% they lie all the time us against fox i say call any of the companies that advertise with fox and tell them a boycott is under way unless they stop advertising with fox paper veiw jews
Published: May 16, 2007 3:23 PM
If American foreign policy inspired 9.11, explain Operation Bojinka and the slaughter of Hindus in India, Animists in Africa, Jews in the Middle East, Buddhists in Thailand, Catholics in the Philippines and vacationers in Bali, among others.
Published: May 16, 2007 3:58 PM
ron paul is americas last chance to make our stand the question is was ale gore right are they going to push americans into a cival war we are being taken over by israel and need to realize the zionest jews own the news media so we have to work on the internet and tell as many people to spread the word of ron paul we have to take back our country and make our last stand if hillary wins as they plan we are looking at a very clear message from the zionest jews tring to insult us by thinking we beleive them the days of nixon and the white house lawn
Published: May 16, 2007 4:11 PM
Hello, Mr. McGuire.
The "OMG Jews are taking us over !!" argument needs to go elsewhere, please. You see, most of us here are intelligent folk who don't want to be associated with nutballs.
Also, learn to use a period. Thanks.
Published: May 16, 2007 4:19 PM
You know, watching and working in and around campaigns, I blame the politicians for the so-called nuts. If you honestly take what politicians say seriously and pay attention over a period of time, you are bound to repeat nutty ideas.
Published: May 16, 2007 4:37 PM
The only polls that show Ron Paul ranking favorably are the online polls. Every scientific poll I have seen ranks Ron Paul low...very low.
Gallop puts Paul at 2%.
Survey USA says that 2% of viewers thought Paul won the first debate.
I haven't seen more recent data (i.e. since the second debate yesterday), but I see no reason for things to have changed since then. For the record, I think Paul is great. But I do not think he is popular.
Published: May 16, 2007 4:54 PM
Gabriel,
Paul is probably at 2% because he's probably not listed as a choice and only a few people insist on putting him down as their preferred candidate. For example, I received a fund raising phone call from the National Republican Congressional Campaign committee. They asked me, "Who do you favor as the Republican Presidential candidate if the election were held today, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani or John McCain?" I told them Ron Paul, but most people would probably give their favorite amongst the given choices and not necessarily who they would actually prefer out of all of the candidates.
Published: May 16, 2007 5:03 PM
Mark Brabson
The poor man will end up like Senator Wellstone
Published: May 16, 2007 5:40 PM
SK Peterson,
The Gallop poll question was asked as follows: "Next, I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Republican primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for President in the year 2008, or if you would support someone else." The names of the 14 most prominent candidates (including Ron Paul) were then read. The names were rotated so as to be in a different order each time the question was asked.
Additionally, I found Gallop data newer than that which I posted before. In the poll conducted during May 4-6, Paul's support decreased from 2% to less than 0.5%. He finished dead last despite the fact that the poll question gave him as much a chance as it gave anyone else.
Survey USA asked the following question of people who watched the debate: "Who won the debate?" and then recorded the answer given. All respondents heard the question asked identically. Paul tied with Thompson for last place.
I would like to believe that most people think Ron Paul would be a good President. However, as far as I know, all scientifically conducted polls taken on this topic show that he ranks significantly behind all (or at least most) of the other candidates.
It would be fun to howl and moan about what martyrs we Ron Paul supporters are because the mainstream media barely covers him. However, I think it would be wiser for us to stay firmly grounded in reality and realize that, quite frankly, most Americans condider Ron Paul neither a viable Presidential candidate nor an able debater.
Published: May 16, 2007 10:55 PM
Maybe we're all learning something about the "science" behind Gallup, etc.
Here's some interesting information about how British "Intelligence" apparently infiltrated Gallup:
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=122&sortorder=issue
Published: May 16, 2007 11:15 PM
I found more real poll data.
[From the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute] In the latest national poll regarding the Presidential election, the following question was asked: "If the 2008 Republican primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, George Pataki, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson and Tommy Thompson for whom would you vote?" The names are in alphabetical order and were not rotated. Gilmore, Hagel, Paul, and Tancredo all received less than 1% of the vote. Respondants were then asked "Who is your second choice?" Paul received 1% of the vote.
I'm watching several of you comment over at the other Ron Paul post titled "Republicans trying to ban Ron Paul from future debates". Everyone seems to seriously believe that the mainstream candidates are frightened by Ron Paul. Paul frightens the major candidates about much as a mouse frightens a lion.
Read the mainstream commentary on the candidates and the debates if you do not believe me.
Published: May 16, 2007 11:23 PM
Vanmind, are you seriously suggesting that Gallup is for some reason conspiring to give Ron Paul a low ranking?
I defy you (or anyone) to find one single scientifically conducted poll that does not rank Paul as one of the least favored candidates.
For the record, if a real poll existed that ranked Ron Paul highly, I would be the first to celebrate. I'd like Paul to be popular.
However, pretending that Paul is way more popular than he is or advancing unfounded conspiracy theories does not do us any good. In fact, believing in something simply because we really wish it were true or based on insubstantial evidence puts us in the same boat with the usual bunch of bleeding-heart liberals that everyone on this blog so loves to criticise.
Published: May 16, 2007 11:35 PM
"In the latest national poll regarding..."
Would that perhaps be a national-socialist poll?
Published: May 16, 2007 11:49 PM
Regarding the challenge I put forth: let me define what I mean when I say scientifically conducted poll. The National Science Foundation website gives the following explanation of a scientific poll, which I am using:
"Randomly selected samples and objective questions are two principal elements in a scientific survey."
In other words, polls with self-selected responders are by definition not scientifically conducted.
erm? Now the pollers are Nazis because they don't rank Ron Paul highly? Or perhaps that was a joke?
Published: May 16, 2007 11:58 PM
Sh*t, as if I ever said anything about the Nazis. National Socialism started before Hitler's thugs came on the scene, like with Bismark and the Historical School, for example. In any case, America has been showing distinct signs in recent years of being an admirable mimic of good ol' dirty National Socialism. Israel, too, FWIW.
About Gallup: a lot of other so-called scientific polls suggest that humans are causing global warming, but I don't believe those either. Heck, I only learned about the socialists infiltrating Gallup from that older mises.org article to which I linked above. Maybe they've managed to retake the castle, so to speak. Somehow, I have my doubts, which in turn makes me have doubts about the scientific integrity of them and all similar "established" polling houses (don't get me started about Angus Reid).
I've also heard a lot of spooks claim to "love" a person whom they then go on to criticize, so your assurances are best ignored. I just can't help but wonder why anyone would feel compelled to kill the buzz of those cheering on someone whom they already know perfectly well has little chance of victory. Root for the underdog, and all that.
Or, is it your contention that the State is g*d? Are you saying, simply, that it's foolish to fight against an omnipotent government?
Published: May 17, 2007 12:21 AM
Gabriel,
You think polls are scientific? And do you have experience with statistical theory and statistical practices (e.g., polling)?
If yes, SCARY that you call it scientific!
Elections are scientific, too, I suppose. Politics is also scientific because otherwise experts wouldn't have doctoral degrees in political science, right?
I just want to know what is learned by these 'scientific polls'. Is it who will win the (primary) election? Why not use 'scientific' regression analysis of "good" variables to determine who will be the winner? Why not forecast a time series of past polling data into the future for the candidates? And don't forget to do it all again next week when all your results change because it is discovered certain candidates had an affair or hate minorities, etc. We'll call these "random disturbances" to our scientific analysis.
Published: May 17, 2007 1:39 AM
Can someone explain something to me? Who are the respondents for these "scientific" polls? How are these people "randomly" selected? Aren't they basically people too dim to figure out how to screen out telemarketers? I can guarantee these scientific pollsters would never reach me. I only use a cell phone and unknown caller IDs go straight to voice mail. Most of my friends operate similarly. It seems to me the scientific polls and the Internet polls are both self-selected. Both only inlcude those who choose to make their opinion available.
Published: May 17, 2007 2:24 AM
Well Bush doesn't follow polls, so why should I... I mean, er... only the anti-Ron Paul polls must be right!!! We have always been at war with Eurasia...
Published: May 17, 2007 4:31 AM
I believe the 'scientific' polls are outdated and refuse to take into account the majority like me and Mr. Rosenberg who are rarely home and use cell phones.
If there is data showing that thes 'scientific' polls are widespread and fair then I'll finally have to agree, but all that I see from these polls 'proving' Ron Paul's unpopularity are just arguments from authority.
Published: May 17, 2007 4:34 AM
I liked Sol's comment about the people who participate in Gallup polls being those too stupid to screen out telemarketers. As soon as I know that someone calling me is an advertising or telemarketing person, or someone wanting something from me -- be it contributions to a political campaign or for me to take a poll -- I find a polite way of ending the conversation ("Sorry, I'm not interested. No thank you.").
Yep, these polls aren't in any way scientific. They're selectively biased towards idiots, suckers, saps, morons, etc. Then again, maybe that means they more accurately reflect the voting population.
Published: May 17, 2007 8:03 AM
Looks like I've provoked a firestorm. I'll try to respond to everyone as quickly as I can.
Polls do not determine truth about the natural world. I never said they did. You cannot find anywhere that I said-or indicated-that polls determine truth about the natural world. What do polls do then? Polls show what people think about various topics. This is what we are discussing at present: what do people think about Ron Paul.
I have not criticized Ron Paul. You cannot find me doing so anywhere. Please read my posts again if you do not believe me. I am not trying to "kill the buzz" either. I'm just trying to ensure that we here don't make fools of ourselves by believing in fairy tales. Rooting for the underdog is fine, even if you know that the underdog has little chance of winning. However, believing something which is not true (e.g. "Ron Paul is extraordinarily popular among the general American population" or "The mainstream candidates are scared to death of Ron Paul") does not help us in any way.
The State is God? It's foolish to fight government? If you thought I was saying that, then we're really not on the same page here. No, I don't believe either of those things*. Nor have I even hinted that I believe those things.
I'm going to restate my challenge differently, since many of you seem to take offense with the word scientific. I understand why you do take offense. The word scientific has been much abused by global warming alarmists who have been trying to force everyone to accept their beliefs because they think it is scientific. I, however, did show that I was not abusing the word by defining what I meant when I said it. However, I will restate the challenge in order to remove the word: no poll whose respondants were not self-selected can be found that does not rank Paul as one of the least favored candidates.
*Technically, I do believe that it would be "foolish to fight against an omnipotent government." If there were such a thing as an omnipotent government, it would, almost by definition, be foolish to fight it. However, no government has ever been omnipotent, so this needn't concern us.
Published: May 17, 2007 9:23 AM
Brent, I defined what I meant by the phrase scientific poll. However, if you prefer not to use that word, then please use my restated challenge (see my previous post).
Published: May 17, 2007 9:26 AM
We cannot know anything about the future by looking at present polls. Nowhere have I suggested that we can do so.
We are not trying to determine who will win the election. We are trying to determine what the average American thinks about the candidates at present. Properly conducted polls (i.e. respondents cannot be self-selected) are a logical means to do this.
Published: May 17, 2007 9:43 AM
In other words, polls with self-selected responders are by definition not scientifically conducted.
The only poll that really counts - the actual election - is self-selected.
Published: May 17, 2007 9:53 AM
Correct but irrelevant. I'm not debating who is going to win the election; I'm debating what does the average American think about Ron Paul. To determine that, you cannot use polls with self-selected respondents.
Published: May 17, 2007 10:05 AM
I'll give that the polls I have cited are not a good representation of the views of smart libertarians. However, what I have been discussing from the beginning is not the views of smart libertarians (most of them, if they vote, will probably vote for Ron Paul), but the views of the average American with an IQ somewhere around 100.
Gallup provides this explanation of how they conduct their polls. There is data showing that the method they use does reach "the average American." Contrary to speculation that non-respondents are more educated, data exists that shows that respondents are the ones with more education.
Published: May 17, 2007 10:24 AM
Regarding the cell phone question: data exists which shows that, no, cell phone users are not more educated than landline users. In fact, adults who have no landlines (i.e. cell phone only) are significantly less likely to have a college degree. Additionally, the data shows that "including cell-only respondents with those interviewed from a standard landline sample, and weighting the resulting combined sample to the full U.S. public demographically, changes the overall results of the poll by no more than one percentage point on any of nine key political questions included in the study."
Published: May 17, 2007 10:42 AM
When scientific data conflicts with obvious common sense and universal experience, one has to question it. People who get suckered into answering poll questions are the same people who get suckered by telemarketers on the phones, and get-rich quick scams. Intelligent people, who value their time highly, don't waste it on this kind of crap. If a study showed that people who are suckered into scams are smarter than average, I would immediately disregard that study as pure BS.
Published: May 17, 2007 10:50 AM
Gabriel,
Also, it is not your prerogative to define what is and is not relevant to the debate. Maybe some are interested in what the average American thinks, but not everyone. Others are more interested in what the average voting American thinks.
Also, as others have noted, your heralded Gallup polls are not objective and random, without self-selection. When sampling non-choosing entities, you can have random samples. You can never have a random sample when you require the voluntary participation of human beings (granted, if Gestapo Gulag Giuliani is elected, we won't need people's consent to participate).
Published: May 17, 2007 10:53 AM
"Obvious common sense" and "Universal experience" are merely empty rhetoric or another way of saying "my intuition" if not backed by facts or logic. You do not know if the average intelligent person (as opposed to the average person commenting on this blog) shares your subjective view that answering poll questions is "crap". In fact, data exists which shows your speculation that this is so is not correct.
Since I was the one who started the debate here, I thought it would be wise to define what the debate was about. You don't think so? You think that it is not the prerogative of the person starting a debate to tell the others what the debate is about?
Naturally, I assumed that this was understood by all. Certainly you did not think I was suggesting that pollsters should be given the right to initiate physical force against non-respondents in order to force them to respond? Of course not. "Random samples" are always taken given the constrains of the real world--including the fact that some people will choose not to respond. However, data can be collected about non-respondents which can be used to determine the views of such people. See my previous posts for more discussion about this.
Published: May 17, 2007 11:18 AM
Take a look at the ABC news poll. As of this writing, Ron Paul has 21,516 votes. The nearest other candidate is Mitt Romney at 370 votes. Perhaps some will argue that "obvious common sense" and "universal experience" (i.e. your intuition) now compells us to accept the fact that Ron Paul would win the popular election with the greatest landslide in American history. If you really wish to believe this, I cannot stop you. However, I would advise you to look at all the facts, and consider all the possibilities (e.g. a few MySpace kiddies are "stuffing the ballot box") before coming to that conclusion. :-)
Published: May 17, 2007 11:37 AM
Just so you know that I'm not the only one saying it, read what former Georgia Libertarian chairman Jason Pye has to say about the online polls supporting Ron Paul.
(from his blog)
Interestingly enough, Josh and Wikiman were talking about this tonight. Congressman Paul wins a lot of online polls, but they mean absolutely nothing. I am supporting Ron Paul, not because I think he can win, but because he is the only candidate that is interested in promoting liberty at home. My support is out of principle, as it usually is.
Vote in a poll, but don't be pissed when the site hosts kick our guy out because you vote 100 times for one candidate. Just knock it off.
Note that this is the former Georgia Libertarian chairman saying this, not just anonymous "Gabriel" posting to blog.mises.org. I post this because some of you have hinted that perhaps I'm really an evil statist here trying to ruin Ron Paul's campaign. So, yes, you can be a libertarian and simultaneously acknowledge that Ron Paul is not popular amonst the general American population.
Published: May 17, 2007 12:02 PM
The HTML I wrote in my previous post was changed by the blog software. I used a <blockquote> tag embeded within another <blockquote> tag, but apparently the blog software didn't like that. Thus, my previous post's formatting is not correct. As clarification, the following was a quote from Jason Pye and not something which I wrote:
My words start again after those two paragraphs.
Published: May 17, 2007 12:33 PM
matt- muslims use violence to settle their disputes. unless we have something worth fighting over we should "trouble trouble" the middle east is not worth it. prince bandar? mushareff? ehud olmert? let these idiots settle their millenia old disputes using their own resources.
Published: May 17, 2007 2:01 PM
Ha. Sounds more like it's you, Gabriel, who hasn't been reading posts carefully. Care to put the word "Nazi" into my mouth again?
"...but I don't believe those, either." As in, I don't believe the polls proclaiming a public consensus about global warming. As in, I do believe that all Gallup-esque polls are lies. As in, Bush's popularity among Americans has not remained around 30% for the last few years any more than Paul's popularity has failed to climb above 2% recently.
Never said you ever criticized Dr. Paul; just said that claiming to be a "fan" is meaningless cyber-talk that spooks employ about people they want to criticize, and that therefore we all should ignore similar assurances from you or anyone else.
Keep up the discouragement about Paul's campaign, though. The Pentagon will probably offer you a job soon. Not that the State would ever employ spooks to post disinformation at a pro-liberty site like this...
Published: May 18, 2007 12:53 AM
If American foreign policy inspired 9.11, explain Operation Bojinka and the slaughter of Hindus in India, Animists in Africa, Jews in the Middle East, Buddhists in Thailand, Catholics in the Philippines and vacationers in Bali, among others.
I don't know why this bizarre objection hasn't been provided a response yet.
The objecting party seems to me to be entirely ignorant of the histories of the various regions cited and yet exudes a smugness identifying self-satisfaction at seemingly possessing data that the rest of us do not. As if these were peaceful regions with no historical or modern antagonisms. Very crude.
India, it should be readily apparent, has been engaged in a tit-for-tat with its Muslim neighbors since independence and has always seen fit to meddle in their affairs. The legacy of the 1947 forced expulsions - still the greatest mass exodus of humanity history has recorded - remain with us today, complete with the animosity such expulsions bring. The collectivist group-think and flagrant disrespect for the properties and prosperities of each party continue unabated today. What does any of it have to do with 9/11? It demonstrates solely that Pakistani and Indian aggressions receive blowback of their own.
Animists in Africa - insofar as predominantly Muslim states like Zanzibar, Sudan, and Nigeria are concerned - are treated much as secessionists are anywhere. Why does this surprise the author to whom I am responding? Is it so much an expression of jihad as it is an expression of any similar case within and without the Islamic world? Conglomerate states and the governments that define them rarely so ever wish to see their realms reduced.
Jews in the Middle East? Come on, guy. Are you seriously suggesting that Arabs - and not necessarily Muslims, as Palestinians are in significant proportions Christian as well, although that demographic is more a diaspora now that an indigenous reality - lack a legitimate grievance against the Jewish state?
Thailand, similar situation. State crackdowns provide the tinder for a forest fire. Oh, and incidentally, Thailand is and has been for over half of a century the regional exemplar in the realm of puppet and staging ground for American empire
Catholics in Islas Pinipinas? Easy enough. The forces of colonial Spain and the United States and their successors in Manila have long sought to crush the Moro in Mindanao, who see no benefit to them of remaining in the Philippine empire. Is that so difficult to discern?
The terrorist attack in Bali stemmed from Australia's belligerent foreign policy and was aimed at Australian tourists and their Hindu hosts. Bali was always secession-minded until an American backed Indonesia crackdown left several hundred thousand dead. Really, what reason is there for a Hindu realm to be forced to remain in a Javanese Islamic empire? In any case, the Bali attack is yet another scintillating case of blowback.
I'm still puzzled by your objection, sir. If anything, the counters you provide us underscore the Ron Paul position and do nothing to deflate it.
Published: May 18, 2007 7:17 AM
Vanmind, you've cursed and you've laughed in your replies to me; do you feel that I have been disrespectful in my replies to you? I did not "put the word 'Nazi'" in your mouth. I will recap exactly what did occur. First, I posted a link to data from a national poll. Second, you commented asking if the poll was a "national-socialist poll". Third, for clarification, I asked if you were suggesting that the pollsters were Nazis (in my mind, national socialists are more closely associated with Nazis than with any other group). Nowhere did I say you claimed they were Nazis. Thus, I cannot have (and did not) "put the word Nazi in your mouth"; you cannot find anywhere that I stated that you said someone was a Nazi. I am sorry if I sound rough; but I feel offended and frustrated by the fact that, first, you claim I have not read your posts carefully and then, immediately following that, you demonstrate that you, in fact, did not comprehend exactly what I wrote.
You believe all Gallup-esque polls are lies? Well, erm, alright. Could you define Gallup-esque polls?
I have not seen any poll that states there is a consensus among the American public about global warming. Can you provide a reference? The data I have seen shows that ~40% of people think humans are causing global warming, ~20% think that natural processes are causing global warming, ~10% think that global warming is occuring but do not know why, ~20% think no global warming is occuring, and a final ~10% do not know at all. That is certainly not a concensus. I'd be interesting in seeing the poll(s) that you referenced.
You really have a hard time believing that a majority of the people in America think Bush has done a poor job in one area or another and thus do not approve of the job he has done? You are entitled to your opinion. Is your opinion backed by any facts, or is it just speculation? If you have any facts that show that more than about 30-40% of the population approves of the job Bush is doing, I'd be glad to take a look at it. Note that the data must be current, since Bush's approval rating has varied greatly during his Presidency. For example, around 90% of Americans approved of him in the days following 9/11 (although note that this is according to scientifically-conducted polls such as Gallup, which you may consider lies).
Nor did I state that you claimed I criticized Dr. Paul (read my post if you don't believe me). You said that "spooks" often claim to love someone and then go on to criticize them. For clarification of my position, I then emphasized that I had not critized Dr. Paul (I did not want anyone to think I was a spook). Of course, you are free to ignore anything I write. However, it may be that some people are, in fact, not ignoring what I post, so I want to clarify my position.
Do you think that Jason Pye is a spook? Or that Don Luskin is a spook because he says that Ron Paul is merely "an underdog candidate" or that he "poses no threat to [Giuliani] whatsoever" (he's saying what I said above: the mainstream candidates are not terrified by Ron Paul)? In fact, Don Luskin just posted a comment from a reader saying, "Ron Paul is emblematic of what ails the Libertarian Party." Does that make Luskin a statist? He's even posted another comment from reader Rich Sinda which *gasp* actually criticizes Ron Paul's position. Do you think we ought to revoke Luskin's Libertarian Party membership card for this outrage?
Published: May 18, 2007 9:20 AM
robert brager- I kind of tried to address that post. I took mroe of the reagan approach that Dr Paul talked about. we don't understand them so why bother trying sort of thing
Published: May 18, 2007 9:43 AM
The media has these online polls and then rejects them when the candidate they do not want to win, wins.
Online polls resemble elections, so I would say they are closer to being scientific.
It is also possible that people that were polled didn't watch the debates.
The polls before the debates showed ron paul at 9 percent and then he won the poll after the debates.
Finally, random polling doesn't take into consideration of swing voters or voters who switch parties.
Published: May 18, 2007 8:50 PM
The media should reject online polls as being statistically relevant even if the candidate "they" want to win, wins. Voodoo polls should not be accepted as being anything other than "fun".
The phrase scientific poll already has an accepted definition (see above).
We can try to redefine phrases to suit our liking. However, to paraphrase Thomas Sowell, if one is free to redefine words and phrases to mean what he want them to mean, then it is possible to prove anything.
If a poll has no statistical relevancy, you cannot say that it is more likely to predict anything (including elections); and voodoo polls, by their very nature, have no tenability as statistical indicators.
I did post one survey that specifically polled people who watched the first GOP debate. Ron Paul didn't better in that poll than he did in the other approximately one hundred scientifically-conducted national polls.
However, I know of no real polls conducted to find what people thought of the second debate. It is possible that Dr. Paul's comments about 9/11 have gained him a lot of support. Do you think so? I'm not sure. Dr. Paul did seem to be the odd one out. The questioner asked a couple times if he was running for the right party. This may actually help him though, since many GOP voters have been frustrated with the way the current GOP administration has been handling things. Being the "odd one out" in this context is good, in my opinion, and hopefully other Americans agree.
I'm going off on a tangent here, but one thing that annoyed me about both debates was how certain candidates kept mentioning how "all we need" is a "tamper-proof" national ID card (thankfully, Dr. Paul opposed this). Isn't that like saying, "All we need to solve our energy problems is a simple ol' perpetual motion machine." Tamper-proof card, my foot. Nothing designed by humans has ever been tamper-proof.
Which poll are you referencing when you say Ron Paul was at 9%?
Yes, it is possible that, come voting time, some people will switch parties and vote for Dr. Paul. I'm not psychic, which is why I have never tried to predict how many people will actually vote for Dr. Paul. I've confined my comments to pointing out the present (or, more precisely, very-near past) position of the average American.
Published: May 19, 2007 2:59 PM
The best way to promote Dr. Paul and raise campaign money is to get him to found and organize a PGA event and call it "Ron Paul Classic", give televison rights to the Golf Channel and NBC Sports.
This way Ron Paul will become a pop culture icon which has been a huge concern when it comes to the non-political junkies who only watch sports and do not follow politics, esp now with the war in Iraq, high inflation, high taxes, and endless regulation.
Published: May 19, 2007 10:18 PM
Why does Paul poll so low in national polls? I'd say a good 40% of the country has never heard of him.
But I think all publicity is good publicity for the Dr., and smear attempts seem to only empower his hardcore base (which is probably less than 10% to be rough as possible, and me included). Hell, he beat GIULIANI at his own game in the FOX viewer poll.
His numbers are up too, marginally, but proving my above point: his hardcore base (me included) call bullshit on the media.
We can't just shout out people like Gabriel who make good points about the nature of polling and campaigning, which is sadly a big part of the dominance of political parties in the nation, something never implied in the Law of the Land (the Constitution).
Again, any publicity for Paul is good publicity. Either way he's guaranteed to gain the support of antiwar libertarians and conservatives who haven't heard of him before.
Published: May 20, 2007 2:32 AM
Dr Ron Paul will be on CNN's Late Edition (11am Eastern) today. I truly hope that during the next few months the whole world gets his messaage loud and clear, for the entire planet, not just America, badly needs a two-term Ron Paul in DC.
Published: May 20, 2007 3:59 AM
as an anarcho- capitalist, i will never vote. i will never donate. and i will NEVER run for public office. gov't is what we are struggling against. ron paul is a statist. ron paul is a republican. ron paul is a politician. there is no room for political thugs in an anarcho- capitalist society. history will look back at statists as barbarians. how many people died in the 20th century due to statist wars, goulags, etc? i think around 200 million was the body count. if ron paul wants to be part of that, fine. i want nothing to do with the man, whatever his intentions are. abolish all gov't and let the freedom begin. the only way to eliminate corruption is through freedom of association and competition, two principles in direct opposition to gov't.
Published: May 25, 2007 12:54 PM
In Ron Paul you have the spirit of 1776. His ideas are explosive and a threat to the political elites of this country. By even permitting Ron, even a fraction of time in the debates they have let the cat out of the bag and have already lost.
Published: May 27, 2007 11:12 PM
>
Robert Brager spoke well. It no longer amazes me how close minded some of the people on the right are. It just saddens me. You people hate muslims and then look for any news clip, true or false, you can find to prove your point. Well let me tell you that if all of ME was christian, Israel would not exist today. (1) We in the west would be more considerate of Arab christian majority to hand over their land to our ashkenazi jews, and (2) we'd definitely not feel comfortable making war on christian masses regardless of how many Saddams there be, and (3) unlike muslims, Christians hate Jews for theological reasons, and while holocaust brought much shame to christians of the west, it never resonated with christians of the east. They felt no guilt. Their feelings towards Jews remain as they have for last 2000 years
Published: June 20, 2007 12:25 AM
What the election comes down to is David Rockefeller vs Ron Paul.
The puppet master needs to step out from behind all that he and his cartel has under their realm of influence (generally capture through bribery/blackmail)and tell the world why he and his elitist Nazi's should have the right to mold the future.
The entire population of the world needs to stand behind and beside Ron Paul to insure that the most insane of all peoples on this planet (Zionists) are what is wrong with life, they despise freedom and liberty and welcome slavery and corruption.
They are always both sides of every war and sheeple fall for it every time.
We need to stop using "their money" and get back to barter and even community-based currencies.
The current system is a rigged game that allows the Zionists to take control of industry, government and ultimately the people.
They way of offering this monopolized service goes against all but the elite and those they bring into their criminal organization by using the counterfeit (fractional reserve) monies to bribe and to blackmail and to buy-up the media and other essential services. Enough is enough.
If you want to end war, end Zionism, it is that simple. The true criminals are known and the ones who assist them are just as guilty.
Possibly the world's people can offer amnesty to those who the Zionist are blackmailing and who do their bidding for fear of public condemnation for doing what they did that allowed the Zionists to have the control they have over these people in positions of power in the first place. Many are not supporting them through shared ideals, it is through fear and through intimidation. If all that they control through this manner decided to stop enabling them with their agenda, they would be only a few as their greed deters them from sharing the booty that they gain through criminal activity.
it comes down this, David Rockefeller vs Ron Paul or Slavery vs Freedom, take your pick but use your brain and your heart.
All races, religions and age groups of people who make up the US need to join together as the powers that currently be want nothing more then continued unrest, prejudice, violence & confusion all tied in with materialistic/superficial ideals which makes the people ignorant and asleep to the truth.
Stop hitting the snooze button, wake the @#$% UP!
Published: June 22, 2007 2:05 PM
Everyone I know, myself included, support ron paul, whether they watch faux news msnbc or any other baised paid off propaganda broadcast
Published: July 9, 2007 6:24 PM
ok I was curious how much CNN let Ron Paul speak at the Simi Valley debate...
.....so I timed all the candidates
Romney> 29 minutes 56 seconds
McCain> 26 minutes 3 seconds
Huckabee> 16 minutes 5 seconds
Paul> 6 minutes 46 seconds
I may be off by seconds...hell even a minute or two....but it's quite clear there is no fairness to this election from the media
Published: January 31, 2008 10:16 PM