Establishment press ignore massive popular approval for Texas Congressman in every poll, ABC only add Paul to poll list after furious complaints
Ron Paul won the debate hands down - all the polls show it - but the establishment media are loathe to report it, because if a tree falls in the forest and the corporate press choose not to report on it then it doesn't make a sound.
After several days of voting, the online MSNBC poll has Ron Paul leading in every single positive category, proving that the vast majority think he won the debate. In an ABC News poll, well over 7,000 voted for the Congressman with Giuliani and Romney receiving a paltry 100 votes each. In a CSPAN poll, 69% voted for Ron Paul, with his nearest contender garnering just 9% of the vote.
Many would attribute this to be a reflection of focused online activism rather than overall national opinion, but the fact is that Paul was way ahead of the other candidates in the hours after the debate ended and before the polls had been widely publicized by websites supportive of the Texas Congressman.
This tells us that the American people are crying out for a real conservative and Ron Paul would be a serious contender for the White House if the media afforded him equal coverage with the likes of Romney, McCain and Giuliani.
However, as Alex Wallenwein points out in his OpEdNews.com article, the establishment media completely ignored public sentiment and handed the victory to either McCain or Romney, barely even mentioning Ron Paul's sterling performance and popular approval.
"Unsurprisingly, not a single report of the actual political news story of the decade, namely, that a virtually unknown “dark horse” beats even the media favorite Romney handily - and utterly crushes the rest of the field," writes Wallenwein.
The headlines seen from a Google News search using the keyword “debate”, at the time of this writing show only this:
“John McCain Wins First GOP Debate” (Fox News)
“Who Won the First GOP Presidential Debate? (Answer provided in article: “Mitt Romney” - National Review Online)
"Republican Presidential Debate Gives No Clue on GOP Leader in Race” (Axcess News)
Apparently the Axcess News editors don't have a clue - unlike actual debate viewers.
A news search for the keywords “won debate” reveals this:
“Noonan, Pundits: Romney Won Debate” (NewsMax)
"Giuliani Wary of Repeal of Roe” (Washington Times)
Readers tell us that ABC didn't even include Ron Paul on their original list and his name was only added to the poll after furious calls to ABC's head office. This website also claims that comments on ABC's message boards expressing outrage at the fact that Paul had been censored were soon deleted.
Even the usually much vaunted Keith Olbermann and his MSNBC co-host Chris Matthews ignored Ron Paul's clear anti-war stance in claiming that none of the Republican candidates opposed the occupation of Iraq.
As if we needed a reminder, the aftermath of the GOP debate has taught us that the path to the Oval office is off-limits to any candidate who is not bought and paid for by special interests and the corporate media. Barely a handful of pre-approved identikit lackeys are selected and lavished with dominant media coverage while anyone who stands for real issues or offers a viable alternative is shunned and censored.
Ron Paul's message of getting government out of our personal lives, destroying the IRS and returning to a founding father foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements is clearly evergreen and craved for by a huge chunk of informed, engaged and active American citizens.
Trust in mainstream media has rapidly eroded for the best part of a decade and their credibility is shot. We need to continue to use the Internet to create synergy with the burning desire of the people to restore constitutional values and ensure that the corporate press can censor Ron Paul no more, save they expose the fact that they are complicit in completely undermining the democratic process in America.
That's pretty sad, Ron. Paul is the only one in the Republican field with principles and common sense. I really wonder about the kooks who (tacitly or openly) support these destructive war-mongering policies of McCain, Romney, Tancredo, Guiliani, Thompson, Brownback and the rest of this undifferentiated crowd. I mean, less than 30% of people currently favor this occupation of Iraq, but more than that support these idiots lining up to inherit and perpetuate this madness. Do they know what they are doing or are they just afraid of the Democrats?
__________________
"--See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."
- GW Bush, 10/2003
__________________
"I swear to god, it's like I live in a trailer of common sense, and stare out the window at a tornado of stupidity."
"Rule for Life: You need only two tools: WD-40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use the duct tape." -----------------------------------------------
The man is a living example of what the Republican Party used to be all about, and still try to ride their reputation on. Now the big government, big spending, socialist evangelicals who have hijacked the party consider him a greater threat than any Democrat. How sad is that?
I saw the clip of Ron Paul discussing the reasons for the WTC attack, and he seemed to me to be the only one of that crowd who has reasoned this out. Guiliani was in full knee-jerk mode.
Vehicle: PM me to Join the Expat Muslims for Obama Club........
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 9,795
Actually regarding the subject this is the best I have read on it so far.....
Ron Paul was right!
During the May 15 Republican presidential debate at the University of South Carolina, Libertarian gadly Rep. Ron Paul (TX) dared to speak logic about the reasons behind 9-11—and made clear that he, at least, has actually read al-Qaeda's communiqués. "Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." Of course he had to play a stupid xenophobia/Orientalism card, and paradoxically invoke to his defense Ronald Reagan, whose imperial intrigues in the Islamic world only helped create al-Qaeda : "I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics." But he quickly rescued himself with some simple logic and humanity: "So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us." Of course, no good deed goes unpunished—and Paul's punishment came swiftly...
When asked by co-moderator and Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler if he was suggesting that "we invited the 9-11 attack," Paul replied: "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it." Rudolph Giuliani immediately jumped in, claiming what Paul had said was "an extraordinary statement ... that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq... I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11." (MediaMatters, May 14)
Now the media is playing it like Paul put his foot in his mouth and Giuliani won the debate. The reverse is true. We undoubtedly have disagreements galore with Ron Paul, but he won the debate on this question, hands down. He spoke common sense; Giuliani responded with empty condescension. No contest.
The notion that what some have called "foreign policy greivances" were not relevant to 9-11 (often backed up with the inane observation that it happened before the invasion of Iraq) is easily demolished by al-Qaeda's own words. It seems we must repeat yet again:
There were "foreign policy grievances" galore in September 2001. The two al-Qaeda communiques in the immediate aftermath of the attacks (Oct. 7, 2001, Oct. 9, 2001) both invoked the US troop presence in Saudi Arabia, the Iraq sanctions and Washington's support of Israel. Just because the US has made the situation much worse in the intervening years doesn't mean that there were no "foreign policy grievances" behind 9-11! And however criminal al-Qaeda's tactics and however totalitarian its ideology, these grievances are legitimate—a reality we ignore to our own peril.
__________________
"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes." ---Mark Twain
It is sad how ALL of the Media, left and right, has ignored him........maybe he has a clean record and therefore isn't "news worthy", sad indeed.
So far, it seems that the Left is ignoring him, while the Right is attempting to crucify him. Odd that he isn't somebody's hero, isn't it? If you ask me, he is everyone's hero. While we all may disagree with Mr. Paul on this issue or that, he represents an admirable purity of spirit that demands that we dismantle the layers and layers of government that are destroying our nation like a vile cancer. He is a willing instrument of repair for a broken system of government that has strayed too far from the intentions of our founding fathers. Smaller government, a smaller tax burden, personal liberty, fiscal responsibility, and a sense that our government is working for us, rather than the other way around.
Linear Mode
