Visit Adam Kemp's column >>

ADAM KEMP

Politics, Religion, Technology, etc.
Add To Watchlist
Articles Posted: 33; Links Seeded: 164
Member Since: 1/2006Last Seen: 11/06/2009

Ridiculous Media Bias - Ron Paul's Biggest Challenger

Blurry image of the pie chart as seen on TV

Blurry image of the Democratic and the Republican pie charts side by side. Notice a difference?

advertisement

I'm watching CNN's coverage of the Iowa Caucus, and I'm just amazed at the how blatantly they're ignoring Ron Paul entirely. I have always considered the bias against him to be the result of his low numbers, but as I'm watching this I can only conclude that they just don't want him getting attention. Let me explain.

On the screen they have these pie charts showing the percentage of votes for each candidate. The pie chart shows 35% Huckabee, 24% Romney, 14% Thompson, 12% McCain, and then a big gray slice that's not labeled. Add those up. That's 85%, which leaves 15% unaccounted for. You would expect this perhaps if that 15% was very evenly split among many candidates. So I looked at CNN.com for the full results. Here's the shocker: Ron Paul has 11%. Look again at the numbers above. Ron Paul is only 1% behind McCain, who shows prominently in the pie chart on national TV. Giuliani has 4%, and no other candidate shows anything.

Then I look at the Democrat pie chart on TV. It shows 4 or 5 candidates called out, and then a tiny gray area for about 2%. There is no giant gray area with no name. No hidden candidate with real support (except maybe Biden, who has 1%).

This is a striking difference. On the one side we have an evenly split race among Democrats, in which the top 5 are called out by name. Then on the Republican side we have a conspicuously large (15%) gray area which is really mostly Ron Paul, who is not mentioned at all.

Ron Paul's name should be on that screen. Why isn't it? Can anyone really deny that the media is burying Ron Paul? The biggest challenger to his campaign is not running for president. His biggest challenger is trying to run the election by pretending he doesn't exist.

Edit: I added some pictures so you can see what I'm talking about. Sorry for the blurriness. I took the screenshots with my Slingbox.

  • 25 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
27
10
4.8
{"commentId":1326577,"authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}

sigh... and it seems that the gap between McCain and Paul is widening and not shrinking. *sulk*

{"commentId":1326577,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Jan 3, 2008 10:11 PM EST
{"commentId":1326586,"authorDomain":"O-K"}

If you will cheer up I will vote for Ron Paul in Arizona.

{"commentId":1326586,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"O-K"}
  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Thu Jan 3, 2008 10:14 PM EST
{"commentId":1326677,"authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}

Only if you also kill some huckabee supporters.

{"commentId":1326677,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}
  • 4 votes
#1.2 - Thu Jan 3, 2008 10:35 PM EST
{"commentId":1327018,"authorDomain":"martinez"}

I would love to vote for him in AZ but our primary rules prevent independents from voting in primaries...

Ok, which part of AZ are you from?

{"commentId":1327018,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"martinez"}
  • 1 vote
#1.3 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:30 AM EST
{"commentId":1327065,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

You have 4 more days to register as a Republican in Arizona. If you care, then do it. There's no excuse for being on the sidelines if you actually care, and there's no complaining about the results if you don't do anything. Ron Paul needs people like you to step up and be counted.

You can register as a Republican here. I know that might go against every fiber of your being, but if you actually endorse Ron Paul then this is the only way to support him.

{"commentId":1327065,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
  • 2 votes
#1.4 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:48 AM EST
{"commentId":1327142,"authorDomain":"martinez"}

I know I can. I went down to the HQ to find that out... I don't care enough to re-register, as my independent status means more to me than voting for the long shot especially when Obama is a better choice. I really think he has come around the last couple weeks, and the Iowa victory proves it.

{"commentId":1327142,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"martinez"}
    #1.5 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:18 AM EST
    {"commentId":1327213,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

    You can register online. It's ridiculously easy.

    If you want Obama to win, then by all means you should vote for Obama. But if you really want to prevent a disaster, then helping Ron Paul get a nomination will at least guarantee that one of the other Republicans won't be president next year.

    {"commentId":1327213,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
    • 2 votes
    #1.6 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:56 AM EST
    {"commentId":1327938,"authorDomain":"martinez"}

    Half of me would love to see Ron Paul in the white house just for message it would send to the establishment, then I get to thinking about his politics... Obama delivers almost the same message, but with substance behind the politics.

    {"commentId":1327938,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"martinez"}
    • 1 vote
    #1.7 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 10:10 AM EST
    {"commentId":1328361,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

    Almost the same message? What message are you talking about? They have completely different positions.

    {"commentId":1328361,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
    • 1 vote
    #1.8 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:04 PM EST
    {"commentId":1329274,"authorDomain":"martinez"}

    A non-establishment (or in Paul's case, anti-establishment) candidate beating the "inevitable" Clinton/establishment machine. I agree very little with Paul's politics, but whole heartedly agree with his philosophy of small government and boarder line isolationism. That however was not why I supported him. I supported Paul because I honestly didn't believe in Obama's message of change up until recently (no, that didn't change yesterday, I'm no bandwagon whore). Paul's is obvious, and not to subtle. Obama's is elegant, subtle, and most importantly, realistic. I applaud the conviction of both candidates, I just believe at this point, Obama is saying more and trying to set a tone. Paul seems to bombastically declare the complete tear down of what is modern day government (I really wouldn't mind seeing that either). The institutions Paul wants to tear down weren't originally created as corrupt. Rather, they have become corrupt as a result of poor leadership, and even worse patriotism.

    {"commentId":1329274,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"martinez"}
    • 1 vote
    #1.9 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 3:50 PM EST
    {"commentId":1330280,"authorDomain":"mr-d"}

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but Ron's not looking to 'tear down' government. He wants to decentralize it. Shift more power back to the individual states. Get big government out of your life. Have you noticed he is a huge proponent of free markets? Empowered states would take advantage of competition, and could actually improve government. Heck, at the very least it gives you and me more of a say in the laws we have to obey, and in where our tax money goes.

    The juxtaposition of Ron Paul's position with Obama is clear. Mainstream media has convinced you Ron is a loon that wants to destroy the government. No, Ron is a doctor, congressman, veteran, and a sagacious statesman. I will be voting for him with honor when the time comes, regardless of the political conditions then.

    {"commentId":1330280,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"mr-d"}
    • 1 vote
    #1.10 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 10:04 PM EST
    {"commentId":1330705,"authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
    Only if you also kill some huckabee supporters.

    Wow. Now that is some dedicated support right there!

    {"commentId":1330705,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
      #1.11 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 12:47 AM EST
      {"commentId":1330760,"authorDomain":"martinez"}

      I did not say he was crazy or a loon! Give me a break, I "supported" him for months. He was my pick. I do not think he is crazy.

      Mainstream media has convinced you Ron is a loon that wants to destroy the government.

      If that's what you've "learned" thus far, I do not think I should waste the time in a rebuttal. You obviously know me better than I do.

      {"commentId":1330760,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"martinez"}
        #1.12 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 1:08 AM EST
        {"commentId":1330844,"authorDomain":"mr-d"}

        "Paul seems to bombastically declare the complete tear down of what is modern day government"

        Well, if you aren't saying he wants to destroy government, then you're saying he just sounds like it. So then, you're not going to vote for Paul because you believe his tone will be misconstrued.

        Apparently your tone in that comment was misconstrued by me, so perhaps I won't vote for you because you are easily misconstrued :)

        Really though, you sound informed so I won't hassle you. I am curious - do agree with Obama's vote for the Patriot Act or Paul's vote against it? Perhaps just giving up a little liberty for security is OK, just not too much?

        LOL I'm sorry I won't hassle you, really I won't. :P

        {"commentId":1330844,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"mr-d"}
          #1.13 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 2:02 AM EST
          {"commentId":1331618,"authorDomain":"martinez"}

          Had we been sitting face to face, or even had you heard me speaking, you wouldn't have thought so. I have a way with words that cannot be shared over this medium and for that I am sorry.

          Paul's vote against the Patriotic Act says a lot, but not all that much considering he never votes for any expansion of government even if it is beneficial to the people (unless it is beneficial to his people, did you watch him on Meet the Press?). Obama's vote doesn't really bother me all that much, even though I whole heartedly disagree with it. Some times you have to play the game to get to the top. Once you are there, you can try and change the game for those that follow. I believe Obama is as extreme as they come if you realistically want to get anything done in Washington. I feel Paul would be a lame duck from the outset, but I have been wrong (many times) before.

          {"commentId":1331618,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"martinez"}
            #1.14 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 11:28 AM EST
            {"commentId":1332151,"authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}
            {"commentId":1332151,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}
            • 1 vote
            #1.15 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 2:13 PM EST
            {"commentId":1332437,"authorDomain":"martinez"}

            Great rebuttal actually. I learned something today.

            Given that Paul isn't involved in the trading of earmarks for "yes" votes, his requests for earmarks must be judged on the other pros and cons of the practice.

            Obviously, however, being the case, his case against earmarks needs to be more vocalized. Granted, with the air time he gets, it's hard to get any real points across.

            {"commentId":1332437,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"martinez"}
              #1.16 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 3:54 PM EST
              Reply
              {"commentId":1326594,"authorDomain":"O-K"}

              I agree that the media in general under report Paul as the Internet over covers him. He must get into the top three in some primaries this month or he is finished. New Hampshire will be critical.

              {"commentId":1326594,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"O-K"}
              • 1 vote
              Reply#2 - Thu Jan 3, 2008 10:16 PM EST
              {"commentId":1326764,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

              It's not just that they are "under cover"ing him, though. I've been watching this live for about 2 hours now. I admit that I haven't seen every single minute of coverage, but I have seen most of it. How many times would you expect them to mention Ron Paul on the air, considering hes only 2% behind 4th and 3% behind 3rd? So far, I have heard them say his name out loud once! They still don't show his name on screen on the pie chart, even though he has most of that gray slice. They are just burying how well he's doing, and it just pisses me off.

              {"commentId":1326764,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
              • 3 votes
              #2.1 - Thu Jan 3, 2008 11:05 PM EST
              Reply
              {"commentId":1326936,"authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}

              This is pretty obvious, if they're labeling Richardson's 2%, but not Paul's 10%. I mean, what's that about?

              {"commentId":1326936,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}
              • 1 vote
              Reply#3 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:05 AM EST
              {"commentId":1326975,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

              Exactly. I noticed it immediately. How could anyone not notice that gigantic slice with no number and no name? The problem is that many people still don't know who he is, so they have no idea that that slice was mostly his. They have no idea that 3% behind the #3 spot is a candidate with a completely different message who's not getting any attention from the media.

              {"commentId":1326975,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
              • 2 votes
              #3.1 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:16 AM EST
              Reply
              {"commentId":1326968,"authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}

              http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7170954.stm

              The BBC also left Paul off of the results on their front page. They have Richardson.

              {"commentId":1326968,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}
              • 1 vote
              Reply#4 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:14 AM EST
              {"commentId":1327020,"authorDomain":"paperdragon"}

              I watched CNN all night, and noticed this too. At first I thought that the rest of the vote may have been split up so much as to make it all meaningless, but then I looked online.

              Definitely not cool. I hope the Paul campaign calls them on it. I'd like to hear their justification.

              {"commentId":1327020,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"paperdragon"}
              • 4 votes
              Reply#5 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:31 AM EST
              {"commentId":1327024,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

              Adam:

              Good for you. Your guy actually out-performed his polling, which means the activism mattered.

              Good article, excellent point and it's a pleasure to finally see someone on the right who understands what bias is.

              {"commentId":1327024,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
              • 4 votes
              Reply#6 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:32 AM EST
              {"commentId":1327057,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

              Hey now, don't go calling me "someone on the right"... :)

              {"commentId":1327057,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
              • 2 votes
              #6.1 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:45 AM EST
              {"commentId":1327083,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

              Adam:

              Sorry. Since I draw my spectrum the only sensible way to do it, along the economic efficiency/social justice axis, with ee to the right and sj to the left, I have to put you solidly on the right.

              If it makes you feel any better, on the mystical/empirical axis you fall way left.

              :^{)>

              {"commentId":1327083,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
              • 2 votes
              #6.2 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:54 AM EST
              {"commentId":1327120,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

              That's certainly not "the only sensible way to do it". In fact, I'd say the only "sensible" thing to do is to not use a ridiculous 1-dimensional scale to try to label political opinions.

              {"commentId":1327120,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
              • 1 vote
              #6.3 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:07 AM EST
              {"commentId":1327174,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

              Adam:

              You got to. Seriously. That's because at the end of it all, every political decision by government or other institutions of social organization always reduces to a binary choice, whether it's a local millage for a two-hundred-foot sewer line or invading Mesopotamia.

              A Member of Congress has to say Aye or Nay.

              Votes for Nader in Florida in 200 helped Bush take the White House. This is not to say that a vote for Nader was illegitimate, simply to say that the it contributed to the binary outcome.

              Since politics where it matters is, in fact, one dimensional, any analysis that does not take that into account is incomplete at best. Or worse, paradoxical.

              {"commentId":1327174,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
              • 1 vote
              #6.4 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:35 AM EST
              {"commentId":1327199,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
              ...every political decision by government or other institutions of social organization always reduces to a binary choice...

              Yeah, but the factors that lead people to say "yay" or "nay" on one issue might be entirely different from the factors that lead them to make a decision on another issue. Just because every decision in politics is binary doesn't mean that the political spectrum itself is binary. Many issues are orthogonal.

              If you talk about the two-party system then you still couldn't call me someone "on the right". If Paul doesn't win, then I'll probably vote for any Democrat over any Republican. That would make me someone on the left. And yet, judging by the only issues you mentioned above, that wouldn't be contradictory. Which am I? Right or left? It depends on which issues you look at. That's why "right" and "left" have little meaning when talking about someone like me.

              {"commentId":1327199,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
              • 1 vote
              #6.5 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:48 AM EST
              {"commentId":1327240,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

              Adam:

              Let me ask you this. Why does Ron Paul caucus with the House Republicans despite the fact that he departs from the party line, actually, when you think about, probably more often than not, especially so when the Republicans controlled the chamber?

              Let me tell you why. Because he knows what I know--that politics reduces to one dimension. Although he would certainly prefer the kind of Drug Laws that might come out of a Judiciary Committee chaired by John Conyers, he would also prefer the kind of Currency Laws that come out of that committee chaired by William Sensenbrenner. In other words, he doesn't get to pick and choose which dimension. Every bill and resolution proposed in the House is going to come from only one of two possible poles along the spectrum. That in which all the legislation comes through all the Committees chaired and majority-ruled by Democrats or those in which all the legislation comes through all the committees chaired and majority-ruled by Republicans.

              That's it bub. Two choices. Binary. One-dimensional. I'm afraid your fearless leader is more sophisticated than you are. Why do you think Paul has so unambiguously ruled out a third-party run?

              {"commentId":1327240,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
              • 1 vote
              #6.6 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 2:13 AM EST
              {"commentId":1328380,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

              You're still confusing the fact that we have a two party system with the reality that 2 parties doesn't really fit with the way people actually think. The fact that Ron Paul is with the Republicans and yet he still disagrees with them about so may issues is great evidence of what I'm talking about. You can't describe Ron Paul's positions on a simple 1-dimensional scale. If you do, you end up with the ridiculous situation of him being in a party with which he disagrees strongly on many issues.

              I think we may be arguing two entirely different things, though. I'm talking about how you would classify someone's political positions. That has nothing to do with the cold reality of American politics and it's ridiculous 2-party system. If you want to describe Ron Paul's positions then just saying "right" is not good enough. It's misleading. I don't care what party he affiliates with. It doesn't matter. If I had to pick a party right now, I would pick Democrats. I don't like half the crap Democrats do, but I dislike it less than I dislike the crap the Republicans do. You can't fit me in a 2-party system either. Sure, if we want to get something done then for now we have to deal with the crappy system, but that doesn't make it the correct system. That doesn't make your "right/left" distinction valid.

              {"commentId":1328380,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
              • 2 votes
              #6.7 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:09 PM EST
              {"commentId":1328776,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

              Adam:

              Rather, I'd say we were arguing about the same thing at two different levels, that of individual consciousness and decision-making (you) and that of institutions of social organization and the exercise of power (me).

              Even if the USA had a multi-party system (as many other countries appear to), it would still boil down to a binary choice--in the British system, tabbed "The Government" and "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition." There are, in fact, about a dozen political parties in Parliament if you count the one-seat holders that we in the USA would call Independents, who each technically represent a party. But it still comes down to "Government" or "Opposition."

              Because power always reduces to a binary choice--either you got it and wanna keep it or you ain't and wanna get it--each individual actor within the institution, people like you or me, must, in the end, reduce our final choice to that binary system, too.

              No matter how nuanced and sophisticated and complete and coherent and unique any individual's ideological structure is (and I've always been extremely impressed by yours going back to the Creationism threads), in the end, we have to cast an Aye or a Nay, too.

              Now, to back off a bit, let me re-state. Because of what I just said above, I know I have to simplify the political world into that binary choice to see whether in the end, next November, the vote I cast is Aye or Nay. For that purpose I always utilize the economic efficiency/social justice tradeoff. As I kidded above, I realize there are other one-dimensional spectra along which one can simplfy the political world. And all them together make up a the infinte and wondrous thing that is human consciousness and human society.

              But when we involve ourselves as political actors, at some point we have to reduce, as you did here:

              I don't like half the crap Democrats do, but I dislike it less than I dislike the crap the Republicans do.

              To change the subject. Where are all the other Ron Paul supporters on the Vine congregating? I hope they aren't disenheartened. As I said above, he out-performed. Celebrate. (Well except for the noxious media bias.)

              {"commentId":1328776,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
              • 1 vote
              #6.8 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:43 PM EST
              {"commentId":1328850,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

              You're using one giant fallacy here. Each individual choice in politics may be binary, but two or more different choices cannot be classified so easily.

              Say there are 3 people voting on 3 issues. Person A votes yay, nay, yay. Person B votes yay, nay, nay. Person C votes nay, yay, yay. Which "party" do you put each person in? Choosing the first vote you would have {A, B} and {C}. Choosing the second you would have {B}, {A,C}. Choosing the third you would have {A,C}, {B}. You can't make any sense of that. You can't break them down into two simple categories.

              When you consider multiple issues, it's not just a binary choice. It's a multi-dimensional choice. You can be for one issue and against another, while another person can be for them both. Politics is not 1-dimensional. Not in practice, not in theory.

              The only thing that's 1-dimensional is the ridiculous party system, where in order to even get the chance to vote on any issue you have to first pick one of two parties, neither of which completely represents all of the difference positions you might have. The two-party system is binary, but people are not binary, even when making political decisions.

              {"commentId":1328850,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
              • 1 vote
              #6.9 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 2:02 PM EST
              {"commentId":1328908,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

              Adam:

              LAUGH.

              Okay. Since I agree with everything in 6.9 it must be that we indeed are arguing about two different things.

              So let me put it this way. Although people are not binary, poltical institutions force them to be, or to pretend to be, in order to participate in the political system.

              {"commentId":1328908,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
              • 2 votes
              #6.10 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 2:19 PM EST
              {"commentId":1330725,"authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}

              Where does human cloning fall on the left right axis? Copyright law? Data privacy? Portability of health records? Cryptography export rules? Drug patents? Hacking? Reverse engineering? Mad cow testing?

              So many of the issues I'm interested in are not on the left/right spectrum, either because they both agree, or they haven't thought about the issue.

              {"commentId":1330725,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
              • 2 votes
              #6.11 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 12:55 AM EST
              {"commentId":1330833,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

              Brian:

              You want me to start all over again?

              If you prioritize each of those issues, as you must, although you will prioritize them in a way that is uniquely yours, then you will have to overlay your issues array, including priority, onto the system as it currently operates and ultimately make a value judgment as to which of the two parties, either the left or right, is likely to advance your position either by the issues rank you made or the number of issues that fall within position array of one party or the other.

              Then you vote. For one or the other. Even if you don't vote or vote third party, that abstention or third party vote will have an effect that will enhance one party or the other's power.

              If, like Christopher Hitchens, you vote for Bush because you support his prosecution of the War on Terror, you are going to get publicly-funded faith-based social programs whether you @!$%#ing like it or not. And Hitchens doesn't like it, in case you haven't heard.

              I have no idea which of the two parties has a position on cryptography export that most matches yours, but if that's the most important issue for you, then you vote for the party whose position you support. If however, the party who you support on cryptography export holds positions you oppose on drug patents and data privacy, you might decide to vote for the other party and thereby surrender your position on crptography export.

              I don't know which you'll do. That's your decision to make a free citizen. But whichever decision you make reduces to binary. If you vote for the left party because of one issue on which you hold a left position, you must realize that the result will be unsatisfying to you when an issue on which you hold a right position is addressed at the policy level.

              {"commentId":1330833,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
              • 1 vote
              #6.12 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 1:58 AM EST
              {"commentId":1330862,"authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}

              In most cases the left and the right share the exact same stance (whichever one gets them campaign contributions). Both the left and the right embrace drug patents and indefinite copyright. Both are against human cloning and human genetic engineering. Both are against reverse engineering. Neither has a clue about data privacy. Seriously. The only party in the world with a major direct stance on these issues (well, not cloning) is the Pirate Party. And they refuse to take any stand on any other political issues. The only party with a minor stance on these issues is the Libertarian party, and addresses them in passing while seeking to reduce government control over everything and return copyright law to its constitutional bounds. There is no way I can think of to split any of those issues into left or right. How would you do it? The only approach I see here is to vote for the party that seeks less government control, since that automatically gives the most individual freedom to do whatever you want.

              {"commentId":1330862,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
              • 1 vote
              #6.13 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 2:16 AM EST
              {"commentId":1330989,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

              Brian:

              If we really live in a one-party state, then you know what to do.

              Lock and Load. Take for the hills, pod'nuh. We'll live off the land while the rebellion builds and then we'll storm the capital.

              I don't know if you people are doing this purpose or if you really don't get it, but this:

              The only approach I see here is to vote for the party that seeks less government control, since that automatically gives the most individual freedom to do whatever you want.

              Is what I've saying the whole sub-thread. That's a simple, one-dimensional spectrum which will yield a binary outcome. If "less government control" is your primary value (it's not mine but it could be yours) then in most instances in most election cycles probably since the New Deal, your values would best be represented by voting Republican most of the time. That might not be the case this cycle because of the peculiar issues array facing the electorate, but that's almost beside the point--because you can only conclude that it might not be the case this time by applying that one-dimensional spectrum to the current issues array.

              {"commentId":1330989,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
              • 2 votes
              #6.14 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 4:19 AM EST
              {"commentId":1332537,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
              ...your values would best be represented by voting Republican most of the time.

              Not any more. The Republican party is just as much in favor of big government as the Democrats, except with more harmful results. There is no longer a "small government" party.

              {"commentId":1332537,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
              • 1 vote
              #6.15 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 4:42 PM EST
              {"commentId":1332665,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

              Adam:

              I think that be true, Adam. In fact, maybe the smartest thing Markos Moulitsas ever wrote on the Daily Kos was his take on Democrats and libertarians, which I believe was long before the '06 mid-terms. If the Dems could position themselves as just a little less intrusive than they've been historically considered (since the New Deal, I mean), there's a nice opportunity there.

              For structural reasons, you'll never get "small" government. "Smaller," maybe, but then, real politics in a democratic republic is always about incremental change anyway.

              {"commentId":1332665,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}
              • 1 vote
              #6.16 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:39 PM EST
              Reply
              {"commentId":1327074,"authorDomain":"thedagda"}

              Ten percent is also known as losing big time. just in case anyone was curious.

              {"commentId":1327074,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"thedagda"}
              • 1 vote
              Reply#7 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:51 AM EST
              {"commentId":1327108,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

              10% is only 3% behind 3rd place. Notice that Giuliani got 4%. When you have people saying over and over again that Ron Paul is nothing but a "fringe" candidate who won't do any better than the 1% or 2% he shows in national telephone polls, then a 10% result in Iowa which is just barely behind 3 and 4 is impressive, and a wake-up call. It proves that Ron Paul is not a "fringe" candidate.

              Notice that I'm not saying it proves he's going to win. I wouldn't make such a bold prediction. But if he does better in Iowa, and he continues to raise money and raise awareness and name recognition then the race could become a lot tighter. The Republicans are a lot closer together than the Democrats. There is no clear front-runner, and there is no clear distinction between top-tier and second-tier (despite what the media keeps saying). In this caucus Huckabee won with 35%, Romney had 25%, and then it was essentially a 3-way tie for 3rd.

              Also, you have to keep in mind that Ron Paul is not talking about quitting if he doesn't do well enough early on. He's talking about going on as long as he has funds (which have not been a problem for him in the last 2 quarters). Hunter will probably quit soon. Tancredo quit already. Thompson may quit if he doesn't do better in New Hampshire. Giuliani should quit if he does as badly in New Hampshire (4% for a man with his name recognition is pathetic). We have people dropping out, Ron Paul's name recognition going up, and if he does as well in the other early primaries then all of that could add up to a much closer race leading up to Super Tuesday.

              That's not a prediction, but it is a possibility. 10% is incredible when you think of what Ron Paul has gone against and what the mainstream expected from him. The people downplaying his 10% now are going to be the same people who said he wouldn't get any more than 2% or 3%. Shows what they know.

              {"commentId":1327108,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
                #7.1 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:04 AM EST
                {"commentId":1327162,"authorDomain":"thedagda"}

                Giuliani is less than a fringe candidate. He's a joke that doesn't realize it yet. Name recognition doesn't translate into presidential viability. Most people recognize Gallagher's name too but few would seriously consider making him president. Although it would mean more watermelon in the White House.

                That said, Ron Paul still is a fringe candidate. Finishing fourth is still three short of the mark. If you finish fourth in the American League Central Division race in baseball, you go home in October. Primaries are like baseball, except you don't have to wait until October to be sent home.

                {"commentId":1327162,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"thedagda"}
                • 1 vote
                #7.2 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:26 AM EST
                {"commentId":1327208,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

                Giuliani has been one of the top candidates in national polls for a long time. The only metric they have had for a long time (until tonight) was national polls. That's how they have determined that Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani are the top 3 candidates, Thompson and McCain are lagging behind them, and then everyone else is way down at the bottom of the barrel. The only difference between Paul and the "top-tier" candidates so far has been poll results. Tonight proved all of that wrong.

                Finishing fourth is still three short of the mark. If you finish fourth in the American League Central Division race in baseball, you go home in October.

                The season has just begun. Everything up until today was pre-season. Today was the first thing that actually matters.

                {"commentId":1327208,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
                  #7.3 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:54 AM EST
                  {"commentId":1327212,"authorDomain":"Jecille"}

                  Dag, you still don't get it. He has been played down by the media this whole time. Romney, Thompson and Giuliani have been the front runners this whole time. They say Ron Paul will only take in around 2% of the vote. He blew Giuliani away. He has more money raised in last quarter than anyone. Yet they keep down playing him. If it wasn't for the Evangelicals coming in mass, Huck would not be in first, it would be Romney. 60& of those that showed up said they were born again/evangelican. around 30% of them voted for Huck. This is becoming a religious election. Funny thing is, Ron Paul is very religious, but doesn't tout it like huck. Yeh, I know I got a little off track there. Ayway, Ron Paul will do so much better in NH. Huck, will not get as many votes as he did in Iowa. You will again see low numbers for Thompson and Giuliani.

                  {"commentId":1327212,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"Jecille"}
                  • 1 vote
                  #7.4 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:56 AM EST
                  {"commentId":1328345,"authorDomain":"thedagda"}

                  By that standard, Mike Gravel, who got around 5 votes statewide, did 500 percent better than pollsters expected. Don't hold your breath for the Gravel Inauguration though. The point is what you are ignoring, like an ostrich mistaking your own rectum for a hole in the ground. 2 percent is not that far from 10 percent, but very very far from winning. 10 percent is not winning. 10 percent is losing, albeit by less than expected, it is still losing. Losing is losing. In presidential politics, there's no such thing as moral victory. Ask President Gore if you disbelieve me.

                  {"commentId":1328345,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"thedagda"}
                  • 1 vote
                  #7.5 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 11:59 AM EST
                  {"commentId":1328368,"authorDomain":"paperdragon"}
                  Ask President Gore if you disbelieve me.

                  How would Gore know if Jerry- doesn't believe you?

                  {"commentId":1328368,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"paperdragon"}
                  • 2 votes
                  #7.6 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:07 PM EST
                  {"commentId":1328402,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

                  I specifically said I still don't think this means he'll win. I'm not expecting a Ron Paul nomination. What I'm saying is that the reason he has no chance is because the media has told everyone he has no chance. The media has decided (on behalf of America) that Ron Paul is "fringe". They have buried him. They have marginalized him. And that is why more people know who Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are now than Ron Paul. I had never heard of any of them before they entered the race, and yet Romney and Huckabee have better name recognition. Why? Because the media picked them to win. "Fringe" in this case means "someone the media doesn't want to win", not "someone with little support". Ron Paul has a huge amount of support considering his treatment from the media, and that demonstrates pretty clearly that he's no "fringe" in any real sense of the word. His message is overcoming the media's efforts against him. It still probably won't be enough, but that says more about the power of the media than the popularity of his message.

                  {"commentId":1328402,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
                  • 1 vote
                  #7.7 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:15 PM EST
                  {"commentId":1328642,"authorDomain":"thedagda"}

                  But Adam the media also said Obama had no chance. Yet now they say he has a chance. So don't pay so much attention to the media. The media, like Dickens' law, is an ass.

                  {"commentId":1328642,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"thedagda"}
                    #7.8 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:07 PM EST
                    {"commentId":1328672,"authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}

                    I don't remember the media saying that Obama ever had *no* chance.

                    But, if you just look at the coverage they gave him, even before things got underway, there really is no comparison.

                    I mean, I think Obama deserved all the attention he got, but then again, his positions are not as "controversial" as Paul's.

                    {"commentId":1328672,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}
                      #7.9 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:17 PM EST
                      {"commentId":1328719,"authorDomain":"thedagda"}

                      I just Googled "Obama has no chance" and got 310,000 hits. I think that's been said, therefore.

                      {"commentId":1328719,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"thedagda"}
                      • 1 vote
                      #7.10 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:28 PM EST
                      {"commentId":1328832,"authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}

                      That's weird... I googled the same thing and got 5,240 hits. Did you remember to put quotes around your search term? Otherwise, it'll pull up pages with "obama" "no" and "chance" but not necessarily in that order.

                      {"commentId":1328832,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}
                        #7.11 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:57 PM EST
                        {"commentId":1328867,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

                        I don't remember the media saying he had no chance, and even if they did they kept talking about him so much, making such a big deal of his run, that they created his campaign. They gave him the chance to win.

                        I just Googled "Obama has no chance"...

                        Now you're equivocating. Before you said "the media" said he had no chance. Now you're using Google, which doesn't search just "the media". Lots of people said he has no chance. He's black, he has a name that sounds a lot like "Osama", he's not well known, and he has little experience. It's not surprising that a lot of people said he has no chance. But I don't remember hearing the media say that much, and (again) if they did, they still gave him a chance. They never called him "fringe" or pretended that he had no support or held national telephone polls over his head. The media helped Obama and hurt Paul.

                        {"commentId":1328867,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
                          #7.12 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 2:06 PM EST
                          {"commentId":1330737,"authorDomain":"thedagda"}

                          Here is a typical example from the media. Read

                          {"commentId":1330737,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"thedagda"}
                            #7.13 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 1:00 AM EST
                            {"commentId":1330754,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

                            How do you define "typical"? Like I said, I have not been seeing any trend in the media claiming Obama has "no chance". This particular example backs up what I said earlier. Some people claimed he had no chance, but he was still hyped anyway. And here's where it supports that:

                            ...Super-pundits tell millions every Sunday morning and every weekday night that Obama is becoming the No. 1 alternative to Clinton as the nominee.

                            They say this with a straight face.

                            Undoubtedly, Obama is an admirable figure, potentially a great leader. At the moment, however, he is an Illinois senator with two years' experience and virtually no public record. He appears to be 14 years old and looks best in a Chicago Bears cap. By the way, he's also black, left-handed and a chain smoker. He is a current favorite of the Democratic Party's black leadership, and for a good reason.

                            He confirms that most media was hyping him as a serious alternative, and he confirms that the reasons people like him don't think he has a chance are because he's inexperienced and black. If you were trying to contradict my claims then you didn't do a very good job. You just supported them.

                            {"commentId":1330754,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
                              #7.14 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 1:07 AM EST
                              {"commentId":1336653,"authorDomain":"thedagda"}

                              That's because the trend is over. Many in the media now believe Obama does have a chance. Go pick up a paper from this time last year and there were plenty of common taters saying he had no chance, a ghost of a chance, less than a bat's chance in hell, whatever colloquial saying they used, it makes no difference.

                              {"commentId":1336653,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"thedagda"}
                                #7.15 - Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:18 AM EST
                                {"commentId":1337604,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

                                Like I said, there were plenty of people saying he had no chance, but they still paid attention to him. They still gave him the media attention he needed. They didn't claim that he was "fringe" or way out there. They didn't treat him as an outcast. Their reasons for thinking he had no chance were not derogatory like they are with Ron Paul. The media marginalized Ron Paul while basically saying that Obama was good but inexperienced and (*shock*) black. There is a huge difference between how the two were treated.

                                {"commentId":1337604,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
                                • 1 vote
                                #7.16 - Mon Jan 7, 2008 11:40 AM EST
                                {"commentId":1340304,"authorDomain":"thedagda"}

                                Perhaps that's because Ron Paul had his honeymoon with the media when he ran for president the first time back in 1988. He went out into wingnutland and ran as the Libertarian Party candidate, finishing a distant third to George Bush and Michael Dukakis, making Dukakis look like a giant with his Lilliputian showing. You can't poll 0.5 percent nationwide and not hope to shake the reputation you earn as a big loser. Obama has never run nationwide; his national exposure so far has been limited to a great speech in 2004 and the fact that he kicked Alan Keyes' ass four months later. So let Obama screw up, as he will, even if he does win the election. The press will be there to turn on him like the pack of cowardly curs they are. As for Paul, he has already earned the media's disapprobation, so why all the b!tching?

                                {"commentId":1340304,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"thedagda"}
                                • 2 votes
                                #7.17 - Tue Jan 8, 2008 12:31 AM EST
                                {"commentId":1340381,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

                                You think losing as a third party candidate is evidence of Ron Paul's lack of support??

                                You sure don't give any impression that you know a damn thing about what you're talking about. You make a whole lot of assertions with nothing to back them up. It's kind of pathetic. So why don't you just go talk to yourself (the only person who really cares what you have to say)?

                                {"commentId":1340381,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
                                  #7.18 - Tue Jan 8, 2008 1:08 AM EST
                                  {"commentId":1340405,"authorDomain":"thedagda"}

                                  That was rather rude. Talk to me tomorrow night after Ron Paul loses yet another primary.

                                  {"commentId":1340405,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"thedagda"}
                                    #7.19 - Tue Jan 8, 2008 1:19 AM EST
                                    Reply
                                    {"commentId":1328315,"authorDomain":"elvo86"}

                                    It's possible that you're right, but look at it this way:

                                    The top four Democrats and the top four Republicans are shown. Perhaps they're just making the cut-off at the top four. It's been said that if you don't finish at least third in Iowa, you're done, so maybe that's why they don't care about Ron Paul.

                                    It's possible this is a media conspiracy, but it's also possible they're just ignoring people history tells them won't matter. I'll wait to see what happens in New Hampshire and reserve my judgment until then.

                                    {"commentId":1328315,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"elvo86"}
                                    • 2 votes
                                    Reply#8 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 11:51 AM EST
                                    {"commentId":1328416,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

                                    So you're saying it's gross incompetence? Because that's all I could say about such a ridiculous "top 4" distinction. Putting Richardson's name on the screen with 2% while ignoring Ron Paul with 11% is idiotic. If they were going for top 4 then any competent person would notice the problem and correct it at some point. Instead, they left it looking like that, with a gigantic hole in the chart.

                                    If they were ignoring people who didn't matter, then Richardson wouldn't be on the screen with his measly 2%. This was either purposeful or just gross incompetence. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on CNN.

                                    {"commentId":1328416,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
                                      #8.1 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:17 PM EST
                                      {"commentId":1328452,"authorDomain":"paperdragon"}

                                      OK, Adam, so turn it into something positive.

                                      CNN should have had him up on that board, but didn't. That sucks, but it had no effect on the outcome of the caucus itself. It might have an effect on New Hampshire, if people are unaware of how well he did in Iowa and think he did badly.

                                      So don't let it.

                                      Get the word out, like you're doing here. You got 5 days to rally support so people will come on strong for Ron Paul in NH, and you have this treatment of him by CNN to use to rally them.

                                      {"commentId":1328452,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"paperdragon"}
                                      • 3 votes
                                      #8.2 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:25 PM EST
                                      Reply
                                      {"commentId":1328764,"authorDomain":"kyleb"}

                                      That empty piece of the pie chart glared at me all night, and it made me angry Paul wasn't there. Just completely blatant.

                                      {"commentId":1328764,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"kyleb"}
                                      • 2 votes
                                      Reply#9 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:41 PM EST
                                      {"commentId":1328784,"authorDomain":"kyleb"}

                                      By the way, You've been digged.

                                      {"commentId":1328784,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"kyleb"}
                                      • 1 vote
                                      #9.1 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 1:45 PM EST
                                      {"commentId":1328968,"authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}

                                      I linked this to RonPaulforums as well.

                                      {"commentId":1328968,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}
                                      • 1 vote
                                      #9.2 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 2:34 PM EST
                                      {"commentId":1329189,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}

                                      I clipped it around Newsvine to a few related groups.

                                      {"commentId":1329189,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"spiffie"}
                                      • 1 vote
                                      #9.3 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 3:28 PM EST
                                      {"commentId":1329384,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

                                      Thanks. I usually remember to add it to groups, but I completely forgot this time. I guess I was just too angry. :)

                                      {"commentId":1329384,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}
                                      • 1 vote
                                      #9.4 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 4:23 PM EST
                                      {"commentId":1330736,"authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
                                      By the way, You've been digged.

                                      Is it digged or dugg?

                                      {"commentId":1330736,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
                                        #9.5 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 1:00 AM EST
                                        {"commentId":1330928,"authorDomain":"kyleb"}

                                        I think it's "dugg." But I ran out of time to edit it, so my shameful "digged" stands for history to judge.

                                        {"commentId":1330928,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"kyleb"}
                                        • 2 votes
                                        #9.6 - Sat Jan 5, 2008 3:19 AM EST
                                        Reply
                                        {"commentId":1329560,"authorDomain":"saxage"}

                                        I've been an active Libertarian on and off since '88 and voted for Dr. Paul then. To make a long story short this is how libertarians are treated by the mainstream media, so get used to it. We libertarians are very much used to it, even though we hate it.

                                        {"commentId":1329560,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"saxage"}
                                        • 1 vote
                                        Reply#10 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 5:04 PM EST
                                        {"commentId":1329727,"authorDomain":"zencanyon"}

                                        Stand with Ron Paul and you stand for something bigger than all of us. The media giants, as we like to call them are only giants if we give them that power. Let's stand together, and with passion and conviction to uphold the Constitution we will succeed in showing how far we have drifted from "We The People". As the dust clears let's look around us and see who is still there. Among those are my trusted friends. The ones that run are cowards and stand only for themselves. Which one are you?

                                        {"commentId":1329727,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"zencanyon"}
                                          Reply#11 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 6:03 PM EST
                                          {"commentId":1329756,"authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}

                                          I don't want to stand strong, and watch as the rest of america crumbles around me.

                                          I hate the tout the 'lesser of two evils' philosophy, but unfortunately, it applies here.

                                          {"commentId":1329756,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"rkurtz57"}
                                          • 2 votes
                                          #11.1 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 6:16 PM EST
                                          Reply
                                          {"commentId":1329998,"authorDomain":"mrbilljohnson"}

                                          Hmmm.... Kind of makes you wonder why they would trumpet the success of Huckabee while Ron Paul who is doing far better and is a much more honest man gets ignored.

                                          Do a google search on: "Huckabee Dog Killing" and you'll find out that Huckabee squashed an investigation on his son's involvement in the hanging, throat slitting and stoning to death of an innocent dog.

                                          I wonder why the media doesn't remind us of this, while they make every effort to try and paint Ron Paul as some kind of nutty guy, when he is actually the most sane, the smartest, most honest, and truly wants to selflessly promote freedom, while the rest of them want to take control over our lives.

                                          {"commentId":1329998,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"mrbilljohnson"}
                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#12 - Fri Jan 4, 2008 8:05 PM EST
                                          {"commentId":1336462,"authorDomain":"doug9901"}

                                          I have never taken much interest in politics, but now it seems that our way of life, if not our very existence is at risk as never before in my lifetime. As I survey the political landscape, at this time, I see only 1 leader running for President who consistently convinces me that he knows and speaks the truth.... Ron Paul. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I don't know if the truth alone is enough to extricate us from the circumstantial difficulties of our time, but I believe that it stands a greater chance of success than the untruths and clever deceptions of ________________( fill in the blank).

                                          {"commentId":1336462,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"doug9901"}
                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#13 - Sun Jan 6, 2008 11:45 PM EST
                                          {"commentId":1480849,"authorDomain":"jybedard"}

                                          I wasn't aware of that pie chart. Unreal. What I DID notice is during the debate on CNN, they asked an absurdly larger amount of questions to all the other candidates. Any time Ron WAS given the chance to talk, he was usually interrupted by the CNN puppet master host, who would ask a new question or change the subject as Ron tried to speak.
                                          Ron eventually had his head down. He was probably in disbelief and completely p'd off that he was being blackballed like this. But why?

                                          The Republicans have always been exceptionally good at fooling the public through media. Better at it than the Democrats. DOUG MATTHEWS is right. Ron speaks the truth. And we all know what happens to political figures who speak the truth...they get rid of him! But unlike Kennedy or Martin Luther King, it was a lot easier and less bloody to take out Ron Paul...just pretend he doesn't exist. Don't show his polls. Don't let him speak. Easy to forget someone you never hear about...

                                          {"commentId":1480849,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"jybedard"}
                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#14 - Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:37 PM EST
                                          {"commentId":1480886,"authorDomain":"jybedard"}

                                          Also, Ron Paul has been educating the American ppl about getting rid of the Federal Reserve System. If you read a unbiased history book about the founding fathers, it will say how one of the big reasons they wanted independence was to be rid of the revolving debt to a similar Reserve system in UK at the time. Ron realizes that the US must get rid of this monetary enslaving device. But if that happens, a handful of the richest men in the world will lose an incredible amount of money...your money.

                                          He has talked about this in interviews. One that I saw, cant remember the network, he mentioned that to avoid a bad recession in the US, all we would have to do is pull out of this "war" in Iraq that everybody knows was fabricated and get rid of the Federal Reserve. Again, just as quick as these words came out of his mouth, the reporter completely changed topics.

                                          {"commentId":1480886,"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405","authorDomain":"jybedard"}
                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#15 - Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:56 PM EST
                                          {"canLink":false,"threadId":"197561","isPrivate":false}
                                          Leave a Comment:
                                          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                          {"threadId":"197561","contentId":"1202405"}
                                          Start TrackingStart Tracking
                                          Stop TrackingStop Tracking