16 Aug 2011

Yet More Evidence About Media Bias Against Ron Paul

Conspiracy, Ron Paul 84 Comments

The latest “Stop being so paranoid, Bob” argument on the Ron Paul stuff is that he doesn’t have a chance of winning, and so that’s why the media is ignoring him. Sorry kids, that might explain a few of your data points, but not all of them. Jon Stewart’s team assembles the damning clips (HT2 Danny and EPJ):

(Note: As of right now, the above embed link isn’t working. But it’s down at Wenzel’s site too, so I think I pasted in the right code. They might be getting overwhelmed, or maybe they didn’t have permission to have such a long clip, or maybe the shapeshifting lizards paid them a fatal visit.)

84 Responses to “Yet More Evidence About Media Bias Against Ron Paul”

  1. Dan says:

    It’s the right link and playing fine

  2. Prateek Sanjay says:

    Prof. Murphy, why did you put ‘conspiracy’ in the tags? The media are a private business. They can promote or demote any candidate they desire, based on how much money they get back from that decision.

    Here is a hypothesis. Perhaps the demographic that supports Rep. Paul is a demographic that doesn’t watch much television. So the TV news outlets pander to the demographic that does watch television, but might not be interested in the same candidate.

    They don’t need to conspire to this decision.

    • bobmurphy says:

      Prateek, are you expecting Hunstman or Santorum to get a Nike sponsorship ad anytime soon? If the media just focused on the “top tier” then I could understand your reaction. But c’mon, they are focusing on everyone BUT Ron Paul.

      • Tom Woods says:

        I loved the cautionary note that we shouldn’t count out nonentity Jon Huntsman.

        • Anonymous says:

          The bit on Rick Perry up to 4:30 or so is EPIC.

      • Subhi Andrews says:

        Bob,

        Watch the following video. It is from a popular youtube channel named drinkingwithbob. I am a regular viewer of his videos. This is the first time, as far as I can tell, he has mentioned Ron Paul by name. He is a regular libertarian leaning conservative. This is signs of shifting winds that media bias is trying to keep under wrap

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLdZxDjFsYI

  3. jjoxman says:

    Well, this has convinced me to actively and vocally support Ron Paul. I can’t vote (nor would I) but I’ll shout it loud for the man.

    I’m actually a little surprised at the respect Paul was getting from Jon Stewart. I always thought Stewart was true blue.

    • Watoosh says:

      Stewart is actually surprisingly fair for a liberal, he’s very much unlike Olbermann or Moore. He has conservative guests (Huckabee, Perry, Buckley etc.) on his show quite often and he understands alternative political philosophies better than most liberals. (He had a productive discussion about federalism with Rick Perry and he made Perry look like a sympathetic but quite stupid southern politician.) Stewart’s thing is to be sincere but respectful, and his admiration for Paul stems from his ideological consistency.

      Liberals seem to have a love/hate relationship with Paul, by the way. They love the fact that he’s speaking against foreign military intervention and the drug war, but they feel the need to turn around instantly and renounce libertarianism because by god, Ron Paul would strip grandma off Medicare and SS and kick her to the ditch to be eaten by corporations, given the chance! His religiosity (which he doesn’t wear by the sleeve) and pro-life positions are cryptonite to liberals as well.

  4. Silas Barta says:

    High, I’m Daniel_Kuehn, and I’m currently working on ways to rationalize away this behavior. My current angle is something about how Ron Paul undermines democracy or something. I’ll let you know when I have something tangible to work with.

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      I don’t even really understand the argument. I didn’t watch the straw poll results, but everything I’ve heard said “Bachmann won, Paul was very close”. If Ron Paul is being kept a secret, they’re not doing a very good job at it.

      He doesn’t have a chance of winning the nomination or election, and there’s nothing wrong with simply pointing this out. The conservative-friendly candidates split the conservative vote which is much bigger than the libertarian vote. As conservatives start to drop out the conservative vote is going to be less and less split and they’ll get a conservative candidate. Of course Ron Paul can grab or get close to grabbing these plurality-driven votes early on, but it seems reasonable to note that he’s very unlikely to win a nomination or election. There’s nothing wrong with saying that.

      Are they ignoring him cause they resent the libertarian faction? Of course they are. The stuff that Jon Stewart and others have shown of how they pretend he doesn’t exist is spot on.

      I would not leverage that into suspicions that anything has been rigged – he’s won enough and performed well enough in a lot of these polls that rigging one of them seems a little strange. I suppose it’s possible but I don’t see any reason at all to believe it.

      • Robert says:

        “He doesn’t have a chance of winning the nomination or election, and there’s nothing wrong with simply pointing this out.”

        Hi. my models continually refuse to spit out a 0% reading when I attempt to determine Ron Paul’s chances of winning the Republican nomination. Since you have informed us it is so clearly 0% without the slightest margin of error that, “there’s nothing wrong with simply pointing this out” could you share with me some of the work you have done that has led you to this conclusion?

        Or is this more of an a priori thing?

        • Daniel Kuehn says:

          I didn’t realize you were such a literalist.

          Now that youv’e spent nine lines of text on that, do you have any substantive concerns about my point? Because it’s a reasonable point.

          • Robert says:

            Awesome, I love how you “spend” your lines of text! In response to my critique that it is not the role of the news to report their opinions/projections, but rather the facts, you cite a lack of a substantive critique and then reply that your point is reasonable….because it is!

            I think I just used up the last of my lines of text on this dialogue. Enjoy relentlessly defending absurd positions with the rest of the commentators here.

        • Blackadder says:

          my models continually refuse to spit out a 0% reading when I attempt to determine Ron Paul’s chances of winning the Republican nomination.

          I’m reminded here of the scene from Dumb and Dumber where Lauren Holly tells Jim Carey that the chances of her falling for him are “one in a million.” To which he responds: “So you’re saying there’s a chance?!”

          • Robert says:

            Again repeating over and over again how Ron Paul has no chance of winning because…wait for it…you know he just doesn’t, is not justification for the newspeople to stop reporting the facts and start reporting your fanciful opinion based not only on nothing, but in direct contradiction to the facts. (ie polls)

            • Blackadder says:

              Again repeating over and over again how Ron Paul has no chance of winning because…wait for it…you know he just doesn’t

              Intrade gives Paul a 3.3% chance of getting the nomination. Personally I think that’s high, but that’s certainly evidence that the odds are against him. His signature positions are opposed by the vast majority of the Republican electorate, virtually all of the pundit class, and much of the donor base. He does have a small core of very passionate supporters, who seem to believe that they can will him into winning the nomination.

              • Robert says:

                Blackadder,

                Thanks for sharing your opinion on why you don’t think Ron Paul has any chance. Your discussion on his likelihood of winning the nomination while never mentioning any of the polls or his fundraising capacity was most illuminating.

                Your total silence on the issue of news media’s failure to objectively report the facts, and instead insert their own bias by selectively highlighting certain individuals, while ignoring others, was also helpful.

                Sadly the fact remains that your opinion or those in the media’s opinion is not the issue. The issue is the role of the news media. I’ve taken your lack of an any attempt to address this issue as meaning you have abandoned defending bias in the news, simply because your opinions match said bias. Thanks for that.

              • Blackadder says:

                Robert,

                Ron Paul is currently at 9% in the polls, which puts him in fifth place. He raised less money in the last quarter than Pawlenty, who just dropped out.

                No doubt none of this matters to you, as you know deep down that Paul would sweep the nation if only he was given the chance.

            • Gene Callahan says:

              “Again repeating over and over again how Ron Paul has no chance of winning because…wait for it…you know he just doesn’t…”

              Robert, everyone can see Paul has no chance of winning because he’s an antiwar candidate in a pro-war party. He will not get over 20% of the vote in any primary.

              • Dan says:

                Latest polls show him at 14% in New Hampshire and a 40% increase from last month.

                He is at 16% in Iowa.

                Here is a poll out of Texas
                Ron Paul – 22%
                Rick Perry – 17%
                Herman Cain – 14%
                Newt Gingrich – 11%
                Gary Johnson – 9%
                Mitt Romney – 8%
                Michele Bachmann – 7%
                Tim Pawlenty – 2%
                John Huntsman – 2%
                Rick Santorum – 1%
                Undecided – 7%

                I don’t see how you can say he won’t get 20% anywhere.

      • Subhi Andrews says:

        Ron Paul is being kept a secret, they’re not doing a very good job at it.

        Talk about strawmen! Daniel is very skilled at this craft.

        • Daniel Kuehn says:

          I don’t think “strawman” means what you think it means, Subhi.

          • Subhi Andrews says:

            What do I think it means?

            What does it mean?

            • Daniel Kuehn says:

              I can’t figure what you think it means from that quote. How is it a strawman for me to imply “I think it’s pretty common knowledge that Ron Paul did well in Iowa regardless of whether or not a given anchor mentions his name in a five second clip – people are clearly aware of the fact”.

              You may think I’m wrong, but I’m not seeing what the strawman would be.

              • Subhi Andrews says:

                You seem to have watched a different video than most of the rest of us. This post isn’t about how many people know about how well Ron Paul did in Ames. It is about deliberate attempt to keep Ron Paul out of the coversation, marginalize him and ridicule him. No doubt, that it isn’t as bad as it was in 2007-08.

                Yes, the buzz media creates for certain candidates works in their favor. He will do a lot better with favorable coverage from the media. Ron Paul is not the most eloquent man, and that is part of his charm, but it also is his weakness.

              • Andrew says:

                “I think it’s pretty common knowledge that Ron Paul did well in Iowa regardless of whether or not a given anchor mentions his name in a five second clip – people are clearly aware of the fact”.

                This is simply not true for the average American voter. People that are interested and paying attention to the republican primary probably do know that Paul did very well in Iowa. However, these people are most likely highly interested in the race. They probably are already RP supporters, or favor another candidate in the race, which is why they are paying attention. The undecided republicans and independents – who probably aren’t paying full attention as of yet – probably read the headlines, and maybe even watched the Sunday morning shows. Personally, I watched Meet the Press this Sunday. Bachmann got a several segment interview (I believe – I walked in part way through) and Paul got his name mentioned 2 or 3 times. I believe he was called a “nuisance” once, and the others he was given no chance to win.

                As an example, my mother read the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s story on the straw poll, and has absolutely no idea that Paul was less than 1% from winning it. None.

                As the Politico analyst points out in one of the videos a few posts down, these polls are just to gauge in what direction the party is leaning. That being said, I don’t know how anyone could look at the results, see that almost 60% of people voted for Bachmann or Paul – two people heavily identified with the Tea Party- and conclude that Romney is a front runner (which every morning show, and article written since Ames has done).

                Also, how many times do we hear that these parts of campaigns are all about gathering momentum? People come out of nowhere in Iowa and NH, get some buzz, and their candidacy picks up steam. Paul is never allowed to gain that momentum. Whenever he has any positive news, it is immediately marginalized or followed with a comment claiming he has no chance, or is unelectable.

              • Blackadder says:

                I don’t know how anyone could look at the results, see that almost 60% of people voted for Bachmann or Paul – two people heavily identified with the Tea Party- and conclude that Romney is a front runner

                Have you considered that perhaps the results of the Ames Iowa straw poll are not the best gauge of who will win the nomination?

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                Andrew -
                It’s been well publicized that Romney wasn’t really participating at Ames, and the way the straw poll is set up, having a presence and a tent there makes a big difference in the final vote count.

              • Andrew says:

                @ Blackadder

                “Have you considered that perhaps the results of the Ames Iowa straw poll are not the best gauge of who will win the nomination?”

                Yes. But have the political pundits ever considered that they might not know exactly how this is going to play out?

                On another note, why do they even have these primaries? Why don’t the heads of the parties just get together and decide who give their team the best chance of winning, and put that guy on the ballot? It would save them the chance that someone they don’t want gets nominated (Paul, Palin, Bachmann) and would prevent the chosen candidate from getting his positions poked and prodded before the general election.

              • david nh says:

                @Blackadder:

                ” Have you considered that perhaps the results of the Ames Iowa straw poll are not the best gauge of who will win the nomination?”

                Pawlenty seems to have a good deal of confidence in the results.

              • Blackadder says:

                David,

                Pawlenty’s campaign was already on its last legs.

              • david nh says:

                @blackadder.

                So, we can conclude from your comment about Pawlenty that the Iowa poll provides a substantially confirming signal of previous trends. Given Ron Paul’s much higher greater momentum this time around, the amount of money he has raised (similar to Bachmann).etc., I guess that you would agree that it provides a similar confirming signal in the case of Ron Paul?

  5. Daniel Hewitt says:

    Thank goodness that we have salon.com to give us their always impartial analyses. And they say that Ron Paul is not getting screwed.

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/16/ron_paul_2012

    I hope that settles it for you guys. BTW – who is Jon Huntsman?

  6. Bob Roddis says:

    This all amounts to journalistic fraud. There is nothing wrong with a media entity being in the advocacy business unless they claim to be “fair and balanced”.

    Further, these “journalists” haven’t the slightest familiarity with even the basic Austrian or Rothbardian concepts. They’re incompetent frauds.

  7. Daniel Kuehn says:

    So I just watched all of the second video on your previous post on this.

    Did you see how much Chris Wallace was talking up Ron Paul???

    I don’t know Bob. The first thing I heard the next morning about the straw poll was “Bachmann wins but practically ties with Paul”. I didn’t even realize Ron Paul was allegedly sidelined until you brought it up.

    • Subhi Andrews says:

      You are hilarious! Chris Wallace talking up Ron Paul. I watched the whole program on Sunday. He mentioned Ron Paul once or twice, and the rest of the losers like Romney, Perry, Santorum and Pawlenty were mentioned atleast two dozen times each, mostly favorably I will add.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        I’m just going off of what I saw on the video that Bob Murphy posted. He has three main takeaway points at the end. He spends most of the time that he spent discussing the three points talking about the second one – about Ron Paul’s strong performance and Bachmann’s weak bang for the buck.

        Look, Jon Stewart had a nice montage and Wallace was part of that montage. And they’re always funny. But Bob can’t post that video he had up before and then post this video and expect us to think the Ron Paul story at Ames was something Wallace at least was trying to hide.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          Look,

          That’s the Kuehnian signal that bulls$%t is going to follow.

          • Gene Callahan says:

            “Major_Freedom”

            THAT’S a surefire signal that bulls$%t is going to follow.

            (BTW, Major, I’ve talked to some Church officials, and they tell me there is some chance of arranging an auto-da-fé — I’ll keep you informed.)

    • Major_Freedom says:

      Did you see how much Chris Wallace was talking up Ron Paul???

      No. I saw him causally mention the name “Paul” a couple of times, but it was hard to pick up considering all the talking about the “top tier” candidates like…Perry.

      The first thing I heard the next morning about the straw poll was “Bachmann wins but practically ties with Paul”.

      Where did you see that? Everything I saw had next to zero coverage.

  8. von Pepe says:

    Daniel “didn’t realize Ron Paul was allegedly sidelined” but Jon Stewart and his entire staff seem to have picked up on it?

    The audience seemed to see something fishy also.

    I am going to side with Daniel on this one since he: “didn’t watch the straw poll results, but everything I’ve heard said ‘Bachmann won, Paul was very close’”.

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      von Pepe -
      Did you not read me write this: “Are they ignoring him cause they resent the libertarian faction? Of course they are. The stuff that Jon Stewart and others have shown of how they pretend he doesn’t exist is spot on.”

      Clearly conservatives try to downplay Paul, largely because of his foreign policy views. Clearly. Obviously. But:

      1. I don’t think it’s unfair to note that Paul has a very low chance of getting the nomination much less winning. That’s a very reasonable perspective to make.

      2. I don’t think there’s much evidence of rigging. It’s not that such a thing would be impossible given conservative distaste for him, I just don’t see why one would presume that.

      3. I don’t think the fact that we can put together clips of people ignoring Ron Paul means he’s somehow supressed. Sarah Palin says this too – the media’s out to get her!!!! Look – Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, and Michelle Bachmann have all been major stories in Republican politics over the last three years there isn’t any cover up of them – they and their associated movements are getting extensive media coverage. Are there conservatives out there pushing against that? Sure – just like there are other Republicans pushing against Palin. That’s a far cry from saying their somehow getting pushed out.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        I don’t think it’s unfair to note that Paul has a very low chance of getting the nomination much less winning. That’s a very reasonable perspective to make.

        Based on what evidence?

        3. I don’t think the fact that we can put together clips of people ignoring Ron Paul means he’s somehow supressed. Sarah Palin says this too – the media’s out to get her!!!!

        Sarah Palin is talked about even when the topic is not politics. And the suppressing is more than just the few clips you saw. Those are just the funniest ones.

        Look –

        Bulls$%t alert!

        Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, and Michelle Bachmann have all been major stories in Republican politics over the last three years there isn’t any cover up of them – they and their associated movements are getting extensive media coverage.

        No, Paul is not getting extensive coverage. He was almost completely ignored during Ames, and all the excuses made for this apply even more so to some of the other candidates who have an even smaller chance of winning.

        Are there conservatives out there pushing against that? Sure – just like there are other Republicans pushing against Palin. That’s a far cry from saying their somehow getting pushed out.

        The argument is not merely getting pushed out. It’s getting almost completely ignored.

  9. von Pepe says:

    “The stuff that Jon Stewart and others have shown of how they pretend he doesn’t exist is spot on.”

    “didn’t realize Ron Paul was allegedly sidelined”

    “didn’t watch the straw poll results, but everything I’ve heard said ‘Bachmann won, Paul was very close’”.

    I have no idea what the person that wrote these thinks.

    • Dan says:

      I was about to post something similar before I saw you had already done the job.

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      I’m not sure what’s so hard von Pepe.

      - If the argument is that a lot of people think Ron Paul is out there and prefer not to talk about him, I think this is obviously true.

      - If the argument is that things like Ames are rigged, I think there’s no reason to think that’s true but it’s within the universe of possibility.

      - If the argument is that Ron Paul’s movement is somehow being suppressed in the news, I think this is obviously false.

      You hear lots of versions of this argument and those are my responses to each version. I personally don’t understand how people can get this excited about a career politician.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        If the argument is that a lot of people think Ron Paul is out there and prefer not to talk about him, I think this is obviously true.

        Who’s making that argument?

        If the argument is that things like Ames are rigged, I think there’s no reason to think that’s true but it’s within the universe of possibility.

        There’s plenty of reason.

        If the argument is that Ron Paul’s movement is somehow being suppressed in the news, I think this is obviously false.

        Reality refutes you.

        You hear lots of versions of this argument and those are my responses to each version. I personally don’t understand how people can get this excited about a career politician.

        Kind of like how you get excited about career politicians who engage in Keynesian policies, but our excitement doesn’t call for hurting innocent people, yours does.

        • Daniel Kuehn says:

          What politician have I ever gotten excited over? Care to provide examples?

          • Major_Freedom says:

            Hahaha.

            Any politician that is willing to print and spend their way to making the economy more prosperous.

            Take your pick.

  10. Michael Barnett says:

    Yeah, this is no surprise to me. I read something a while back that said 58% of Americans derive all or the vast majority of their income directly from government (contracts, grants, welfare, salaries, SS, etc.). Of course Ron Paul can’t win — people who want to be left alone are vastly outnumbered by people who want to live at their expense.

  11. von Pepe says:

    I believe the blog post is titled: “Yet More Evidence About Media Bias Against Ron Paul”

    A video was posted with some amusing evidence (not conclusive, but interesting)

    I believe Ron Paul is not a career politician. He was for long time a practicing physician and also had a career in the Air Force.

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      He was my representative when I was born. He has had other careers, it is true. And he had a break. But anyone in there that long with that secure of a seat – anybody of whom I can say “when I first drew breath he represented me in Congress” is close enough to a “career politician” for me.

      • Blackadder says:

        anybody of whom I can say “when I first drew breath he represented me in Congress” is close enough to a “career politician” for me.

        I recently rewatched Slacker (a 1990 film about low achievers in Austin). I noticed that in one of the scenes you can see a giant Ron Paul for President sign in the background.

    • Blackadder says:

      I believe Ron Paul is not a career politician.

      Out of curiosity, I looked up how long each of the GOP candidates had held political office:

      Herman Cain: 0 years
      Mitt Romney: 4 years
      Jon Huntsman: 6 years
      Gary Johnson: 8 years
      Michelle Bachman: 10 years
      Rick Santorum: 16 years
      Newt Gingrich: 20 years
      Ron Paul: 22 years
      Rick Perry: 27 years

      • von Pepe says:

        How long was he a practicing physician? 15-25 years?

        It looks like he was first elected to congress in 1976 at 41….so, I would say he has had multiple careers.

      • Raja K says:

        Now that’s what I call a refutation!

      • david nh says:

        Now, now, I think perhaps we all know that the term “career politician” implies more than simply longevity in office. It implies that they have had no meaningful career apart from political office or the desperate striving towards it. Also, it usually implies an empty suit – someone whose positions are designed to allow them to achieve or to hold onto power. Most definitely, it excludes someone like Ron Paul, whose positions for decades were almost designed not to be popular and who I am sure had things he would much rather do (like deliver babies) than be the lone voice of sanity and liberty. If you’re a career politician, coherent policy and world views are a definite no-no.

        Blackadder, you’re not turning into a rightish version of you-know-who are you?

        • Blackadder says:

          David,

          Actually I have no idea who you are talking about. Who am I becoming?

    • Dan says:

      DK believes that Ron Paul is one of the elite. It’s not surprising that he thinks of Ron Paul as a career politician and can’t figure out why people who despise the State love him. if you arguing with a person who believes Ron Paul is an elitist it’s probably best to just laugh and move on to someone with a more open mind.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        He’s a Congressman – of course he’s one of the elite. I understand why some people love him, but let’s not start spouting absurdities here. Every Represenative, Senator, President, Secretary, and Ambassador is quite appropriately called a member of the elite. Certainly one that’s been in that role for over two decades and has a son also serving in that role.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        It’s OK to love elites, you know. Loving other people, admiring them, etc. is a good thing.

        • Dan says:

          Lol, you have a warped view of the world.

          • Gene Callahan says:

            Loving others — so warped!

            • Dan says:

              You’re right on loving others isn’t warped although I find it very difficult to love those responsible for mass murder around the world. My comment was more in regards to his lumping Ron Paul in as an elitist. I think most people consider the Rockefeller/Rothchild types as the elites.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Right when I entered this comment section, I knew Kuehn would once again be arguing for the sake of arguing.

    Not only was my anticipation correct, but I think it was summed up the best by Silas Barta.

  13. Ivan Georgiev says:

    As Ed Griffin has said, I paraphrase: Even if we assume that he can’t win (which can only be a speculation based on probability) SO WHAT? The only if I may call it like this meaningful vote can be the PRINCIPLED one. You do not vote so that you WIN. This is not a horse race.

    But, the number are showing that he IS PREFERABLE compared to the other candidates that took part in the poll. In fact he is SECOND BEST preferable, lacking behind with only a hundred votes. This is a significant accomplishment and a “proof” that disproofs your assumptions that he doesn’t have a chance.

    • david nh says:

      There is no better way to lose for certain than to assume you can’t win.

  14. Subhi Andrews says:

    One thing I agree with both Daniel & Blackadder – it is not a conspiracy.

    It is just the biases and elitism of people who generally tend to tilt to a career in the media. Some of them say some real nice things about libertarianism so long as it remains a non-mainstream ideology. That’s their view of the world, and reality wont change that view, not that fast at least.

    • Dan says:

      I take it you’ve never heard of Operation Mockingbird or watched the film Spin?

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7344181953466797353

      • Subhi Andrews says:

        I had seen several clips from that movie before. It doesn’t refute my point about conspiracy. Sure, media has bias, and it has incentives to make the incumbent look good. Politicians rarely, if ever, appear on programs that are blatantly hostile to them. They do manage their image. I am sure Ron Paul does that too.

        My point is CEOs of Time Warner, New Corp, and NBC don’t conspire to keep Ron Paul out. It doesn’t even have to be CEOs – even anchors, I believe, won’t do such things. But they all do have biases.

    • david nh says:

      I always think of what the Canadian columnist David Warren said about this sort of thing: “the dogs in Pavlov’s experiment did not ‘conspire’ to salivate.”

      No, reflexive drooling is about all the mainstream media is capable of.

  15. RG says:

    Drudge pulled all Ron Paul related material in the last 4 hours. They had two sections and five stories this afternoon.

  16. bobmurphy says:

    Von Pepe wins the thread.

    Daniel Kuehn, if I’m not mistaken, your position is:

    (1) “I totally agree with everything Jon Stewart says on this issue.”

    (2) “Bob, in linking to Stewart, is totally inventing things about the treatment of Ron Paul.”

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      Jon Stewart points out something pretty obvious – a lot of people would rather Ron Paul just go away. All I’m saying is don’t trump that up into something it’s not. Ron Paul has been extremely successful and he has a very high profile, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. Of course he makes conservatives mad, and of course those conservatives are also right to note that it’s unlikely he’ll ever win the nomination. What’s so controversial about me saying any of this???

      To put this all in perspective – we were watching the Jon Stewart rerun (yes, usually we don’t stay up all that late), and my wife watched this whole segment and afterwards she asked me “so why don’t the other Republicans like Ron Paul?”. I just thought – wow – good to know no everybody gets wrapped up in this internicine stuff!

      • bobmurphy says:

        Daniel what do you think my claim was? Are the CNN anchors Republicans? From now on, I’m going to comment on your blog, “Daniel, all I’m saying is that A is A. Why is this so controversial? Why do you keep thinking we libertarians are wrong?”

        • Daniel Kuehn says:

          Bob you’ve been concerned that they stole the straw poll from Paul. And I also haven’t been just responding to you – I’ve been responding to other commenters you host here.

          Which is why I laid it out – if the claim is X then my answer is Y. If you think I’m stating the obvious, then fine – we apparently agree! We’re not obligated to disagree on everything, you know! Clearly that’s not true of everyone on here, though – some people clearly do disagree with some of my points. If you don’t then fine.

  17. Blackadder says:

    It’s not clear to me why a bunch of self-described anarchists should be so enthused about a Ron Paul candidacy anyway. After all, Paul is not an anarchist. By the standards often employed in the comments on this blog he is just another evil statist.

    • Dan says:

      Because he is a radical that hates the State.

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html

      • Blackadder says:

        Rothbard hated the state. Paul wants to run it.

        • Dan says:

          Rothbard supported Ron Paul in 1988 for president. But yes Ron Paul wants to run the State in the same way I want to run it, straight into the ground.

          • Blackadder says:

            Rothbard also supported Pat Buchanan. Is Buchanan a secret anarchist?

            • Dan says:

              What? I didn’t even claim Ron Paul was a secret anarchist. I explained why we are so enthused about Ron Paul even though he isn’t an anarchist.

              Now you could have said that since Rothbard supported Buchanan does that mean that Buchanan also hates the State? That would have at least been a legit follow up.

    • Frank Stein says:

      Because the perfect should always be the enemy of the good

      • RFN says:

        Well, libertarians have mastered that for sure. Anarcho-capitalism is never going to happen here in the U.S., unless shit really hits the fan.

        I will be voting for Ron Paul in 2012, because he is closest to my ideal candidate. The democrats will demonize anyone and everyone not a statist (in most people’s definitions, not an-caps’), but what really makes me know that Ron Paul is the guy, is that the republican establishment (Yes, georgie will, there really is a Republican establishment), hates him almost as much. Do I worry about his foreign policy views? A little. Not the non-interventionist view as I agree 100%, but rather I think he is a little naive in regards to the threats from Islamists. No, they are not the same as either atheistic Communists or Nazis. They are completely irrational and their own death is no deterrent. Their’s is a religious/political/nationalist calling, not just nationalist. But, I saw somewhere a paper or speech he gave that outlined his national defense strategy (starts and ends at the borders). Can somebody link me to that piece to assuage my misgivings regarding his stance. Of course, national defense is not the same as foreign policy, so maybe I agree with him 100% :)