Fair and Balanced Coverage for Ron Paul?

[johnwk]

Who is manipulating the reporting of poll results at FOX NEWS?


I was following the reporting of the Iowa straw poll results and noticed something odd this morning at FOX NEWS.

Tommy Thompson’s results were reported at — 7 percent

Fred Thompson’s results were reported at – 1 percent

Ruddy Giuliana’s results were reported at 1 percent

But Ron Paul, having over 9 percent of the vote and beating out the above three was absent in the alleged fair and balanced straw poll reporting at FOX NEWS. His name was not even mentioned during the segment at 8: 45 am Sunday morning. What’s up with this. Can anyone explain this un-fair and un-balanced reporting?


Complete poll results are as follows:

1. Mitt Romney –32 percent
2. Mike Huckabee – 18 percent
3. Sam Brownback – 15 percent
4. Tom Tancredo – 14 percent
5. Ron Paul – 9 percent
6. Tommy Thompson — 7 percent
7. Fred Thompson – 1 percent
8. Rudolph W. Giuliani – 1 percent
9. Duncan Hunter – 1 percent
10. John McCain (less than 1 percent)
11. John Cox (less than 1 percent)




JWK

[Jasonik]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/Jasonik/bullshitus6.jpg

[eddhead]

Who is manipulating the reporting of poll results at FOX NEWS?


I was following the reporting of the Iowa straw poll results and noticed something odd this morning at FOX NEWS.

Tommy Thompson’s results were reported at — 7 percent

Fred Thompson’s results were reported at – 1 percent

Ruddy Giuliana’s results were reported at 1 percent

But Ron Paul, having over 9 percent of the vote and beating out the above three was absent in the alleged fair and balanced straw poll reporting at FOX NEWS. His name was not even mentioned during the segment at 8: 45 am Sunday morning. What’s up with this. Can anyone explain this un-fair and un-balanced reporting?


Complete poll results are as follows:

1. Mitt Romney –32 percent
2. Mike Huckabee – 18 percent
3. Sam Brownback – 15 percent
4. Tom Tancredo – 14 percent
5. Ron Paul – 9 percent
6. Tommy Thompson — 7 percent
7. Fred Thompson – 1 percent
8. Rudolph W. Giuliani – 1 percent
9. Duncan Hunter – 1 percent
10. John McCain (less than 1 percent)
11. John Cox (less than 1 percent)




JWK

I hate those guys.

[GVNY]

Fox is indeed not news. Not only are they biased against opposing parties, but they are biased against opposing viewpoints within their own Republican party, as this suggests.

I can't wait to hear Fox try to excuse itself to its audience, saying that is was an 'accident' that led to the absence of a(n apparently) major Republican candidate in a crucial poll.

[ablarc]

Falsifying the news? Is that what reporters do?

Doesn't the guy who owns Fox also now own the Wall Street Journal?

Why not falsify stock reports?






(Oh, the Right is so crooked ... !)

[Jasonik]

Hey - a heads-up for everyone in the New York area, with an interest in the mainstream and Internet media coverage of the 2008 Presidential election, and its current percolating campaigns:

Paul Levinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Levinson) has been invited to talk to the New York City Ron Paul Meet-Up group (http://ronpaul.meetup.com/50/?gj=sj2) at 7:30pm this Tuesday - in particular, about the media's misreporting and in one case outright attack on Ron Paul, and what can be done about it.

He'll be talking at the Village Pourhouse (http://www.pourhousenyc.com/) on 11th Street and 3rd Avenue (southwest corner) for 30-45 minutes, followed by 15-30 mins for questions and answers.

The meeting room will be spacious. The general public is welcome. Admission will be free.

The media coverage of our election campaigns thus far should be of concern to anyone who values our democracy.

Ron Paul and his supporters, in particular, have received less than truthful treatment from a variety of media. ABC News and its affiliates has had the greatest confluence of misreporting, and Prof. Levinson be talking in particular about ABC's posting of misleading photos, reporting of Internet poll results which left out Ron Paul's standing (http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2007/08/abcs-abuse-of-american-electorate-to-be.html), and, in the case of ABC radio talkshow host Mark Levin, about his urging listeners to call Ron Paul headquarters with hostile comments. In short, he'll be discussing the many abuses he'e been loudly blogging (http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/) about for the past weeks.

[Jasonik]

The coverage referenced in the following article revolves aroung McCain's purchase of television advertisements (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/new-mccain-ad-in-new-hampshire-push/?hp) "in the state."
Original WMUR broadcast here: http://www.wmur.com/video/14222012/index.html

*****

No Ron Paul, but WMUR-TV Cover McCain Without Single Backer?

Monday, October 01, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com (http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49663)

NEWS ANALYSIS

GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Tex) held a Family Walk (http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070928/OPINION/709280321/1029/OPINION03) in New Hampshire joined by hundreds of supporters (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/01/388589.aspx) - but it wasn't covered by WMUR 9 state-wide TV, even though the station covered GOP candidate John McCain, despite his apparent inability to draw a single backer.

According to Ron Paul supporters, this is an open-and-shut case of news bias - one that favors other GOP candidates at the expense of the campaign's only libertarian conservative Ron Paul (R-Tex).

FMNN feedbacker GigiB writes, "I was in New Hampshire this weekend. I saw John McCain interviewed by TV twice. There was NOT ONE John McCain supporter to be seen. As a matter of fact I counted 20+ Ron Paul supporters and 0 John McCain Supporters in two restaurants where McCain was interviewed for TV."

See feedback: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49633

For months, through dozens of reports, FMNN has covered the emerging story on the lack of mainstream news coverage of Ron Paul's increasing success as a libertarian-conservative candidate for president. The situation with WMUR in New Hampshire is increasingly problematic for the Ron Paul campaign, as the TV station, an ABC affiliate, is the state's largest and most authoritative dispenser of news.

Following several reports by FMNN, and a letter-writing campaign, the "conservative" the New Hampshire Union Leader, the state's biggest newspaper, has begun to cover the Ron Paul campaign more closely, but all reports indicate that WMUR is a much harder case - close to openly hostile to Ron Paul coverage.

See related FMNN coverage: "WMUR NH TV to Ron Paul: 'Drop Dead'?"

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49633

Feedbacker GigiB adds, "According to news sources there were between 500 and 1,500 in Veteran's Park in New Hampshire for Ron Paul though the MSM did not carry this rally on TV....while Ron Paul was speaking he managed to raise $1.2 million on the internet. How much did McCain raise this week? We shall soon find out. ... Personally I've taken to reading blogs, Free Market News and YouTube to find my news these days. And that's where Ron Paul is. In the REAL WORLD!"

WMUR's difficulties regarding coverage of the Ron Paul campaign are especially puzzling given the station's apparent expertise in political coverage. Sources such as Wikipedia have noted that WMUR has received high honors for its political coverage in the past.

=====

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMUR-TV

During election seasons, WMUR is well-known for organizing and producing some of the higher profile candidate debates for ABC News, as well as CNN, before the first United States presidential primary. On March 9, 2005, as a result of its coverage of political events, the station won the "USC Annenberg Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Television Political Journalism" for the third consecutive time.


*****

Paul Levinson's blog (http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2007/10/now-abc-affiliate-wmur-tv-neglects-to.html), mentioned in my previous post references the above article.

comment @ Levinson's blog:

"...isn't the Republican candidate drawing the biggest crowds worth assigning a full time reporter to? Isn't the fact that the candidate with the biggest crowds is at 3% in the polls a remarkable story in itself?"

[MidtownGuy]

With the Republican/Libertarian movement feeling firsthand the despicable nature of our mainstream news media, perhaps they will finally accept what Progressives have been saying all along: that we have a big problem in this country when it comes to media consolidation and accurate portrayals in the news, especially at election time.

[BrooklynRider]

I'm progressive, maybe a bit left of liberal, and I like Ron Paul.

Corporate candidates get covered on TV - no one else. If you see them on the news constantly, it is because they are paid for.

[GVNY]

With the Republican/Libertarian movement feeling firsthand the despicable nature of our mainstream news media, perhaps they will finally accept what Progressives have been saying all along: that we have a big problem in this country when it comes to media consolidation and accurate portrayals in the news, especially at election time.

Surprisingly enough, most of the Ron Paul supporters I know (and that is a lot) blame that 'liberal media' for his coverage problems.

Ignorance runs rampant still.

[Jasonik]

This thread may now be dead, for it seems that Ron Paul's campaign is finally speaking in the only language that the mainstream media understand, - MONEY!

*****

Paul Raises Jaw-Dropping $5 Million

October 03, 2007 1:16 PM
ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf Reports: (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/paul-raises-jaw.html) It dominated headlines yesterday when Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, announced her campaign juggernaut hadnoutpaced all rivals in the campaign fundraising horse race with a $27 million haul in the third quarter.

Today's fundraising announcement by Rep. Ron Paul, the Republican Libertarian ob-gyn from Texas, doesn't involve quite as much money, but is downright jaw-dropping.

His campaign is revealing today that in the 3rd quarter Paul raised $5,080,000. This is more than double his 2nd quarter figure of $2.4 million and no small sum for an insurgent campaign.

Comparatively, Paul's Q3 figure is five times what was raised in the same period by GOP rival former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who is often given a better chance at the party nomination by political pundits. It puts Paul in the same fundraising neighborhood as top-tier Republican candidates like Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Paul has become the buzz candidate with his hearty and vocal supporters, omnipresent on the Internet and at campaign events. But Paul's strict Libertarianism -- he is as vocal in his opposition to the Iraq war as he is in his support for the 2nd Amendment -- could hurt him with the GOP base who will ultimately choose the Republican nominee.

ABC's affiliate in Manchester, New Hampshire caught Paul at the airport Wednesday. To watch Paul's reaction to his third quarter fundraising success,
click HERE (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3685402).

*****

Yesterday ABC World News Tonight flew a crew to New Hampshire to interview Ron for last night's show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCiCBjhNR78) (video).

Probably the most honest and fair national coverage to date. George Will's statement takes the cake.

[Jasonik]

DC forum sounds the music on Paul

Posted: Friday, October 05, 2007 11:10 AM by Domenico Montanaro
From NBC's Andy Merten (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/05/398701.aspx)

Six GOP presidential candidates are taking their turns addressing the Americans for Prosperity (http://www.americansforprosperity.org/) "Defending the American Dream Summit (http://www.defendingthedream.org/)" here in Washington, today. They are targeting government spending and taxation. Casually watching the forum from our offices, we at First Read (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx) noticed some unfair time allocations to different candidates.

After Giuliani spoke for nearly 25 minutes, Ron Paul, who may have earned his time to speak with this quarter's fund raising, took the stage. Speaking for just over 10 minutes, Paul was then cut off by the stage music -- a tactic usually reserved for an emotional Oscar-winning actress (or one that gets a little too political) to wrap it up.

We'll have more about the forum, later, but thought this was an interesting tidbit.

[MidtownGuy]

Ron Paul, who may have earned his time to speak with this quarter's fund raising, took the stage.

a disgusting summary of American politics. $$$

[Jasonik]

Washington Post and Ron Paul: The Soviet Press in America
Posted by Daniel McAdams at October 6, 2007 08:45 AM (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015912.html#more)

Here's a quiz:

Upon reading this headline, which appeared in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502473.html?hpid=topnews) this morning:

Looking Past the Elephant in The Room
GOP Contenders Keep Distance From Bush Legacy
who is the first Republican candidate for president that comes to mind?

You see where this is going already, don't you? Yes, astonishingly, nowhere in an article that one would assume is all about the Paul candidacy do you see Ron Paul mentioned by name or by inference. They even reach down to mention Huckabee, whose campaign is on life support, noting, erroneously, that he "laments the growing income inequality in America, a topic his fellow Republican candidates will not touch."

Other tortured avoidances of Ron Paul are almost comedic:

"To be sure, all of the leading Republican candidates are emphatic about winning the battle against terrorism. But the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism are among their few areas of agreement as they look beyond the Bush years."

This is how a state-elite supporting press looks. This is how the press operates in totalitarian societies. It is the virtual psychiatric hospital of the Soviet Union, whither Ron Paul and others like him who challenge the system are relegated. Unseen. Unheard. Disappeared. This is how the press operates in countries the US euphemistically targets for "democratization" because of an unfree press. Freedom House? Don't they do a world survey of freedom of the press (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=251&year=2006)? Are you there? Oh, that's right: much of their budget comes from the very same elites who run the US government (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=265#4).

[Jasonik]

Ron Paul Treated Unfairly at the CNBC Debate - Proof From the Transcript

10/11/07

Some of the lower tiered candidates and their supporters have complained about the presidential debates thus far -- complaining that they favor those that are higher in the polls.

The justification given for this is that the voters are to see those candidates with a legitimate shot at winning the nomination, something that is measured by polling data and fundraising numbers. So before we get into the polling data and the fundraising numbers, let's see how much each of the candidates were allowed to speak.

Our methodology for this is actually quite fool-proof. We take a transcript of the debate and parse each of the words spoken at the debate and count who spoke how many words.

This is what we got. (http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-silenced-at-cnbc-debate-transcript.html)

[MidtownGuy]

from that link:

although it would be fair if all the candidates spoke the same amount of time.

Nothing about this process is fair anymore, and certainly not democratic. I really REALLY hate the corporate media in this country. The actors on TV who pose as journalists and newspeople should have their tongues ripped out and their fingers broken for how they've betrayed the American people and watched in silence as our democracy is sold to the highest bidders.

[Ninjahedge]

from that link:


Nothing about this process is fair anymore, and certainly not democratic. I really REALLY hate the corporate media in this country. The actors on TV who pose as journalists and newspeople should have their tongues ripped out and their fingers broken for how they've betrayed the American people and watched in silence as our democracy is sold to the highest bidders.


Did you see the daily show last week?

John had a few on, and of course I forgot all their names. One from CNN that still talks strait "Can we get this Anna Nicole Smith crap off my teleprompter and put what I wrote up there please?", and also Chris Mathews (he is a prik, his book was pretty much an authorization of living your life like a political campaign).

But most are absolute fluff, giving their target audience what they want to hear. From any NJ channel making the congestion tax sound like a war cry against NJ (when it would actually effect us very little), to the notorious Fox News riding the neocon wave.

It will be interesting to see whether fox changes streams now that the NeoCon wave has passed...

And the fact that people still go for the pretty folk on the news rather than the serious looking people is also sickening.

I really do not have any news broadcast out now that I can watch! I am either bored crapless, or I feel like I am being fed crap. Choose your poison.

[Jasonik]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZNlXSn_vC8

[Jasonik]

Ron Paul, Fruitcake
By Kevin Drum
Nov 6, 2007 CBS NEWS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/06/politics/animal/main3459836.shtml)

(Political Animal) RON PAUL, FRUITCAKE....Ron Paul raised a buttload of money yesterday. This doesn't really change anything, and everyone knows it, but I guess it's something to write about. So people are writing about it.

But look: can we stop pretending to be political infants, even if we happen to be bored this week? It's cheap and easy to take extreme, uncompromising positions when you have no actual chance of ever putting them into practice, so Paul's extreme, uncompromising positions really don't mean a thing. They don't reflect either well or badly on him. They're meaningless, and I wish grown adults who know better would stop pretending otherwise. Ditto for his "record breaking" fundraising day, which is just a function of (a) the growth of the internet as a political money machine and (b) the curious but well-known fact that technophiles are disproportionately libertarian.

But I will say this: if Ron Paul really is suddenly a "serious" candidate, then I expect him to start getting some pointed questions at the next debate. In the last Republican debate I saw, this noted truth-teller gave a strange and convoluted answer about his economic policies that the audience plainly didn't understand. Next time I expect to see some straight talk about how we should return to the gold standard and get rid of the Fed. This should be followed by a question about whether he supports the free coinage of silver at 16:1. Then some questions about the tin trust.

Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?



Copyright 2007

[MidtownGuy]

The clip is terrible but I'm not surprised by anything from Fox ever since I saw the DVD "OutFoxed". If anyone is interested in seeing how low these slimes can sink, check it out.
There are wicked, wicked souls operating at that network.

...Stay tuned for an enlightening interview with Beelzebub, coming up on the Fox News at 10:00...

[Jasonik]

"All this buzz, however, has generated a counter-buzz, a sinister stream of smears and jeers coming from both Right and Left. What's instructive is how similar these attacks are in their viciousness, and, in the case of the "serious" mainstream critics, their juvenility. Whether coming from the liberal and ostensibly antiwar Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly and Matt Yglesias of The Atlantic, or from some neocon hack over at the Weekly Standard, the "Ron-is-crazy" meme is being furiously pushed upstream against the raging current of the Paul phenomenon – so far, to little avail. He's a "fruitcake," sniffs Drum, and the beat is taken up by Yglesias, who chimes in with charges of "extremism." The Weekly Standard takes it a bit further, and, with its characteristic snark, dubs Ron the "don't tase me, bro!" candidate, complete with an illustration of Paul being hustled off the stage by uniformed thugs – which is what they'd like to do to all of their political opponents."
Continue reading Justin Raimondo (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/jr111407b.html)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/Paul2.1.jpg

[MidtownGuy]

A shame. Democracy of, for, and by the corporate media. They'll have everyone sufficiently brainwashed and under control by next November.

[investordude]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg20nov20,0,7086270.column?coll=la-home-commentary

Some conservatives are beginning to warm to Paul, although this is a backhanded compliment when you say he's "not as crazy as Huckabee."

[Ninjahedge]

Sad thing is, that picture makes me want to stand up for Ron, not criticize and avoid him.

[Jasonik]

Smearing Ron Paul (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/24/smearing-ron-paul/)

[Jasonik]

This is dirty dirty politics, but really, is there any other kind?

*****

December 28, 2007 10:39 pm EST (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/94/has-fox-news-excluded-ron-paul)

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – According to the New Hampshire State Republican Party and an Associated Press report (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD8TQ2N282), Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul will be excluded from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be broadcast by Fox News on January 6, 2008.

“Given Ron Paul’s support in New Hampshire and his recent historic fundraising success, it is outrageous that Dr. Paul would be excluded,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul has consistently polled higher in New Hampshire than some of the other candidates who have been invited.”

Snyder continued, “Paul supporters should know that we are continuing to make inquiries with Fox News as to why they have apparently excluded Dr. Paul from this event.”

*****

GOP candidates to meet in N.H. forum (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD8TQ2N282)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The New Hampshire Republican Party is sponsoring a forum for Republican presidential candidates on Jan. 6, two days before the state's first-in-the-nation primary.
The forum, where the candidates will be questioned by Fox New Channel's Chris Wallace, will be held a day after ABC holds back to back Democratic and Republican presidential debates.
"Never underestimate New Hampshire voters' appetite for politics," said Fergus Cullen, the chairman of the state Republican Party.
Participating in the forum will be Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.
Unlike a debate, the candidates will face questions from Wallace around a table in a studio on the campus of St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H.. The 90-minute encounter will air live beginning at 8 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel and on Fox News Radio.

*****

This is not to be confused with the Jan. 5, 2008 ABC News / Facebook / WMUR Debates, who to their credit have a published set of criteria for attendance.

*****

Democratic Debates in New Hampshire on January 5, 2008 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4056768&page=1)
—

On Saturday, January 5, 2008 -- only two days after the critical Iowa caucuses and three days before the first in the nation New Hampshire primary, ABC News, Facebook, and ABC affiliate WMUR will team up for a historic debate night.

Republican and Democratic contenders for the White House will meet on stage in two separate events, both in primetime, and presented by ABC News.

"World News" anchor Charlie Gibson moderates the Republican contest first from Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, from 7:00-8:30pm ET. The Democrats take the stage second, from 9:00-10:30pm ET.

Following each debate, "Good Morning America" host Diane Sawyer will anchor live reports, providing a re-cap and analysis of the evening's events. She will be joined by "This Week" anchor George Stephanopoulos. Bianna Golodryga will report from the ABC News/Facebook desk.

All candidates must meet at least one of three criteria to participate:

1) Place first, second, third or fourth in the Iowa Caucuses

2) Poll 5% or higher in one of the last four reputable random sample New Hampshire telephone surveys sponsored by an established news organization and conducted and released on or before January 4, 2008.

3) Poll 5% or higher in one of the last four reputable random sample national telephone surveys sponsored by an established news organization and conducted and released on or before January 4, 2008.

Check back at www.abcnews.com/politics for all the latest on the 2008 campaign and the New Hampshire debates.

*****

Also not to be confused with the New Hampshire GOP's First In the Nation Presidential Brunch (http://www.nhgop.org/presidential-brunch-informatio/), Sunday, January 6th 11:00 am.

*****

This reeks of tampering and bias. Judging from the tone of Fox News pundits (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?122807/122807_bb_inside&Beltway_Boys_Inside_Track&Inside%20Track&acc&Web%20Originals&-1&News&143&&&new), the scheme is to have the leading candidates skip the Jan. 5th ABC forum, thereby delegitimizing it, and then exclude Ron Paul from the Jan. 6th Fox roundtable 'encounter' in an attempt to insulate the leading candidates and marginalize Paul while keeping the voters in the dark.

[212]

^ Ah Foxnews.
At least RP will probably meet the 5% support threshold to be in the ABC debate.

Now this is silly:



Republican and Democratic contenders for the White House will meet on stage in two separate events, both in primetime, and presented by ABC News.

"World News" anchor Charlie Gibson moderates the Republican contest first from Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, from 7:00-8:30pm ET. The Democrats take the stage second, from 9:00-10:30pm ET.

Can't they share the stage?

[Jasonik]

Paul: Fox News is 'scared of me'

By James Pindell December 29, 2007 01:40 PM (http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/12/paul_fox_news_i.html)

PLAISTOW, N.H. -- Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network "is scared" of him.

"They are scared of me and don't want my message to get out, but it will," Paul said in an interview at a diner here. "They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."

Paul's staff said they are beginning to plan a rally that will take place at the same time the 90-minute debate will air on television. It will be taped at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown.

"They will not win this skirmish," he promised.

The Fox debate occurs less than 24 hours after two back to back Republican and Democratic debates on the same campus sponsored by ABC News, WMUR-TV and the social networking website Facebook.

Paul, the Republican Texas Congressman, was wrapping up his final day of campaigning in New Hampshire until the Iowa Caucuses on Thursday.

He spent much of the day campaigning at diners in Manchester and Plaistow and downtown walks in Derry and Exeter.

[pianoman11686]

^I was wondering what he was doing on the campaign front for the past few days. Can't find any mention of him in the Times.

The issue of fundraising was brought up earlier to suggest that maybe Paul would finally get some respect. Having raised more than any other Republican candidate since October, I'm shocked that he's still being treated as an afterthought.

[212]

^ Maybe because he's in fifth or sixth place in Iowa and N.H., and gets booed at every GOP debate?

[Jasonik]

"An official at the New Hampshire GOP, which is co-sponsoring the event with Fox, said that Paul might still be included, but the planning for the debate was still coming together and it was ultimately Fox's call."

As of late afternoon today (December 30), we have nothing more to report. (http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/12/has-fox-news--1.html)

Kent Snyder
Chairman, Ron Paul 2008

[Jasonik]

Rasmussen
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Sunday, December 30, 2007 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
National Numbers
Among Likely Republican Primary Voters:

McCain 17%
Romney 16%
Huckabee 16%
Giuliani 15%
Thompson 12%
Paul 7%

I know national numbers don't mean a thing, but in terms of trending and as a measure of dissatisfaction with the current 'credible' candidates it is quite telling. Pianoman, I share your dismay. With regards to fundraising, the Paul campaign has surpassed $19 million for the 4th quarter. Campaigns officially report on tuesday and he may get another bit of much deserved attention.

BTW, Ron Paul is worrying general co-chairman to the McCain campaign Lindsey Graham (http://youtube.com/watch?v=62UiKr_YAmI) about Iowa where they are in a fight for third place after Romney and Huckabee.

[pianoman11686]

Jasonik: not sure if you were watching CNN's minute-by-minute coverage of the Iowa caucuses, but I noticed something weird in their graphics. Paul was left out in the Republican pie chart (as was Giuliani and even Thompson, for a while) as the votes were coming in, leaving a "mystery" area covering about 25% of the space. Meanwhile, in the Democrat pie chart, they covered all but 1% of the vote (as for as I could tell), even squeezing in a label to account for Richardson's 2%. Odd.

[BrooklynRider]

NH GOP Drops Out As Fox Forum Partner



New Hampshire's Republican Party has dropped out as a partner of a Fox News Channel presidential forum because the network won't let two low-polling candidates take part.

Party Chairman Fergus Cullen said he has failed in attempts to get Fox to include candidates Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter in Sunday's forum.

"Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national figures," Cullen said. "Consistent with that tradition, we believe all recognized major candidates should have an equal opportunity to participate in pre-primary debates and forums."

David Rhodes, Fox's vice president of news, did not address Cullen's objection in a one-sentence statement released immediately after Cullen's announcement.

"We look forward to presenting a substantive forum which will serve as the first program of its kind this election season," Rhodes said.

The network said previously that it invited candidates who had received double-digit support in national polls. Fox invited Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. The 90-minute forum airs at 8 p.m. Sunday.

Cullen also said all candidates should be allowed in Saturday's ABC-WMUR debate. ABC announced Friday that based on either a poor showing in Iowa or poor poll showings, Hunter and Democrats Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel would not be included.



Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004109251_apforumsponsor05.html

[MidtownGuy]

The way they get away with excluding Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich is disgusting. Why do we allow scumbag operations like Fox and ABC decide whose message we can hear at the debates? What can be done to change this?

[ablarc]

^ Recognize the villain who's victimizing Americans: Corporate America.

Edwards emphasizes this, and that's why he's in the cross-hairs, too.

"Divisive": that's what they call his message. Anyone against them is divisive ... but of course!

We need to invite the wolves in to guard the sheep.

Inclusively.

[Jasonik]

The graphic Fox News uses while Ron Paul places second in Nevada! (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/19/it-looks-like-ron-paul-is-placing-second-in-nevada/)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/Jasonik/omit-fox.jpg

[Jasonik]

MSNBC correspondent David Shuster describes Ron Paul As "The Al Qaeda Wing of the Republican Party" (http://www.youtube.com/v/jEcUTYbuDvY&rel=1)

[MidtownGuy]

OH MY GOD when I saw that^ graphic I had to laugh (then frown).
It is just so blatant. FOX News is without shame.

[MidtownGuy]

I'm surprised they even included his name on the little itty bitty chart at the bottom.

[Jasonik]

The New York Times only today started listing Ron Paul.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/Jasonik/mediabias1cu0.jpg

Guess who they dropped?! (http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/01/21/and-then-there-were-five/)
:eek: LOL!

[lofter1]

What a kick in the gut that must be (to Judy as much as Rudy).

Nobody likes a bully :)

[MidtownGuy]

Thank goodness, the possibility of a Giuliani presidency was the scariest of all.

[pricedout]

So true MG.

Dumb and evil has been hard to stomach. Evil and clever might just have been the end.

[GVNY]

Evil and clever might just have been the end.

Characteristics of the Anti-Christ.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Nasty Man (http://www.nypress.com/20/15/news&columns/opinion.cfm)

[Jasonik]

Ron Paul and How the Media Pick the Candidates

By Cliff Kincaid
Feb 2, 2008 (http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272618633.shtml)

Whatever you think of Ron Paul, you have to admit that the media are notoriously biased against him. The Fox News Channel unfairly excluded him from its January 6 debate, while MSNBC and CNN tried to keep him from speaking for any significant length of time during their January 24 and January 30 debates. This is a candidate, we must recall, who placed second in the Republican Nevada caucuses on January 19, beating John McCain.

Interestingly, every time the media do something to undercut Ron Paul, his supporters react by sending more money to his campaign. The result is that the Los Angeles Times and other media are reporting that Ron Paul was the most successful fundraiser among the Republican presidential candidates in the last three months of 2007. Paul brought in $19.7 million—compared to $9.9 million for Mitt Romney, $6.8 million for John McCain, and $6.6 million for Mike Huckabee.

Anyone who watched the Republican debate on CNN could not have helped notice how the questions went down the line, from Mitt Romney to John McCain, and then skipped over Ron Paul. This happened on several occasions. Eventually, the other candidate on the stage, Mike Huckabee, got so disgusted that he spoke up in protest, wondering why the “spigot” of questions had been turned off for him, too. “I didn’t come here to umpire a ballgame between these two,” Huckabee said, referring to Romney and McCain. “I came here to get a chance to swing at a few myself.” Huckabee wasn’t whining; he was telling the truth about how the media try to rig the process.

It all goes to show that these “debates” are media productions that have little to do with an actual examination of differences between the candidates. In effect, the media are trying to pick the candidates and narrow down the race. While few people, relatively speaking, actually watch the debates on the cable channels, the exchanges which are manufactured by the nature of the questions that are addressed to certain candidates get picked up by many other media outlets, leading to a public perception that the “frontrunners” being quoted are the only “serious” ones left in the race.

This media bias can only lead to more of a backlash against the media from supporters of other candidates. Indeed, some Ron Paul supporters are carrying banners and signs at his campaign rallies blasting the media. When Fox excluded him from its debate, a website was created to protest the exclusion and one Paul supporter responded, “Bye, Bye Fox. WE are the media now.” I can testify to some truth in that statement, having been a guest on an Internet radio show hosted by a Ron Paul supporter named Indy, who lives in Japan, and which took calls from around the world. I was invited on to talk about media bias against the candidate. There are several other Internet radio shows exclusively devoted to his candidacy.

Paul’s opposition to the Iraq War might have made him too “liberal” for the Fox News Channel (FNC) debate. One can understand but not defend this exclusion. FNC should have the freedom to do what it wants, even if it is being unfair and unbalanced in this case. But what accounts for the hostility to Paul from liberal outlets like CNN and MSNBC? Perhaps they do not like the more conservative aspects of his message, such as his opposition to the United Nations and higher taxes and more federal spending. Paul puts a wrench in their plans to ask questions that push the candidates in a more liberal direction.

Paul, for example, doesn’t favor more federal spending on education, he favors less. In fact, he sticks to the old Ronald Reagan platform of abolishing the federal Department of Education. A recent National Taxpayers Union study finds that, of the Republican candidates left in the presidential race, Paul is the only one whose proposals amount to an overall federal spending cut (of $150 billion). This position is not popular with the liberal media.

Paul is also unabashedly pro-life and spoke at the recent March for Life in Washington, D.C. Ron Paul for President banners were very visible at the event and I didn’t see any for any other candidate except Fred Thompson, who has since dropped out. Of course, the media are overwhelmingly pro-abortion and, if they ever bring up the subject during a debate, would not want Ron Paul, a medical doctor, talking about how he has delivered 4,000 babies and how the unborn are innocent human lives deserving of protection.

Raising money is one sign that a campaign is generating energy and enthusiasm. Another is having people actually show up at your events. Here, Ron Paul is also doing well. Around the country, even on college campuses, he is drawing good crowds. On the campuses, a Florida International mock primary election poll of students found Ron Paul winning among Republicans, getting 27 percent to 23 percent for McCain, while a local paper reports that at the University of Pittsburgh the most active candidate organization on campus has been Paul’s. These are not isolated cases.

In the Iowa caucuses, where Paul got 10 percent overall, he received 20 percent of the vote of 17-24 year-olds. In New Hampshire, where he got eight percent overall, he got 19 percent of the young voters. In Michigan, he got six percent overall but 19 percent of young voters. In Nevada, where he got 14 percent of the vote, he got 19 percent of the young vote. There is a pattern developing here.

The media can try to ignore or muzzle Ron Paul and the Republican Party can do so as well. But in a little-noticed speech on January 18, Mississippi Republican Governor Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, admitted that the Republican Party was too “top-down” and has to become a “bottom-up” party again. By those at the “bottom,” he is presumably referring to actual people and voters, the so-called “grass-roots.”

Whatever they may think of his views on this or that issue, Ron Paul’s success can be traced to the grass-roots. Mike Huckabee, who has emphasized moral purpose and values, is another grassroots phenomenon. He came from virtually nowhere to win the Iowa caucuses. While his fund-raising has not been as successful as Paul’s, he says that each quarter of his fundraising has outperformed the previous one. On Monday, black conservatives concerned about the country’s cultural collapse are holding a press conference in Washington, D.C. to urge Huckabee to stay in the race to the end.

One of them, black conservative activist Star Parker, says, “Inside-the-beltway Republicans have lost touch with the increasing seriousness with which heartland conservatives relate to the traditional values agenda.” Don Scoggins, a veteran GOP activist and president of Republicans for Black Empowerment, says that “regardless of his bank account,” they will keep fighting for Huckabee.

One has money, and the other may run out of money eventually. They are not the current front-runners. But it looks like Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are in the race to stay because of their grassroots support. By trying to ignore or marginalize these serious and important candidates, the media demonstrate their bias and elitism.

The result of this media malpractice will be growing public awareness that our democratic form of government is increasingly at risk because the people are being denied important information about the candidates and the issues.

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media.

*****

Speaking of the GOP and grassroots supporters:

This from Time magazine: "His supporters are the equivalent of crabgrass," says GOP consultant Frank Luntz. "It's not the grass you want, and it spreads faster than the real stuff. They just like him because he's the most anti-Establishment of all the candidates, the most likely to look at the camera during the debates and say, 'Hey, Washington, (expletive deleted).' "TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, November 9, 2007 (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/vassilaros/s_537063.html)

[Jasonik]

For a playful recap of Ron Paul's foe vanquishing:

LA Times Blog - TOP OF THE TICKET
Ron Paul forces Mitt Romney out of the GOP race (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/ron-paul-forces.html)
By Andrew Malcolm

[Jasonik]

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/originalcurrywork/pedenback.jpg

Ad run by Paul's republican opponent for his congressional seat in Texas. (Note the protesters Ron Paul is associated with.)

[Jasonik]

Sober analysis of media coverage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW5kOB1pmg

[Jasonik]

How the Ron Paul Movement Looks to an American in Europe

by Ben Novak
April 24, 2008 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/novak-b1.html)

The following is a report to Americans in Europe for Ron Paul.

Dear Fellow Paulites:

You have not heard from me for a while – I have been off on a seven-week visit to the US. I left February 21, and did not get back until April 9.

When I left, we were all depressed by the results of the Super-Tuesday, and the South Carolina, etc. primaries, in which Ron Paul failed to get much more than 5–10 percent of the vote, and John McCain just about wrapped up the Republican nomination. It seemed the end of Ron Paul's campaign – and of our interest in it.

On this trip to the US, I had time, for the first time in almost 7 years, to watch television news all day for a couple of days, and then follow the news reports on most days thereafter. I was startled by what I saw. There is almost NO news on the networks! It was all "talking heads" giving opinions on some minor comment of Obama, Hilary, or McCain all day. Almost no foreign news; nothing to explain the economy, the war, the world situation, etc. The American people know nothing from the Main Stream Media (MSM) of what is going on the world! Only disasters make the news – plane crashes, floods, etc. It is positively shocking. It seems Americans are being lobotomized.

I also checked the news magazines. Time, Newsweek, and US News & World Report used to give pretty good coverage of both the nation and the world. But now all three have only "feature" articles, and opinion pieces – almost no hard news at all. Amazingly, the only magazine that they can get any real news from is from Europe – the Economist!

Now I understand two phenomena: 1) Why Ron Paul did so well on the internet and 2) why he did so poorly in the primaries. The reason for the first is that the only place Americans can get any real news is from the internet – certainly not from the MSM. Thus, it is clear why those who followed the news on the internet were overwhelmingly for Ron Paul. Second, the reason that Ron Paul did so poorly is that most Americans get their news from the MSM, so they know little or nothing about what is going on, and were told nothing about Ron Paul.

This is both depressing and encouraging. It is depressing, because here we have the people of the most powerful nation in the world kept utterly ignorant of what is going on by their own "democratic" media. Astoundingly depressing. How can any democracy – let alone the world's only hyper power – function without an informed citizenry? Yet that is what I saw. It does not matter what your politics are, left or right, the fact is that Americans are being deliberately kept asleep by its media...

But it is encouraging also in this respect: The American nation will someday wake up and realize what has happened, and when they do, it will be something to see.

I like to think that this is what Ron Paul knows and is planning for. He knew he had no chance to win unless the message spread beyond the internet-savvy people. For the fact is that the MSM have totally forfeited any claim to deliver real news. His campaign was premised on his message spreading. Well, it did not spread enough. But, that does not mean it has stopped spreading. It is just taking longer than he or we hoped.

Perhaps, however, it only seems that the Ron Paul 2008 campaign is over, and the nomination all sewed up. Maybe they are. But I would not count out either Ron Paul or his campaign yet. It is my belief, based on what I saw, that the news situation in the US is as fragile as a stained glass window in which all the cement holding the glass panes in place has been removed. All it will take is for the slightest breeze of truth to bring it crashing down. And then Americans will be demanding the truth in overwhelming numbers, and looking for someone they can trust. For, they certainly cannot trust either the MSM or the candidates the MSM has chosen to cover.

There are so many directions from which the wind of truth can come: the falling economy, the falling dollar, the price of oil, the scandals in credit, the mounting national debt, the balance of payments, the loss of jobs, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the situation in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, an attack on Iran, etc. From all of these (and many more) shocks may come, which will wake the Americans out of their sleepiness and laziness which has allowed them settle for the pablum being offered as "news." The American people are not dumb.

I like to think (but do not really know) that this is the way Ron Paul understands the situation. As the old saying goes, "Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come." Well, RP has the idea, and he has the wisdom and the patience to wait till its time has come. So far, he has beautifully positioned himself for when that time comes. He has waged his campaign to take the word out to the people. Only a few heard, but they have seen for themselves how the MSM works. Ron Paul has earned their trust. He is the only one who has come through this campaign more trusted than he entered it. One out of twenty voters already knows and trusts him.

That means when the wind of truth begins to blow, each one of those one-in-twenty Ron Paul supporters need only bring the facts to nine or ten people to create a majority in the whole country. And when the jolts and shocks of reality hit and break through the web of obfuscation and lies of the MSM, people will be looking for real facts and truth. And Ron Paul supporters will already be armed to give it to them.

And it may come sooner than expected. All the things Ron Paul said about the economy are coming true in spades – with credit collapses, falling dollars, rising oil prices, and recession (perhaps soon to become "Depression"), and most of all, spreading wars and endless quagmires.

The truth will spread, even as it did behind the Iron Curtain and eventually bring the whole thing down. The American economy is poised for further jolts, which the MSM will not be able to explain or spin away.

Remember, although Ron Paul only got one in twenty votes, that means in reality, that one person in twenty in America is already armed with the real facts and the truth. That means that the facts and the truth can spread fast, once people are brought to realize that the MSM is not giving the truth at all.

So, we have a lot of reason to hope, even for this present election. The situation is volatile. Ron Paul is still a candidate for the Republican nomination. Many things can happen. Just as John McCain was once written off and then suddenly emerged out of nowhere, Ron Paul may suddenly emerge from the nowhere that the MSM have consigned him to.

Further, we have reason to hope that even if the election goes to Obama, Hillary, or McCain, that Ron Paul's ideas and movement will grow even faster. For, each of these front-runners is committed to doing all the things that Ron Paul has said are bringing on disaster. The American people will wake up to this very fast once they see where they will begin taking us, and opposition will form.

Already Ron Paul supporters are becoming prominent in the Republican Party across the nation, beginning at precincts and moving up to state level. Soon they will be in positions to educate others in the Party. By 2010, there will be several Ron Paul–educated members of Congress, and Ron Paul will no longer be alone. The movement is growing and will continue to grow.

Back in December at our meeting for the Strasbourg Tea Party in front of the European Parliament Building, I kept stressing that what we were doing that day in supporting Ron Paul was of historic importance. Allan Stevo downloaded the famous St. Crispin Day speech to read to us, and Michael Bauwens made a great video of it. What we did at Strasbourg did not cease to be historic just because Ron Paul seems to have lost the nomination to John McCain. The movement goes on and will triumph, and the fact that the road to victory is longer and harder than we thought will only make our participation on that day all the more historic and memorable.


Ben Novak [send him mail (americansineuropeforronpaul@gmail.com)] is co-founder of Americans in Europe for Ron.

[dtolman]

I think that if everyone in American knew everything about all Ron Paul's policies he would still have gotten a small percentage of votes.

[pianoman11686]

I'll have a rare chance to hear Paul speak in person this coming Friday when he visits my campus. I'll try my darndest to be there (it's in the middle of finals week) and will report any and all interesting tidbits here.

[MrSpice]

Ron Paul never had any real chance to get elected and never will. I like Ron Paul and totally agree with many things he said. But some of his statements and his overall image will never gather enough support. So I am not sure why his name keeps coming up.

[ablarc]

I was startled by what I saw. There is almost NO news on the networks! It was all "talking heads" giving opinions on some minor comment of Obama, Hilary, or McCain all day. Almost no foreign news; nothing to explain the economy, the war, the world situation, etc. The American people know nothing from the Main Stream Media (MSM) of what is going on the world! Only disasters make the news – plane crashes, floods, etc. It is positively shocking. It seems Americans are being lobotomized.
Ain't that the truth. One of my clients said Obama shouldn't be president because he "refused" to wear a lapel pin. The average American is shockingly ill-informed, and the ubiquitous "news" media is the reason why.

[NYatKNIGHT]

And we have two terms of George Bush to prove that.

[Jasonik]

Who is Ron Paul? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auRALFNJkRU&eurl=http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/&feature=player_embedded)

[eddhead]

nice.

[Jasonik]

From a "Political March Madness (http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2009/mar/bracket2012/)" bracket of 32 republicans for the 2012 presidential nomination hosted by NPR, "Ron Paul has taken the popular vote with a 13-point victory over Jim DeMint," with participants, "in the last round [casting] 963,719 votes."

*****

And on a related note:

New Chamber index shows conservatives aren't corporate pawns

By Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist | 4/3/09 7:20 AM (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/TimothyCarney/New-Chamber-index-shows-conservatives-arent-corporate-pawns-42379362.html)

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., had the most conservative voting record in 2008 according to the American Conservative Union (ACU), and was a “taxpayer hero” according to the National Taxpayer’s Union (NTU), but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says his 2008 record was less pro-business than Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton.

Similarly, Texas libertarian GOPer Rep. Ron Paul—the most steadfast congressional opponent of regulation, taxation, and any sort of government intervention in business—scored lower than 90% of Democrats last year on the Chamber’s scorecard.

Liberal Democrats often accuse conservative Republicans of being pawns for Big Business, but the 2008 scorecard for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—the largest lobbying organization in the country and the official Washington voice of business—provides convincing evidence to the contrary. In fact, the policy agenda of big business can be very different from that of limited-government conservatives and libertarians.

Four Republican senators failed to earn the Chamber’s “Spirit of Enterprise Award” (earned for scoring 70% or above): DeMint, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Jon Kyl of Arizona, and Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

These are among the most fiscally conservative, pro-limited government members of the upper chamber—which is precisely their error, in the eyes of the Chamber. The heroes of the small government cause are the goats of the big business cause.

DeMint, for instance, picked up the highest score last year from NTU, and Kyl and Inhofe were close behind—all three winning NTU’s “Taxpayer Friend” awards.

Similarly, DeMint picked up the only perfect Senate score from ACU, while Kyl and Inhofe tied for second with 96%.

With which votes did these GOP lawmakers earn Chamber scorn? Kyl, Inhofe, DeMint, and Sessions were four of the eight senators to vote Nay July 31 on the “College Opportunity and Affordability Act,” creating $34 million in new subsidies for colleges, probably driving up tuition at taxpayers’ expense rather than making college more affordable.

These four also voted against the Chamber’s position by opposing President George W. Bush’s February 2008 stimulus bill that sent checks to taxpayers. The “rebates” were one-time tax credits that excluded higher-income earners but included some people with no income tax liability.

Conservatives instead proposed long-term, broad-based tax cuts—for example, making permanent the 2001 tax cuts set to expire in 2011—as opposed to one-time stunts turning the IRS into a welfare agency.

And, of course, DeMint, Inhofe, and Sessions upset the Chamber by voting against the massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout—which has since grown into a Detroit bailout, and a tool which the Obama administration is using to tell banks and carmakers how to run their businesses.

The Great Wall Street Bailout will prove someday to be the crucial victory for government control over the economy, and for voting Nay on a rushed vote to pass this unprecedented measure, some conservative lawmakers were scorned by the business lobby.

Sessions, Inhofe, and Kyl also voted last April against a package of tax deductions for “renewable energy”—effectively corporate welfare for unprofitable technologies.

On the House side, it’s a similar picture. The Republican with the lowest Chamber score was Paul. Even Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, who wants to regulate everything except Fannie Mae, scored 14 points higher than Paul on the Chamber’s scorecard.

Eleven House Republicans failed to win the Chamber’s award—a mixture of libertarian/conservative members like Paul and liberal members like then-Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-MD.

All but Gilchrest in this group of “business unfriendly” Republicans earned a black mark from the Chamber for voting against the Wall Street bailout twice. And conservative Republicans Paul, Ted Poe of Texas, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Jack Kingston of Georgia, Paul Broun of Georgia, and Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin voted against the college aid bill, while seven of the 11 voted against Bush’s stimulus.

In June, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill drafted by the Chamber in coordination with advocates for the disabled that expanded the definition of “disability.” At the time, the conservative Heritage Foundation wrote, “the House bill is supported by some business lobbies (representing mostly larger corporations), it is small businesses that are likely to suffer disproportionately.”

Two other House votes that pit conservatives against the Chamber: An authorization bill for NASA, outspending the Bush administration’s funding request by 15%,, and a bill to beef up copyright enforcement and create a copyright czar.

Advocates of bigger government like to assail their opponents as pawns of big business. The Chamber’s shunning of DeMint and Paul will hopefully help put that lie to rest.

Timothy P. Carney is The Washington Examiner's Lobbying Editor. His K Street column appears on Wednesdays


*****

Big business loves big government and the favors it can give them and vice versa. The last thing they want is a free market, and the whoring corporatist/mercantilist/fascist regulators and subsidizers are happy to oblige.

When will the Marxist dunderheads realize that their beloved all powerful central authority will only ever be co-opted by big business rather than fight against it?


"The exercise of true leadership is inversely proportional to the exercise of power." --Stephen Covey

[NewYorkDoc]

Oh how I wish he'd run again in 2012! I voted for him in Nov (write in) and I'd love to see his name on the ballot this time. He's a true person for [actual] change that truely shows passion and intelligence.

[Jasonik]

http://thehill.com/images/stories/pundits_blog.jpg (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog)

The winner of the 2009 elections is: Ron Paul!
By Brent Budowsk - 11/03/09 08:29 AM ET (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/66039-the-winner-of-the-2009-elections-is-ron-paul)

Forget the spin and the slop. The real winner of the 2009 elections is the public official and candidate who has championed the core insurgency driving the election. It is Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul.

Paul embodies the anti-Washington, anti-tax, anti-big government, anti-financial insiderism viewpoints that are galvanizing large numbers of activists and voters. It is not a majority, but a majority has never been Ron Paul's goal. Paul is a conviction politician, an idea man, an advocate and a change agent.

The Democratic spin is that the Republicans have moved much too far to the right. This is true in a sense. But remember, Democratic smarties said the same thing before Ronald Reagan was elected and before Newt and Republicans won in 1994.

I agree with some things Paul says, and disagree with others, but the truth of the matter, politically, is that his agenda has moved center stage and his people are highly motivated and this is a serious movement that is underestimated and misunderstood by Washington insiders.

What Democrats need to do is forget the PR and forget the spin and do what they were elected to do in 2006 and 2008. They should fight for a progressive populist agenda that takes on the powerful interests that have given us this Gilded Age, interests that a majority of Americans from the political left and independent center are both against.

But for now, for today, my take is forget the smarties and forget the smoothies, because the real winner of the 2009 elections is the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ron Paul.

[Ninjahedge]

What Democrats need to do is forget the PR and forget the spin and do what they were elected to do in 2006 and 2008.

That will not get them re-elected.

People are sold on politicians these days. Very rarely does one get in on their record alone these days.

You could free hostages, negotiate deals to end embargos and a host of other things, but one set of commercials about a few small, almost unrelated issues can end a politicians hope of election or re-election.

You don't need to build a better mousetrap, you just have to convince the mouse to join your time share program.