11 votes

CNN actually putting up a decent piece about Paul? What is going on?

So I got into work this morning to check the news as I always do and I saw CNN had a piece on the Philadelphia rally. I was expecting a hit piece and a complete smearing of Dr. Paul, but it was actually a fairly decent article.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/politics/paul-true-believers/i...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I think...

The comment, can't win on the first ballot was telling. Very telling. It was the first time I have ever not seen, "has no chance" to win the nomination. And honestly all along maybe we have been a bit thinned skinned on this. It's true, he will not WIN the nomination on the first ballot.

but, what is still frustrating is the writers misunderstanding of the GOP rules suggesting that he may not even be on the ballot. Stupid. I may just pop before the convention, but I must admit, I am about as excited for the time to fly by as I have ever been in my life.

I refuse

to give them the traffic. I will NOT forget this, ever:

1991 CNN Gulf War FAKE News

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

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond
BAN ELECTRONIC VOTING!!

All you need to do is search

All you need to do is search "CNN fake news" on youtube, a sample:
http://youtu.be/TPPzRWqljnY You remember Libya, right? :)

they lied again as usual heres proof

here is what cnn wrote :

Paul is also up against an RNC rule, Rule 40, that states a candidate must have received a plurality of votes in five states in order to even be considered at the convention. Paul has yet to receive a plurality in one state.

here is the rule

(b) Each candidate for nomination for
President of the United States and Vice President of the
United States shall demonstrate the support of a
plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more
states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of
that candidate for nomination

it says plurality of delegetes not votes

oversight ? accident ? not a chance !

Goldmember777

miket23's picture

Also, I can't emphasize

Also, I can't emphasize enough the importance of refraining from commenting on articles such as these with anger, condescension, etc which will only further isolate his candidacy and reinforce preconceived notions about Paul's support base that the author alludes to as "true believers" or "hero worshippers." As frustrating as it can be, temper emotion with facts and substantive opinions/analysis that disprove others' misconceptions. It's the only way to win people over. If they remain ignorant, they are a lost cause and you're wasting time. Move on. The goal is to win by convincing, not by judging and condemning.

Unemployment Looms?

All these press reporters are scrambling for news to fill their newspapers and TV shows; unemployment looms if they have to wait until the convention in Tampa.

Also-rans can't compete with the underdog insurgency for drama; look how quickly Bachmann, Cain, and Gingrich became a footnote (and Gingrich hasn't even officially quit, yet).

We should see an attempt by Romney and Obama to "debate" in the headlines, to stir up some coverage, but it's hard to imagine anything more boring.

Romney doesn't have it locked up, and our sucesses will be hard to ignore. America loves an underdog, and some media will realize that this is what "sells papers."

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

They do this

They do this from time to time. They release something somewhat positive to keep people under the illusion that they actually report facts.. So when someone says "you never report on Ron Paul". they can point you to this article.

miket23's picture

Sorry, but in my humble

Sorry, but in my humble opinion, I think some of the comments here are off base. Yes, there is the all-too-common media narrative overemphasizing and exaggerating the "estimated" delegate totals suggesting he has virtually no chance, and I cringe when I see comments like "true believers" and "hero worshippers". But there is nothing factually wrong in this article (eg - there is no plurality wins as of yet although are virtually assured in Iowa, Minnnesota, Colorado, and most likely several others; he can't win on the 1st ballot). And yes, it would be better if those in the media would at least discuss at some length what could happen if Romney doesn't win the 1144 on the 1st ballot, which would increase Paul's chances at the nomination enormously. Frankly, I think most in the media pathetically either don't care or don't understand the delegate process.

But the author is simply offering up a perspective that is not all bad:
1- discussing his wide diversity of support across the political spectrum
2- reference to GW's warning about political parties and how Paul is working to subvert and check this entrenched power structure
3- even after the cringe-worthy mention of "hero-worshippers", the author tempers this observation with Paul's own words about being a spokesman rather than a figurehead
4- discussing the movement behind his candidacy suggesting he's not the plastic, hollow candidate figure that typifies so many others

I, as much as anyone, am appalled at the overall media coverage of his campaign. However, there are many more targets out there that have blatently lied, distorted, or misrepresented facts regarding the election cycle and his campaign. This is hardly one of them.

If it comes from CNN

its not decent.

"Paul has earned only an

"Paul has earned only an estimated 76 delegates (although his supporters challenge that number), compared with Romney's 841"

Hahahaha! You're damn right we challenge that number!

The problem is that you are

The problem is that you are giving MSM too much power over yourself, they will never tell the truth so why give them any power?

I don't see it as decent

I don't see it as decent either. Looks like they are trying to convince people (Paul supporters and not) that there is no way Paul can win. Just another smear piece written in a "nice" way.

I fully agree with your analysis!!!

CNN is doing Ron Paul NO favors here. They are tryng to paint a story that suggests that Ron Paul has NO possible way of winning, so who ARE ll these "fools" who will stand in the rain? CNN is pure phucking JUNK!!! Do you want journalism that is backed with honesty, accuracy and integrity? Then look ELSEWHERE!!! CNN is nothing more than a failing brand name that gives journalism a bad name!

Robby Lane

Hit piece or not, fill the

Hit piece or not, fill the comment section with positive vibes, ignore the negative. We are not the angry minority but the positive future. Keep it positive, honest and intelligent and people may actually wake up and listen.

The article is about

The article is about supporters not about Dr. Paul, the message is: "Good support for a loosing candidate". Sorry CNN, I don't buy it, try to sell it somewhere else.

Let me see...starting the article by saying that Dr. Paul is far from winning? And I should be exited ? I don't care about the MSM because they will never tell the truth.

I will be celebrating when I read a fully honest article on CNN, they just can't do it!

Quote: Not everyone agrees, though, and the electoral math is against the 12-term congressman from Texas. On Tuesday, Romney swept Paul in all five states that voted. And even if Paul were to win every single delegate from now until the convention he wouldn't be able to win the nomination, according to analysis by CNN Political Research Director Rob Yoon.

CNN Election Center: Ron Paul's vote totals

To Paul's most passionate followers, though, it doesn't matter that Paul has earned only an estimated 76 delegates (although his supporters challenge that number), compared with Romney's 841. It doesn't matter that Paul has yet to win a single state. END

Now moving to "CNN Election Center: Ron Paul's vote totals": http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/candidates/302

You see the delegates count of Dr. Paul in Iowa (7) and Minnesota (9), the MSM just can't be honest, and this just a few days after the actual results are there.

CNN...we know the truth that you are trying to hide, good try, but we win...you loose...again.

hit piece

nothing but a nice, shiny hit piece.

Hopefully CNN's viewership will continue its rapid decline to zero.

NOT A HIT PIECE!?

I read 2 paragraphs, and they've already mentioned twice that the math makes it impossible for Dr. Paul to win. This is nothing but a hit piece disguised in a wolf's clothing. This IS a hit piece, and i will ALWAYS LOATHE cnn.

It's front page! (edit - on the Politics section) haha

Though I don't agree with a few of the points - it is overall a good piece.

It's simple.

They think they've got this in the bag. Now, it's time to make nice to Ron Paul and try and pull his supporters in "for the good of the GOP". Fat chance. They'll go out of their way to lavish praise on Dr. Paul soon. Watch for it. This is just the beginning.

alan laney

They do think they have it in the bag I believe.

Most of the caucus states are behind us and it's smooth diebold sailing from here on out or so they think.

Santorum and Newt are picking up delegates still, Santorum more than Newt of course. I'd suggest that those delegate positions for those candidates be slid into if we're looking for the win. Just my two cents.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

cnn

trash, don't go there it will only piss you off.

Well said

.

This isn't "decent"

It's just more MSM biased trash.

The entire beginning of the article harps constantly on how Ron Paul "can't win".

Transition then into a condescending tone, labeling us as "true believers", makes it sound like a cult.

Douchebags.

Yeah it does have it's MSM

Yeah it does have it's MSM bias, but it is literally one of the very few pieces that they have ever done on Ron Paul this election. That good old saying bad press is better than no press at all. The fact that they are even recognizing him as a runner and not just blathering on about Romney being the GOP candidate is at least got to stand for something.

I posted this...

... and they flagged it for review. Pathetic!

Voters who want wars, torture, assassinations, "humanitarian" bombings in oil rich countries, indefinite detentions, drone attacks that kill the innocent, erosion of civil liberties, domestic war on the people (drug war), out-of-control debt and spending, graft and greed, crony capitalism, pandering to special interests, bailouts, more of the same, must NOT vote for Ron Paul.

Voters who want peace, a humane foreign policy, restoration of civil liberties, an end to the war on drugs, sound money, balanced budgets, honesty, integrity and transparency in government, and a President wholly committed to Constitutional government can vote for Ron Paul.

Ain't that difficult a choice.

Plano TX

ConstitutionHugger's picture

hope you don't mind

I posted this on my facebook page

They take issue with the

They take issue with the truth, because as you know "the truth will set you free." I really hope that we can get a lot more media coverage of Paul and get people to see the truth and finally wake up.

Delegate lies (again)

Focused on the 5 state rule and assuming the straw poll results are the basis for a state win. It is so frustrating reading that misinformed drivel.

Yeah it is definitely

Yeah it is definitely frustrating, but there is a silver lining in it all. They may always provide those skewed numbers, but they do promote Ron's message in a sense and do illustrate how devoted his "partners" in freedom have been.

egapele's picture

There is a guy making comment after comment

bashing Ron Paul. He must be pro-Obama and knows Ron Paul can beat him.