Washington Times Bashes MSM For Treatment Of Ron Paul: "What Are They Afraid Of?"Submitted by 1m4Paul on Tue, 05/08/2012 - 14:06
by Tom Mullen | Washington Times
TAMPA, May 8, 2012 – It’s official. Ron Paul has won two states. He’s probably going to win more.
In response, most media outlets have chosen to ramp up their passive-aggressive attacks on Paul’s campaign.
Ever since he announced that he would seek the Republican nomination for president back in 2007, Ron Paul has been covered like no other major party candidate in U.S. history.
During his previous campaign for the 2008 Republican nomination, the media largely pretended he wasn’t running at all. When he was covered, virtually every article or segment described him as a “gadfly” and his campaign as “quixotic.” Even before the first debate was held, we were assured at least twice in every news piece that Paul “had little chance of winning the nomination.”
At the start of this election cycle, the gadfly’s quixotic campaign was covered in much the same manner. Admittedly, the insinuations that Paul’s views were “fringe” or “crazy” had diminished. It’s hard to call someone crazy after all of his economic predictions come true and all of the predictions of his opponents prove wrong.
Nevertheless, the media covering the 2012 nomination race initially pretended that Paul didn’t exist, prompting Jon Stewart’s now classic lampoon. After Paul’s virtual tie in the Ames, Iowa straw poll, we were told that the new “top tier” Republican candidates were Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman.
Remember them? Perry dropped after failing to recover from forgetting the names of the federal departments he proposed to eliminate in a debate. Among Bachman’s finest moments was the New Hampshire speech in which she asserted that the American Revolutionary War broke out at Lexington and Concord in…New Hampshire.
Once the media could no longer ignore Ron Paul, we were once again assured that he had no chance to win the Republican nomination. When it appeared that he might win the Iowa caucuses, we were told that a Paul win would be meaningless. When he finished a close third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, the media acknowledged that his performance was surprising but maintained that he still couldn’t win.
He was in better shape than Bill Clinton was at that point in 1992. Why didn’t Clinton get the same treatment?
Continue reading at the Washington Times