Poor Ron Paul is being ignored - Daily Show video

Ron Paul's Political Positions from Wikipedia:

Paul has been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian. He has been nicknamed "Dr. No", representing both his medical degree and his insistence that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution", and "Mr. Republican". One scoring method published in the American Journal of Political Science found Paul the most conservative of all 3,320 members of Congress from 1937 to 2002.

Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution during 2002. He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations, and from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty.

He endorses free trade, rejecting membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade". He endorses increased border security and opposes welfare for illegal aliens, birthright citizenship and amnesty; he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks, but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists. An opponent of the Iraq War and potential war with Iran, he has also criticized neoconservatism and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, arguing that both inadvertently cause terrorist reprisals against Americans.

Paul has stated that "Israel is our close friend" and that it is not the place of the United States to "dictate how Israel runs her affairs".

Paul is a proponent of Austrian school economics; he has authored six books on the subject, and displays pictures of Austrian school economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises (as well as of Grover Cleveland) on his office wall. He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes; he cast two thirds of all the lone negative votes in the House during a 1995–1997 period. He has pledged never to raise taxes and states he has never voted to approve a budget deficit. Paul believes that the country could abolish the individual income tax by scaling back federal spending to its fiscal year 2000 levels; financing government operations would be primarily by the corporate income tax, excise taxes and tariffs.

He endorses eliminating most federal government agencies, terming them unnecessary bureaucracies. Paul has a consistent record as an inflation hawk, having warned of the threat of hyperinflation as far back as 1981. Paul also believes the longterm decrease of the U.S. dollar's purchasing power by inflation is attributable to its lack of any commodity backing. However, Paul does not endorse a "return" to a gold standard, as the U.S. government has established during the past, but instead prefers to eliminate legal tender laws and to remove the sales tax on gold and silver, so that the market may freely decide what type of monetary standard(s) there shall be. He also advocates gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve System.

Paul endorses constitutional rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, and habeas corpus for political detainees.

He opposes the Patriot Act, federal use of torture, presidential autonomy, a national identification card, warrantless domestic surveillance, and the draft.

Citing the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Paul advocates states' rights to decide how to regulate social matters not cited directly by the Constitution.

Paul terms himself "strongly pro-life", "an unshakable foe of abortion", and believes regulation or ban on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level". He says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception; his abortion-related legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."

Paul also believes that the notion of the separation of church and state is currently misused by the court system: "In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous 'separation of church and state' metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty."

He opposes federal regulation of the death penalty (although he opposes capital punishment), of education, and of marriage, and endorses revising the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy to concern mainly disruptive sexual behavior (whether heterosexual or homosexual).

As a free-market environmentalist, he asserts private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention. He also opposes the federal War on Drugs, and believes the states should decide whether to regulate or deregulate drugs such as medical marijuana.

Paul pushes to eliminate federal involvement with and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to decrease due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market. Referring to the federal government, Ron Paul has also stated that “The government shouldn't be in the medical business." He is also opposed to federal government influenza inoculation programs.

He is an outspoken proponent for increased ballot access for 3rd party candidates and numerous election law reforms which he believes would allow more voter control.

Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it was unconstitutional and did not improve race relations. He once remarked: "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society".

On April 15, 2011, Paul was one of four Republican members of Congress to vote against "The Path to Prosperity".

 

what's not to like?

 

I tried to find a roster of comparative media coverage by candidate but couldn't - doesn't mean there isn't one, but it's obscure if it does exist (I have seen them for other elections in the past).

Anyway, if such does exist, I believe it will show Mr. Paul is not being ignored, only eclipsed by the candidates who provide more "circus" to the proceedings. News organizations are required to show a profit, so attracting advertising is more important than newsworthiness, hence "circus" will get coverage and everything else winds up on the cutting room floor.

 

For me, a great deal. The negatives greatly outweigh the positives so he won't get my support. But that's just me, of course. No candidate could ever achieve 100% concurrence with a voter, let alone 100,000,000 voters, but the positives should at least outweigh the negatives (although sometimes even that much can't be found, so you hold your nose and vote for the "lesser of evils").

 

Which of the other republican candidates would you prefer?

 

None Of The Above?

 

This really pisses me off. Not because I'm a Ron Paul supporter but because the media is not letting the public know who all is running. They mention just about everyone including the ones that come in last place in the straw poll but totally skip Ron which had more than twice the number of votes than the third place guy Tim Pawlenty.

Ron was actually the winner of the straw poll since Michele Bachmann bought all of her votes with free passes to the event.


My Ron Paul signs, stickers, and car magnents should be here shortly. Cant wait to get them all installed in my yard and car.

 

I actually like a lot of Paul's ideas, but there's simply noooooo way that he'll win the nomination. So I listen to him with amusement, but not much in the way of real interest. It's like flat taxes. Very polarizing, fun to talk about, ain't gonna happen.
Thank GOD he's not trying to run as a third party candidate...(yet.)

I'm really not worried about the Presidential election. If they gave my Commander in Chief's predecessor a second term, there's almost no way I'll get a new CinC before I have to retire.
The reeeeeal elections are going to happen in the Senate and House.

Obviously.....JMHO.
See you at the polls!

 

Anyone have any examples of Ron Paul voting in such a way that is counter to his stated positions....the same positions he has had consistently for at least the last 20 years? The guy walks tall- taller than the crooks that have infested the House for ages. And that is the only reason he is not "electable".

 

Agreed with APK's "circus" remark: being sane (or less crazy) gives you less media coverage.

 

he may not be the parties cup o tea, i wonder how he plays with the tea baggers? to me, anyone is better than bachman, romney or perry. still, have to agree with etc, it's probably gonna be obama in the end

 

I couldn't bring myself to vote for Paul for various reasons, but I do respect the man for sticking to his principles. :rockon: He is one of very few in politics that do.

Too bad his son is a weasel.

 

I like Ron Paul's honesty. I also like his non-interventionist philosophy.

Just imagine where we would be right now if we had avoided that disastrous Vietnam War? That was a killer--all fought for silly ideology. And it was really a civil war, where we had zero effect on the outcome.

The rest of the wars since you can quibble about. But Vietnam was the killer.

Back to Paul, what I don't like is the Libertarian-Tea party philosophy of no taxes-no government. That's just ridiculous. And they are getting away with it in the media because of clueless Obama who refuses to call a spade a spade. The Republican party has gotten itself dangerously too far to the right. And it's up to the President to point this out and show some leadership.

 

Sunnavuhgun, there IS a study. Don't know if it's any good so keep that salt cellar handy, but here it is:

Study says it's official: The media is ignoring Ron Paul : Politics Blog

Now the question is, is there really a conspiracy of some kind or are other factors at work. I hope Nate Silver takes a crack at this: interesting stuff.

Paul still won't get my vote, but deliberate press blackout of his candidacy is the stuff of banana republics. You don't think the Democratic Party's got its hand on this cookie jar, putting a lid on perhaps the only Republican candidate that ISN'T a circus nutcase who could present a genuine challenge to Obama? Nah - that'd be infringement of the Republican copyright on those kinds of methods and the Democrats never play dirty. C'mon, Nate, sharpen those pencils and find out what's going on.

 

His stand on abolishing the personal income tax and funding with a higher corporate income tax plus tarrifs would seem to run counter to the Koch Bros' tea party.

Also his positions on election reform and third party canidates would delete any support from corporations.

I admire him sticking to his principles and have always thought both the House and the Senate needed a few well principled extremists on BOTH sides to keep the debate honest.