Ron Paul

Gone in 90 Seconds: Ron Paul Campaign Slams CBS for Debate Time


Ron Paul

Ron Paul's presidential campaign is lashing out after being largely ignored at the CBS News/National Journal debate in South Carolina. The candidate received only 90 seconds of talk time in the one hour of televised debate. reports:

Campaign Manager John Tate [blasted] out an email entitled "What a Joke," in which he stated, "It literally made me sick watching the mainstream media once again silence the one sane voice in this election….Ron Paul was silenced, in perhaps the most important debate of the cycle. "

Apparently, CBS News thinks Paul is so good he simply doesn't need any more time, calling Paul's 90 second performance an "unqualified success."

Adding to the furor, CBS political director John Dickerson inadvertantly copied the Michele Bachmann campaign on an email saying she was "not going to be getting many questions," causing the Bachmann campaign to complain of unfairness in the debates. According to Politico, Dickerson replied that "Bachmann is at four percent in the polls and has been for a while. Other candidates aren't."

For fun, let's consider the results if poll numbers really were the metric for debate facetime fairness as Dickerson implies. Polling at 8 percent, Paul would have doubled his time to about 184 of the 2300 or so seconds up for grabs (found by adding up the times listed here). By that logic, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann, who all poll below Paul but received more talking time, are big winners. Surging Newt Gingrich also received time disproportionately larger than his polling numbers. Master debater Rick Perry, who polls close to Paul, received more time than anyone (I can't imagine why).

So who is left to join Paul in the ranks of those getting the airtime shaft? Frontrunners Mitt Romney and Herman Cain, each receiving far less time than their polling numbers demand. Perhaps this is CBS's way of telling Paul he really is a top tier candidate now.

Reason on Ron Paul scorning the media here, and Paul's candidate profile here.

NEXT: Climate Change Uncertainty For Next Few Decades

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Of course Ron Paul won’t get a chance. Nobody I like gets a chance.

    1. I have found I can accurately predict the outcome of an election by taking the inverse of my ballot.
      This past Tuesday the inverse of my ballot was 75% correct.

      1. You idiot, stop voting the way you’ve been voting. You’re ruining everything. You’re ruining democracy.

  2. And some talking-head moron on CNN (iirc) as much as said so — “among candidates who never had a chance of reaching the front ranks”. Self-fulfilling prophecies much?

    no hugs for thugs,
    Shirley Knott

  3. What the hell do polls now have to do with an election that hasn’t even started yet? You get more time if the media thinks you’re worth more time which the media determines by giving you more coverage, then saying you’re “winning.”

    This is wrong on so many levels. And not just for my preferred candidates. I can understand not including total B.S. candidates, but none of the ones getting excluded or marginalized fall in that category.

    1. At some point, someone is going to record the conversations that go on in newsrooms and offices in the media, and then we will finally get to hear the “we need to marginalize X” discussions.

      I’m just surprised it hasn’t happened yet.

      1. It just shows that they think Paul is anything but a nut and unserious. If they thought he was a nut, they would have showcased him as a way of showing the world how crazy those scary Republicans are. But, they know or at least think that if Paul had a proper amount of time he would come accross as serious and sincere. And that is the last thing they want. So they gave him 90 seconds. It is actually a compliment.

        1. Master debater Rick Perry, who polls close to Paul, received more time than anyone (I can’t imagine why).

          Perhaps to give him ample opportunity to chew on shoe leather?

          1. If Perry started chewing on his own shoe while dropping N bombs, no one else would have gotten a word in.

        2. My brother thinks that if it weren’t for Paul’s “isolationism”, he’d very likely be the nominee.

          1. Your brother has a point. If not for that, he would own the Tea Party vote and all of Cain’s votes and would be killing Romney right now.

          2. If people didn’t buy the STOOPID idea that “fight the terrorists there so you don’t have to fight them here” meme, and if people actually understood what “isolationism” means, then they might like Ron Paul a bit more.

            1. It’s not about whether Paul is right or not; it’s just about why the GOP and, really, the media are so focused on marginalizing him.

              Yeah, he can be a little goofy, but it’s the non-interventionalism that they can’t tolerate. Frankly, whatever your position on America, World Cop, I daresay our economy is about a thousand times more important right now, as a broken America won’t be able to afford intervention.

              1. Intervention is a huge part of the federal government’s power. It justifies a massive military, and allows politicians to feel powerful by fucking with other countries. The media fucking loves intervention. It’s a constant source of news stories, it’s a club to beat the other TEAM with, and it’s something to cheer when your TEAM is doing it.

                Politicians and the media love war, dude. Love it.

                1. You have a good point there. Would world peace finally put the media outlets out of business? War reporting is really a large scale version of local news reporting about the car accident and apartment fire deaths.

                2. That was where I was going with the media marginalizing him for that reason.

                  1. I’m not sure it’s even the non-interventionism that’s keeping Paul marginalized. Consider the following list of counties with the highest per capita incomes:…..ted_States

                    3 of the top 5 are counties in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area. Not NYC, or Silicon Valley, or Texas oil money: D.C. It didn’t used to be that way, and only became that way with the giant growth of federal government influence and power. As a strict constructionalist, Paul would probably do a lot to devolve power back to state government and (try to) shrink the size of the federal government. I doubt you could say the same about any of the other candidates, with the exception of Johnson, and he isn’t allowed in the debates at all. A whole lot of rice bowls will be broken or at least chipped, if Paul wins the Presidency. Do you think a Washington media establishment, who have spent years establishing contacts, digging up dirt, and making themselves indispensable to those in charge, are going to stand idly by and be fair to a guy who might make much of their previous hard work irrelevant?

                    Ron Paul could come out in favor of the troops invading Iran, Syria, and North Korea tomorrow, and not change a damned thing about his prospects of getting increased exposure.

                    Unless he does really well in Iowa and N.H. Like winning the primary and caucuses ‘well’.

                    1. Gray Ghost,

                      That’s part of it, too. I think the foreign policy part is more significant to the GOP itself, but even then, one shouldn’t discount Paul’s desire to eliminate the goodies.

                3. Nervos belli, pecuniam infinitam. (Endless money forms the sinews of war.)

              2. let’s see – if we (the media) can marginalize a candidate, we prevent him from being able to reach voters, his poll numbers will not be too high, and we can therefore justify freezing him out debates. That about right?

                1. Precisely. He’s marginalized (or excluded) because the media decided that he should be marginalized (or excluded).

      2. Now that would to finally Bust the State Run Media. But I won’t hold my breath.

        1. Now that would be something to catch the State Run Media in the Act. That I would like to see!!!

    2. This. If you want to use poll numbers for determining who to invite to the debate, I sort of see it.

      But everyone at the debate should get roughly equal time.

      1. I’d like to see a Premiership type of debate relegation. You could even start with the 5 media presumed frontrunners in one debate and the 5 media presumed also-rans in the other. The 2 lowest finishers of the frontrunner debate get knocked down to the also-ran group and top 2 finishers from the also-ran group get bumped up to the frontrunner group for the next debate. And everyone gets 12 of the 60 minutes in two back to back shows. It would take into account the drop outs like Pawlenty and the late comers like Perry but he’d have to take Pawlenty’s spot in the also-ran before moving up to the front-runner debate. Then after X number of debates the also-rans are out and we focus on the top 5 for the rest of the process, say starting a month before the IA Caucuses.

        Of course it’ll never happen.

        1. Thunderdome!

  4. Paul would actually change the status quo…he’s crazy !

  5. Adding to the furvor, CBS political director John Dickerson…

    “Furvor” is not a word. “Ferver” is a word and means enthusiasm. In context I think you meant “furor” which means conflict.

    1. To: Volunteer Copy Editor, a mark off for spelling. It’s actually “fervor. |?f?rv?r| ( Brit. fervour) noun
      intense and passionate feeling : he talked with all the fervor of a new convert.

      1. PWND

      2. Right you are. Ouch.

        1. May we familiarize you with Joe’z law?

      3. +.5 to Volunteer Copy Editor for being half right. I was actually thinking both furor and fervor in my head, which is how I came up with this neologism. I’ve amended it, but I still think furvor is better.

        1. Consider yourself refudiated.

        2. I thought your word was perfectly cromulent.

    2. You know who else meant Fuehrer?

  6. “Master debater”

    Now THAT’S an old joke.

    1. For new old jokes, see the YouTubes by the Master Poet.

  7. Adding to the furvor, CBS political director John Dickerson inadvertantly copied the Michelle Bachmann campaign on an email saying she was “not going to be getting many questions,”

    ROFL. Yep, that’s our mainstream media: still too stupid to know how to use e-mail properly.

  8. Related: Gingrich leading national poll

    That bastard might just win the nomination.

    1. He might. And unlike everyone else in the race except Cain, he wasn’t anywhere near political power in the 00s. People might vote for him out of nastalgia for the 90s.

      1. I hope he picks a good VP, then. Somehow I just don’t see a Gingrich presidency ending well.

        1. Couldn’t end any worse than a Romney or an Obama Presidency. Truth at this point the bar is so low, it won’t be too hard to look good.

          1. I’d take Nuclear Titties in a heartbeat over the Romneybot.

            1. It’s ‘Newcular’ Titties.

              1. Sorry, I was heading out to a meeting….

      2. People might vote for him out of nastalgia for the 90s.

        I guess that is as close as their Reagan-worshiping asses are going to get to their benighted 80’s. I wish they’d just nut up and elect Reagan’s bleached skeleton back to the presidency (I’m sure they could get around the two-term thing by insisting his skeleton is now a different person or something). It couldn’t be worse than whatever god-awful-piece-of-shit (GAPoS) our fellow Americans will force up our asses Alcatraz-style.

        1. Reagan-worship trumps Chicago Jesus worship. Most folks remember the 80s and 90s as times of job growth, relative peace, and interns as humidors. One’s threshhold for getting upset over govt stupidity is much higher when your personal security is not at issue.

    2. The GOP seems to be determined to shank this election. Given that, you may be right.

      I split between two opinions right now. In the more likely one, the GOP establishment honestly thinks Romney is the best of the current crop that’s part of the club.

      In the more conspiratorial one, somebody at the GOP is betting on collapse and chaos before 2016 and is bound and determined to not be holding the bag when it happens.

    3. Related: Newcular Titties leading national poll

      That bastard might just win the nomination.


      1. The beauty of a Gingrich presidency is that Newcular Titties may actually become a reality.

  9. Let’s not forget Gary Johnson who wasn’t even invited despite meeting their own criteria.

    1. Hey, it’s bad enough that they have to ignore one libertarian. Two would just be crazy.

      1. Definitionally so. Isn’t the correct term for a group of libertarians a ‘crazy of libertarians’?

        1. TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE have nothing – nothing left intellectually, so they have to resort to derision and group think.

        2. It really should be an asylum of libertarians.

          usage: When Frank Robinson opened his restaurant, he had no idea that the Free State project was holding a convention across the street, and an asylum of libertarian conventioneers would swamp his restaurant displacing the normal lunch-time crowd.

          1. If it’s Free Staters, then I think it’s called a prickle. For libertarians in general I prefer a shrewdness.

            1. I prefer a TANSTAAFL of libertarians.

        3. I think it’s a squabble of libertarians.

          1. +to this

            Can’t have any sort of collective term that might imply we won’t spend every waking hour arguing about minutiae.

          2. I like it, a squabble it is!

    2. In the poll I linked above, he got 1%. Surging baby!

    1. Too funny!

      Reducing military aid to Israel = Vicious Anti-Semite

      1. Especially when he wants to end all aid to everyone including but not limited to Israel’s Arab enemies.

        1. Stupid libertarians.

          Look, if we don’t send money to Israel, they’ll be overrun. Why the hell do you think a modern nation with the most powerful economy in the region, access to high technology, and a tradition of military success can possibly stave off a rabble of disorganized Arabs in a war?

          1. Sounds pretty good.I’ll bring the popcorn and B.Y.O.B.

    2. Underzog makes an appearance or two in the comments.

    3. NEWSLETTERS!!!!

  10. CBS News thinks Paul is so good he simply doesn’t need any more time, calling Paul’s 90 second performance an “unqualified success.”

    Naturally. To CBS, the only good Republican is a silent Republican – and that goes double for libertarians.

    1. Totally inaccurate.

      Good GOP members are the guys who criticize other members for being too extreme while cutting liberty-shrinking, government-growing deals with the Dems. (As long as they don’t run for president- because then they are crazy).

  11. The national poll numbers are based off of how much popularity the candidates have. Every candidate that has surged into one of the top 3 positions has received at least 10% news coverage, except Paul, who has received less than 5% news coverage throughout the entire race but still has polled in the top 3.

    Also, I use to work at a research firm where political surveys were conducted, and they are biased. They always call the same people, and the people who are sponsoring them know who to call to get the results they are looking for.

    1. Interesting. Who here has been called for a national poll? I haven’t. How do they even do it nowadays when so many people only have cellphones?

  12. Here’s the thing that strikes me as non-malicious about this. The CBS folks likely believe Ron Paul really is a crazy ol’ whackjob. That being the case, you’d think they’d push him front and center to taint the rest of the nominees with crazy, giving Obama a leg up come election time. Since they’re hiding him in a padded cell, I conclude they’re making a stab at being “fair” by not letting the loony run about the asylum.

    Since Bachman/Huntsman/Santorum/Romney/Cain/Perry are mostly indistinguishable, why not give a bozo like Huntsman a little more air time than he’s worth in the polling?

    That’s my theory anyway. CBS isn’t being malicious so much as stupid.

    1. You give them too much credit. They give all kinds of time even though it is obvious he will only embarass himself. They clearly think Paul is anything but crazy. If they thought otherwise, he would get all the time he wanted.

      1. 89 seconds in the last debate is hardly “all kinds of time.”

        1. Uhm, Mad, that’s John’s point. If they thought Ron Paul was crazy, they would ask him more questions.

          Instead, it appears they are keeping him out of the light so people know only that he exists, is a kook, and nothing else.

          1. I think Mad’s theory is that they feel bad for Ron Paul because they think he is crazy so they only gave him 89 seconds so he wouldn’t, in their minds, embarrass himself.

            1. I have a different theory though.

        2. I think John meant to write:

          You give them too much credit. They give Perry all kinds of time even though it is obvious he will only embarass himself.

          1. Thanks Joe. That is exactly what I meant.

          2. Ah, that missing name through me for a loop. OK, let me change my wording to reflect the media’s vernacular. They think Paul is “unserious,” but the other candidates are. They really really earnestly believe that Hopey McChangy DID change things, and since the Republican candidates (sans Paul) are mainstream Republicans, it’s business as usual. In their minds, Paul can’t possibly be serious because no one in their right mind would really do what he wants to do.

      2. I think he meant they give PERRY all kinds of time even though it is obvious he will only embarrass himself.

    2. I don’t think it is malicious at all. I think that they really think that they are doing the right thing by applying their standards for what makes a “serious” candidate. Romney, Gingrich, and all of the other insider type candidates are serious because they won’t change much or rock the boat too badly. They just can’t conceive of someone like Paul doing the job, it would break their narrative of how things work in politics.
      It’s crazy and shows what a bubble they live in, but I don’t think malicious.

    3. I don’t agree with your theory. If the media thinks Ron Paul is insane, and the other candidates vehemently disagree with Ron Paul, that makes the other candidates, who are more likely to get the nomination, look sane. Assuming the “liberal media” is trying to shape the election in their favor by weakening the Republican field, its best to just ignore Ron Paul and instead let the other idiots fall on their own swords. Except for Romney and Newt, I’d say it’s worked pretty well, and Newt’s already critically wounded coming in. Romney will be the nominee since attempts to prop up Huntsman failed.

      1. If the Media want Obama to win they really want Romney to get the nomination because they presume evangelicals will stay home which not only gives Obama the win but might flip the House back to Pelosi (shudders).

      2. And I think all your theories are nuts, and that the only thing the media are after is money. They’d put a test pattern on if they thought it’d be better for business.

      3. Here’s my theory on the biased media.
        Their paradigm of the best possible scenario is a state with strong central control, all the federal programs possible, and a foreign policy wherein the US is like the benevolent master of the world.
        I believe they are both rational and intelligent. But it is because they are also pragmatic that they view the republican activities as a sort of contingency plan. They know that public sentiment often flows against their goals and they seek to channel those sentiments toward policies that most closely resemble their ideal. As such, the republican primaries cause them to channel all their efforts into tearing down those candidates leaning toward a constitutionally limited government. The more they lean this direction the more they are attacked. This is why Ron Paul gets the most insidious attacks of all: acting as if his ideas aren’t even worth thinking, let alone discussing.
        This also explains why their de facto (who is always the person they push for from beginning to end) was John McCain and is now Romney.
        Their line of thought is that if they can’t have their ideal liberal statist, they will attempt a favorable compromise on a “conservative” statist (basically Democrat-lite).

        1. I forgot to also add that because their de facto is basically a thinly veiled liberal, not only is he a favorable compromise, he also often fails to create much enthusiasm in true conservatives. This makes their ideal outcome of their ideal candidate winning that much more attainable.

    4. No, the CBS folks actually believe they “know” who has a chance at winning the nomination. And they use this as justification for who gets the most media time. This follows the premise that they are not shaping the debate by their coverage, but instead are following the mission of “shining the light” on those candidates that will most likely be running against Obama from President.

      It is for this reason that they are not covering Dr. Paul. It’s not that they think he is crazy (they might) or that they think he might get more voters if he gets more time (he might) or that if he won the nomination he might be Obama (he might)… is because they honestly believe that he is the only candidate in the field who can’t win, including Santorum. That’s why Gary Johnson is not at the debates even though he polls roughly with Santorum.

      In conclusion, CBS honestly believes they are doing their public duty as a media company by exposing those people who might be in power one day.

      1. This is my impression as well, based on the few journalists I’ve known.


    Here is a link to the pew research study which shows which candidates have been getting what amount of coverage.

  14. I think Paul has about a zero shot at getting elected, but I abso-fucking-lutely want him in there steering the “dialogue” in a more libertarian direction and maybe getting some people ask themselves, “Come to think of it, why DO we need the federal government sticking its nasty hairy Henry Waxman proboscis into every aspect of our lives?”

    1. Do not mention the Waxman. Please. The horror. The horror.

    2. nasty hairy Henry Waxman proboscis

      Well played. This made me laugh and recoil in disgust simultaneously.

    3. nasty hairy Henry Waxman proboscis

      That one statement just made this thread worse than the 2000 comment rather meltdown. The horror is right.

    4. nasty hairy Henry Waxman proboscis

      Is it prehensile, do you think?

      1. The nostrils can widen and clench to grasp objects, and, yes, even abstract concepts like freedom and common sense.

          1. Even Nyarlathotep fears the Waxman proboscis.

            1. And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic, tenebrous ultimate gods ? the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul is Waxman.

        1. all hail Nostrildamus.

      2. I hope not. That’s an image that’ll haunt my nightmares.

    5. Well, shit – there goes my libido.

      1. I’m sure a vodka soaked tampon will bring it right back.

  15. Paul might not have gotten a lot of time in that debate, but his supporters were dominating the chat room at cbs’ website, while spewing their rancid antisemitism.

    And surely bringing lots of folks into the fold, not.

    1. Seriously? Did you really just use not at the end of a sentence ? la Wayne’s World? You do realize that this article is related to the 2012 elections, not the 1992 election, right?

  16. Ron Paul for president. he is the only smart, honest man running. either ron paul wins, or we riot! i will not stand for a country that is run by war mongering, wallet hugging, ethically drained suits. we must all recognize the damage that has been done to our free, capitalistic society. when you get down to it, this upcoming election is not about republican vs. democrat, obama vs. the neo-cons (aside from ron paul), and it’s DEFINITELY not about obama vs. mitt romney (as the media would like the people to believe). this is the fight between freedom and slavery. people vs. government. capitalism vs. socialism. because let’s face it, we all like to yell in opposition when anyone suggests we are socialist. but how free are we really?

  17. reason citing infowars? what happened to you reason?

  18. Whether you agree with Ron Paul or not, the CBS moderators treated him shamefully. No way was this a fair debate with all candidates given equal time. By not doing so, CBS–as well as others in the past—seek by subterfuge to shape and direct public opinion by a strategy of omission. This is the antithesis of the spirit of free speech, and a step into Orwellian thought control.

    Ron Paul wants to end the unnecessary wars, foreign occupations, and promote free trade. He stands against the military industrial complex that profits off the lives our our troops who are sent in harms way for dubious goals. He wants to take back America from this neo-con nightmare of predator drones, water-boarding , and TSA molesters. He’s the only sane man on the stage. Let him speak, and let the American people decide, not CBS.

  19. Whether you agree with Ron Paul or not, the CBS moderators treated him shamefully. No way was this a fair debate with all candidates given equal time. By not doing so, CBS–as well as others in the past—seek by subterfuge to shape and direct public opinion by a strategy of omission. This is the antithesis of the spirit of free speech, and a step into Orwellian thought control.

    Ron Paul wants to end the unnecessary wars, foreign occupations, and promote free trade. He stands against the military industrial complex that profits off the lives our our troops who are sent in harms way for dubious goals. He wants to take back America from this neo-con nightmare of predator drones, water-boarding , and TSA molesters. He’s the only sane man on the stage. Let him speak, and let the American people decide, not CBS.

  20. Ron Paul simply doesn’t fit the story the news media wants to tell. In every election, there can only be two candidates, a Democrat and a Republican, and the Democrat must be a liberal (white hat), while the Republican must be a conservative (black hat). Similarly, there can only be two positions on any issue. Take for example foreign adventurism. In the news media story line, all Republicans want to deploy troops overseas and fight wars, and all Democrats want the opposite. In the minds of the news producers, having more than two candidates or more than two positions on an issue is too confusing for the audience. Unfortunately for Mr. Paul, he doesn’t fit into any of the neat boxes that the news media has created for political candidates, so they ignore him.

  21. “Ron Paul: 90 Seconds on SeeBS News”…..6213776730

    1. I like “CRBS”.

  22. “It literally made me sick watching the mainstream media once again silence the one sane voice in this election”

    It makes me sick watching Ron Paul’s campaign whine about how they’re being constantly ignored in the same breath they act like Gary Johnson either doesn’t exist or isn’t sane. The Gary Johnson media blackout and debate lockout has essentially given Ron Paul control of the libertarian vote. Ron Paul’s campaign naturally hasn’t discouraged this.

    If the media are scared of Ron Paul, they must be mortified by a candidate that actually could be a contender and would have broader appeal across the spectrum. As Johnson likely won’t be around by the time the Texas primaries roll around, I’ll probably be voting for Paul.

    1. Hey, we all like Gary, and honestly I hope he tries again I’d support him, but right now Ron is the best chance, it would make no sense to abandon Ron and go with Gary.

      1. And my point is that the only reason that is likely the case is because of the media blackout on Gary Johnson, which Ron Paul has tacitly endorsed with his silence. Newt called for Gary to be included in the debates, but Ron Paul has a vested interest in his exclusion. So he’ll gladly complain about his own mistreatment by the media, but his own campaign acts like Gary Johnson doesn’t even exist.

        If the wording had been “the only sane voice onstage” I would have agreed. But “in this election” distinctly writes Gary Johnson out of the conversation. This is even as Gary Johnson has given Paul accolades and said he’d be his VP if he gets the nomination. Until Paul’s campaign stops treating Johnson like a non-entity and calls for fair media treatment of ALL candidates, their complaints ring hollow to me.

        1. And one more thing, since for all intents and purposes it looks like Gary will be done after New Hampshire, I wonder how they think this rhetoric encourages us to automatically join their campaign.

  23. Why wouldn’t the media be giving RP’s foreign policy views even more coverage, hoping to create a, say, 25% support for him that could – if RP supporters refused to vote for the eventual nomineee – cause Obama to be re-elected? I would think they’d be giving RP more time and also reporting every slight and dirty trick aimed at him so as to rile up his supporters.
    I remember in 1964 how Rocky and Scranton got far more publicity than they “deserved” and every Goldwater supporters’ mean=spirited attack on them was front page news. Scranton/Rocky people were so disgusted they stayed home or voted for
    Lyndon (“I won’t send one American boy to fight for what Asian boys should be fighting for.”) Johnson.

  24. the one sane voice in this election

    Even the Ron Paul campaign ignores Gary Johnson. I’m sick of the whines about the blackout and lack of airtime when the media and RNC have deliberately excluded Gary Johnson. This is why RP is not getting any of my money this time around.

    1. Exactly. Double standards galore. I’ll vote for him if Gary’s not in the race still, but I won’t be exactly thrilled. Either you call for all candidates to be treated the same, or don’t complain when you aren’t. The Paul campaign is trying to have it both ways.

      1. I guess politics is a cutthroat business.But in a honesty Ron has stuck to his guns longer than some voters have been alive.The other candidates are astonished at how much money he receives any time he asks for it and why his fans are so devoted.That is an easy one.He does what he says and people like what he says.How many honest politicians can you count?

  25. There’s an argument to be made for giving less attention to fringe candidates, but this specific GOP field is so volatile that any debate host choosing to heavily focus on the ones who happen to be up in the polls at the moment is a disservice.

    1. How about equal time for ALL candidates?

      Oh, and Citizens United was brought about because some people made a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. Never forget that.

  26. Romney, Newt, Cain, or Obama, we don’t care. Look you all, we’re a comin’!

  27. It’s a given Pauls libertarian/constitutional stances have a limited appeal but it’s not lyndon larouche limited. Serious percentages are flocking to him and not abandoning him. The GOP will not win the election without atleast half of them and treating like Paul like shut is not helPing their cause. There needs to be some serious movement in direction regarding Pauls treatment if the GOP has a chance in hell of winnIng. I will simply not vote for Romney or Gingrich with their current positions.

  28. gary johnson wants to keep guantanamo open, maintain all but 2 fed agencies, maintain foreign aid at a reduced level, replace the IRS with fairtax and claims qualified support of “humanitarian wars”. gitmo alone makes him not a libertarian by any definition i would accept

  29. I just wrote an in-depth article on my blog about this, with times and breakdowns.

    Absolutely unacceptable media bias. Paul is now polling first in Iowa behind a rapidly declining Cain.

    The? people will be heard.

  30. Hi Everyone,

    The RNC has been complicit in the marginalization of Dr. Paul, as well as the media blackout. We all know this. I have set up a little website to bring attention to this fact and to help Dr. Paul. It is not the kind of thing he would do (in fact he couldn’t even acknowledge it without being summarily expelled from the GOP), but it IS the kind of thing I would do, ESPECIALLY after the last debate where Dr. Paul got a whole 90 seconds to speak. This must stop and by God it WILL stop, and YOU’RE going to help me stop it!

    Go to and sign up please, and spread the word. I set up the site myself it has no ads and no profit, just a labor of love in defense of Dr. Paul.

  31. “When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.”
    -Jonathan Swift

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.