ronpaulordietrying
06-02-2011, 05:34 PM
Hey guys, I am new here so sorry If I am breaking a rule please grant me leniency. I discovered Ron Paul just after the 2008 election and I am working hard to spread the word, I have created a post on another forum using resources from this forum here (apologize in advance if someone is upset I copied some stuff from here), but anyway you guys are all free to use this post on internet forums, I will post the bbcode below...you can find the thread at the following url:
I could use your help as I am new to campaigning for Ron Paul, any editing tips or ideas are highly appreciated,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx_tKum1l6I&feature=related
In this thread I will lay out the media spin against Ron Paul, I will attack the spin directly by posting video links each day of new videos with a short description discrediting their information. If you'd like to post other ron paul conspiracy theories I will do my best to disprove your theories. There is nothing wrong if you disagree with Ron Paul, some disagree with him on certain issues, namely abortion, but I have made it my mission to discredit all the media spin on Ron Paul since it is so blatantly obvious to me, I also feel it is very important that Ron Paul gets elected for 2012 so this is why I am posting this on this site and others to help educate the public because much of the media sure isn't helping Ron Paul's case.
This video illustrates a portion of the smear campaign well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jZTd9j6_yg&hd=1
Fellow Ron Paul supporters feel free to join me in my effort in discrediting the smear campaign, I'm only one man.
Additionally I will be posting new Ron Paul Articles and Videos of quality as they are released.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsLf_IocQEE
1) Ron Paul's free market does not equal corporate takeover.
FREE MARKET ECONOMY DOES EQUATE TO PROMOTION OF FRAUD, FRAUD IS ILLEGAL.
Ron Paul discusses his free market philosophy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx9aRgibY6c
Why monopolies are impossible in a truly free market economy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE9NGOgdrIo
Ron Paul schools fed chairman Ben Bernake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=booc5gEbVd8
It is disingenuous to equate opposition to regulation with promoting fraud. Fraud is illegal, as it should be, and I have little doubt that Ron Paul would be of the same position. However, to support peremptory regulation of fraud goes against the basic ideals of our legal system – innocent until proven guilty – and as Dr. Paul states, is burdensome on business.
To widen the debate, supporting this type of regulation opens a can of worms. How do we determine what to regulate and what not to regulate? Using the reasoning behind Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, there are almost limitless actions that could be required of businesses in order to prevent fraud.
“The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch-- Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference-- that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.”
Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear “experts” wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation. In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.
It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient. It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating. They are making their best guesses when formulating rules. It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow. Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void. For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.
The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates. Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats. They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe. How many scams have “It’s perfectly legal” as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible?
Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested. It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement. Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education. After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test. But, this does not guarantee educational excellence. Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life.
Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is? Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it? I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case. Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.
These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy. With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes. The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.
Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it.
Ron Paul is not only a Doctor but also a student of Economics. He founded the F.R.E.E. Foundation (The Foundation for Rational Economics and Education) as a vehicle to increase understanding of the economic principles of a free-market society. Dr. Paul has been speaking out against the Government for its financial mismanagement and wasteful spending for years only to be marginalized and ignored not only by his colleagues in Washington but also by the Main Stream Media. Things in America are so bad now that people are finally starting to listen especially because he has been making these predictions years before they come to fruition. We need a strong, knowledgeable President who can lead us out of this disaster as our economy is on the brink of collapse and Dr. Ron Paul is that Leader!
2) Ron Paul IS NOT a threat to the National Defense (only national offense).
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY VETERAN RUNNING!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnAA0kiYFsc
I oppose the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war.
Ron Paul is not a dangerous threat to United States and the American way of life, Ron Paul is not a terrorist. GET REAL. With Ron Pauls Ideas we all prosper and big brother loses.
If, and thats a big IF, If Ron Paul gets the Nomination, then the truth will be told by his constituents and all republicans, The smear campaign will have a strong advocate, at that point its over for Obama, its over for the crooks aka big brother, we win.
Please Register as a republican and vote for Ron Paul
3) Ron Paul is a Republican
as Ronald Reagan said of Congressman Paul back in 1978, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
This is the truth America, Ron Paul is not a Terrorist, Ron Paul Is a real republican, a real public servant.
Tell them the truth about Ron Paul who is a great republican, a real republican, As Reagan said "Libertarianism is at the heart of the republican party".
The veterans stand behind Ron Paul, fact.
Ron Paul is the only Canidate who was spoken of by Ronald Regan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg
4) Ron Paul is not a Racist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk7qiY-aoiQ
Ron Paul has been accused of being a racist on two occasions, the first is time a ghost writer posing as Ron Paul in the first person gave 4 quotes which some might consider Racist. These quotes are not from the mouth of Ron Paul but you will see them most likely group together like this:
If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Someone Posing as Ron Paul in an editorial 1992
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Someone Posing as Ron Paul in an editorial 1992
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Someone Posing as Ron Paul in an editorial 1992
"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" - Someone Posing as Ron Paul in an editorial 1992
PRESIDENT OF THE NAACP HAD THIS TO SAY ABOUT RON PAUL
"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added. Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.
Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.
"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.
"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.
"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.
Click here to listen to the MP3 interview.
The quotes have been widely denounced as fake by many organizations and lawyers, a simple Google search will give you some examples.
The second time Ron Paul was considered a Racist was in this recent speech:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
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. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
How this speech is misinterpreted as racism: In this speech Ron Paul is saying that the civil rights act was poorly written because it infringed on our constitutional rights in several ways, he praises the fact that it eliminated segregation but he believes that segregation could of been eliminated without violating the constitution.
Please understand that it is true the media does have an agenda against Ron Paul as there is an inordinate amount of negative spin about Ron Paul, I have only covered the major smear
campaigns in this thread but there are many more. Here is some examples of media deliberately
making Ron Paul look bad:
Ron Paul excluded from Fox News "12 in 2012" series of GOP presidential candidates (Week of 11/15/2010):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...64&postcount=1
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...ns-president/#
Quinnipiac national poll includes 8 GOP candidates for 2012; excludes Ron Paul (11/22/2010):
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1538
Ron Paul called "nut" and "Martian" on CNN's John King show regarding Wikileaks comments (12/3/2010):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV_Q8WFB9Bw
New York Times and CBS News state that Ron Paul got "less than 2%" in the 2008 primary - actual number was 5.6% (12/13/2010):
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/us...ewanted=2&_r=2
http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/12...ident-in-2012/
PPP: Ron Paul leads the "second-tier candidates" despite being just 2% behind "first-tier" candidate Gingrich (12/13/2010):
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot....n-numbers.html
New York Times previews CPAC; fails to mention Ron Paul, Rand Paul (2/8/2011):
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-at-2012-cpac/
Fox News commissions poll for 2012 primary; includes 14 candidates, but not Ron Paul (2/9/2011)
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...ection_web.pdf
CBS News defines Paul's foreign policy as "isolationism" (2/11/2011)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...02-503544.html
Politico gives Ron Paul's CPAC speech a "C" - lowest grade of any potential candidate (2/11/2011):
http://www.politico.com/2012-electio...port_card.html
Carrie Dann of MSNBC: Paul "almost certainly lacks campaign organization", before campaign has even started (2/11/2011):
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ac-straw-poll-
Joe Klein of Time Magazine called Paul 'isolationist', slams his 'opt-out' offer (2/12/2011):
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011...ther-red-meat/
Washington Post considers Ron Paul a CPAC loser, despite straw poll victory (2/13/2011):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021301463.html
CNN: Romney's win "vaulted" his campaign into top tier in 2008; Ron Paul's win "dilutes" the significance of CPAC (2/14/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC5gKOtZ1fA
Rush Limbaugh claims that Ron Paul "bused his people in," and "will not be the Republican nominee" (2/14/2011):
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201102140016
Kevin McCullough of Fox News: "Disrespectful Libertarians Hijack CPAC poll -- And Its Mission" (2/14/2011):
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...-poll-mission/
Fox News plays unfavorable 2010 CPAC Straw Poll Reaction, Asks Congressman 'Who Was Booing You?' (2/14/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwo0Iyrh1Zk
TIME: Calls Paul 'too extreme', 'isolationist', and warns that he 'can expect criticism' for 'disparaging comments about African Americans and gays' (2/16/2011):
http://www.time.com/time/specials/pa...048851,00.html
Politico: Congressmen "absent" from 2012 rance - mentions Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, but not Ron Paul (2/23/2011):
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50023.html
Washington Times (the "conservative" DC paper) online: "Earth to Paulbots: You Are Irrelevant" (2/25/2011):
http://communities.washingtontimes.c...re-irrelevant/
AP Story on 2012 mentions 9 potential candidates, but not Ron Paul (3/8/2011):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110308/...id_first_steps
Washington Post excludes Ron Paul from GOP primary poll; 8 candidates included (3/16/2011):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...a_graphic.html
Politico article on Tea Party's 2012 role fails to mention Ron Paul (4/6/2011):
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52629.html
9 candidates included, Ron Paul excluded from WSJ/NBC national poll (4/6/2011):
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/0...rump-surprise/
National Journal's "Meet the GOP's Potential Candidates" highlights 10 candidates, not Ron Paul (4/21/2011):
http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictu...dates-20110421
Politico summarizes NH poll that includes Ron Paul without mentioning him (4/22/2011):
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53570.html
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM19...fthestate.html
Capitol Hill Blue: "Ron Paul prepares another long-shot run for the White House" - extremely biased (4/26/2011):
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/40580
Rush Limbaugh looking for "Bold GOP Leader" to run in 2012; names 5 potential candidates, omits the Pauls (4/26/2011):
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...108.guest.html
David Horowitz falsely claims "Ron Paul would open America's doors to Sharia" (4/29/2011):
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/29/1-69/
New York Times: "Republicans Pursuing a Wider Field" - names 12 candidates, not Ron Paul (5/1/2011):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/us...s.html?_r=1&hp
Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone: Ron Paul's constitutionalist rhetoric a "convenient mask for racial-resentment politics (5/3/2011):
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-paul-20110502
LA Times on South Carolina debate: Pawlenty the "only top tier candidate expected to appear" despite Paul polling higher (5/3/2011):
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may...ebate-20110503
Fox News previews their own debate: Mentions every participating candidate except Ron Paul (5/4/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFMSL2wuAys
New York Times spins Paul's heroin response, saying Paul "brought up the issue" (5/5/2011):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/us...s.html?_r=2&hp
Chris Malagisi (CPAC Chair) of Washington Examiner: "Ron Paul wins the Democrat Presidential Debate" (5/6/2011):
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...debate-oh-wait
Byron York of Washington Examiner reviews South Carolina debate without mentioning Ron Paul (5/6/2011):
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...antorum-scores
CNN's Howard Kurtz calls Ron Paul a "sideshow" (5/8/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdtX3MAgpzw
WMUR TV9 in New Hampshire, hosts of the CNN GOP debate, leave Ron Paul off list of linked candidates (5/8/2011):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ong-candidates
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._6245284_n.jpg
AP runs down those who have entered the GOP race, excludes Ron Paul (5/9/2011):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110510/...s_gingrich2012
Michael Gerson of Washington Post: "Ron Paul's Land of Second Rate Values (5/9/2011):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...2bG_story.html
Brent Budowsky of The Hill: "Ron Paul's godless goddess of greed, Ayn Rand" (hit piece) (5/10/2011):
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...greed-ayn-rand
NBC Nightly News piece on the 2012 GOP race takes clips out of context and other shenanigans (5/11/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jmPwIRjX90
Don Imus: Ron Paul is "a loser" who is not worthy to appear on Fox News Sunday (5/12/2011):
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/46909...ox-news-sunday
Media Research Center reviews questions asked to Paul on his "Good Morning America" appearance (5/13/2011):
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20...medium=twitter
LA Times blog: "Who cares that he's seeking the Republican nomination?" (5/13/2011):
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla...54324a37b5970c
George Stephanopoulos repeatedly spins the truth on Ron Paul in his blog (5/13/2011):
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011...n-paul.html#tp
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...view-blog-spin
David Horowitz falsely claims "Ron Paul would open America's doors to Sharia" (4/29/2011):
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/29/1-69/
New York Times: "Republicans Pursuing a Wider Field" - names 12 candidates, not Ron Paul (5/1/2011):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/us...s.html?_r=1&hp
Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone: Ron Paul's constitutionalist rhetoric a "convenient mask for racial-resentment politics (5/3/2011):
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-paul-20110502
LA Times on South Carolina debate: Pawlenty the "only top tier candidate expected to appear" despite Paul polling higher (5/3/2011):
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may...ebate-20110503
Fox News previews their own debate: Mentions every participating candidate except Ron Paul (5/4/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFMSL2wuAys
New York Times spins Paul's heroin response, saying Paul "brought up the issue" (5/5/2011):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/us...s.html?_r=2&hp
Chris Malagisi (CPAC Chair) of Washington Examiner: "Ron Paul wins the Democrat Presidential Debate" (5/6/2011):
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...debate-oh-wait
Byron York of Washington Examiner reviews South Carolina debate without mentioning Ron Paul (5/6/2011):
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...antorum-scores
CNN's Howard Kurtz calls Ron Paul a "sideshow" (5/8/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdtX3MAgpzw
WMUR TV9 in New Hampshire, hosts of the CNN GOP debate, leave Ron Paul off list of linked candidates (5/8/2011):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ong-candidates
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._6245284_n.jpg
AP runs down those who have entered the GOP race, excludes Ron Paul (5/9/2011):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110510/...s_gingrich2012
Michael Gerson of Washington Post: "Ron Paul's Land of Second Rate Values (5/9/2011):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...2bG_story.html
Brent Budowsky of The Hill: "Ron Paul's godless goddess of greed, Ayn Rand" (hit piece) (5/10/2011):
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...greed-ayn-rand
NBC Nightly News piece on the 2012 GOP race takes clips out of context and other shenanigans (5/11/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jmPwIRjX90
Don Imus: Ron Paul is "a loser" who is not worthy to appear on Fox News Sunday (5/12/2011):
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/46909...ox-news-sunday
Media Research Center reviews questions asked to Paul on his "Good Morning America" appearance (5/13/2011):
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20...medium=twitter
LA Times blog: "Who cares that he's seeking the Republican nomination?" (5/13/2011):
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla...54324a37b5970c
George Stephanopoulos repeatedly spins the truth on Ron Paul in his blog (5/13/2011):
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011...n-paul.html#tp
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...view-blog-spin
Rush Limbaugh looking for "Bold GOP Leader" to run in 2012; names 5 potential candidates, omits the Pauls (4/26/2011):
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...108.guest.html
Capitol Hill Blue: "Ron Paul prepares another long-shot run for the White House" - extremely biased (4/26/2011):
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/40580
National Journal's "Meet the GOP's Potential Candidates" highlights 10 candidates, not Ron Paul (4/21/2011):
http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictu...dates-20110421
Politico summarizes NH poll that includes Ron Paul without mentioning him (4/22/2011):
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53570.html
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM19...fthestate.html
Fox News plays unfavorable 2010 CPAC Straw Poll Reaction, Asks Congressman 'Who Was Booing You?' (2/14/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwo0Iyrh1Zk
Charles Krauthammer gives his spin on Ron Paul with Bill O'reilly Feb. 15 2011..
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreill...ylist_id=86923
New York Times previews CPAC; fails to mention Ron Paul, Rand Paul (2/8/2011):
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-at-2012-cpac/
Fox News commissions poll for 2012 primary; includes 14 candidates, but not Ron Paul (2/9/2011)
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...ection_web.pdf
CBS News defines Paul's foreign policy as "isolationism" (2/11/2011)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...02-503544.html
Politico gives Ron Paul's CPAC speech a "C" - lowest grade of any potential candidate (2/11/2011):
http://www.politico.com/2012-electio...port_card.html
Carrie Dann of MSNBC: Paul "almost certainly lacks campaign organization", before campaign has even started (2/11/2011):
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ac-straw-poll-
Joe Klein of Time Magazine called Paul 'isolationist', slams his 'opt-out' offer (2/12/2011):
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011...ther-red-meat/
Washington Post considers Ron Paul a CPAC loser, despite straw poll victory (2/13/2011):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021301463.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV6e0ioWE-U
I could use your help as I am new to campaigning for Ron Paul, any editing tips or ideas are highly appreciated,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx_tKum1l6I&feature=related
In this thread I will lay out the media spin against Ron Paul, I will attack the spin directly by posting video links each day of new videos with a short description discrediting their information. If you'd like to post other ron paul conspiracy theories I will do my best to disprove your theories. There is nothing wrong if you disagree with Ron Paul, some disagree with him on certain issues, namely abortion, but I have made it my mission to discredit all the media spin on Ron Paul since it is so blatantly obvious to me, I also feel it is very important that Ron Paul gets elected for 2012 so this is why I am posting this on this site and others to help educate the public because much of the media sure isn't helping Ron Paul's case.
This video illustrates a portion of the smear campaign well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jZTd9j6_yg&hd=1
Fellow Ron Paul supporters feel free to join me in my effort in discrediting the smear campaign, I'm only one man.
Additionally I will be posting new Ron Paul Articles and Videos of quality as they are released.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsLf_IocQEE
1) Ron Paul's free market does not equal corporate takeover.
FREE MARKET ECONOMY DOES EQUATE TO PROMOTION OF FRAUD, FRAUD IS ILLEGAL.
Ron Paul discusses his free market philosophy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx9aRgibY6c
Why monopolies are impossible in a truly free market economy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE9NGOgdrIo
Ron Paul schools fed chairman Ben Bernake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=booc5gEbVd8
It is disingenuous to equate opposition to regulation with promoting fraud. Fraud is illegal, as it should be, and I have little doubt that Ron Paul would be of the same position. However, to support peremptory regulation of fraud goes against the basic ideals of our legal system – innocent until proven guilty – and as Dr. Paul states, is burdensome on business.
To widen the debate, supporting this type of regulation opens a can of worms. How do we determine what to regulate and what not to regulate? Using the reasoning behind Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, there are almost limitless actions that could be required of businesses in order to prevent fraud.
“The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch-- Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference-- that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.”
Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear “experts” wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation. In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.
It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient. It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating. They are making their best guesses when formulating rules. It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow. Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void. For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.
The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates. Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats. They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe. How many scams have “It’s perfectly legal” as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible?
Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested. It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement. Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education. After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test. But, this does not guarantee educational excellence. Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life.
Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is? Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it? I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case. Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.
These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy. With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes. The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.
Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it.
Ron Paul is not only a Doctor but also a student of Economics. He founded the F.R.E.E. Foundation (The Foundation for Rational Economics and Education) as a vehicle to increase understanding of the economic principles of a free-market society. Dr. Paul has been speaking out against the Government for its financial mismanagement and wasteful spending for years only to be marginalized and ignored not only by his colleagues in Washington but also by the Main Stream Media. Things in America are so bad now that people are finally starting to listen especially because he has been making these predictions years before they come to fruition. We need a strong, knowledgeable President who can lead us out of this disaster as our economy is on the brink of collapse and Dr. Ron Paul is that Leader!
2) Ron Paul IS NOT a threat to the National Defense (only national offense).
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY VETERAN RUNNING!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnAA0kiYFsc
I oppose the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war.
Ron Paul is not a dangerous threat to United States and the American way of life, Ron Paul is not a terrorist. GET REAL. With Ron Pauls Ideas we all prosper and big brother loses.
If, and thats a big IF, If Ron Paul gets the Nomination, then the truth will be told by his constituents and all republicans, The smear campaign will have a strong advocate, at that point its over for Obama, its over for the crooks aka big brother, we win.
Please Register as a republican and vote for Ron Paul
3) Ron Paul is a Republican
as Ronald Reagan said of Congressman Paul back in 1978, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
This is the truth America, Ron Paul is not a Terrorist, Ron Paul Is a real republican, a real public servant.
Tell them the truth about Ron Paul who is a great republican, a real republican, As Reagan said "Libertarianism is at the heart of the republican party".
The veterans stand behind Ron Paul, fact.
Ron Paul is the only Canidate who was spoken of by Ronald Regan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg
4) Ron Paul is not a Racist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk7qiY-aoiQ
Ron Paul has been accused of being a racist on two occasions, the first is time a ghost writer posing as Ron Paul in the first person gave 4 quotes which some might consider Racist. These quotes are not from the mouth of Ron Paul but you will see them most likely group together like this:
If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Someone Posing as Ron Paul in an editorial 1992
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Someone Posing as Ron Paul in an editorial 1992
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Someone Posing as Ron Paul in an editorial 1992
"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" - Someone Posing as Ron Paul in an editorial 1992
PRESIDENT OF THE NAACP HAD THIS TO SAY ABOUT RON PAUL
"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added. Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.
Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.
"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.
"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.
"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.
Click here to listen to the MP3 interview.
The quotes have been widely denounced as fake by many organizations and lawyers, a simple Google search will give you some examples.
The second time Ron Paul was considered a Racist was in this recent speech:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
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. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
How this speech is misinterpreted as racism: In this speech Ron Paul is saying that the civil rights act was poorly written because it infringed on our constitutional rights in several ways, he praises the fact that it eliminated segregation but he believes that segregation could of been eliminated without violating the constitution.
Please understand that it is true the media does have an agenda against Ron Paul as there is an inordinate amount of negative spin about Ron Paul, I have only covered the major smear
campaigns in this thread but there are many more. Here is some examples of media deliberately
making Ron Paul look bad:
Ron Paul excluded from Fox News "12 in 2012" series of GOP presidential candidates (Week of 11/15/2010):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...64&postcount=1
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...ns-president/#
Quinnipiac national poll includes 8 GOP candidates for 2012; excludes Ron Paul (11/22/2010):
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1538
Ron Paul called "nut" and "Martian" on CNN's John King show regarding Wikileaks comments (12/3/2010):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV_Q8WFB9Bw
New York Times and CBS News state that Ron Paul got "less than 2%" in the 2008 primary - actual number was 5.6% (12/13/2010):
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/us...ewanted=2&_r=2
http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/12...ident-in-2012/
PPP: Ron Paul leads the "second-tier candidates" despite being just 2% behind "first-tier" candidate Gingrich (12/13/2010):
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot....n-numbers.html
New York Times previews CPAC; fails to mention Ron Paul, Rand Paul (2/8/2011):
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-at-2012-cpac/
Fox News commissions poll for 2012 primary; includes 14 candidates, but not Ron Paul (2/9/2011)
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...ection_web.pdf
CBS News defines Paul's foreign policy as "isolationism" (2/11/2011)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...02-503544.html
Politico gives Ron Paul's CPAC speech a "C" - lowest grade of any potential candidate (2/11/2011):
http://www.politico.com/2012-electio...port_card.html
Carrie Dann of MSNBC: Paul "almost certainly lacks campaign organization", before campaign has even started (2/11/2011):
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ac-straw-poll-
Joe Klein of Time Magazine called Paul 'isolationist', slams his 'opt-out' offer (2/12/2011):
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011...ther-red-meat/
Washington Post considers Ron Paul a CPAC loser, despite straw poll victory (2/13/2011):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021301463.html
CNN: Romney's win "vaulted" his campaign into top tier in 2008; Ron Paul's win "dilutes" the significance of CPAC (2/14/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC5gKOtZ1fA
Rush Limbaugh claims that Ron Paul "bused his people in," and "will not be the Republican nominee" (2/14/2011):
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201102140016
Kevin McCullough of Fox News: "Disrespectful Libertarians Hijack CPAC poll -- And Its Mission" (2/14/2011):
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...-poll-mission/
Fox News plays unfavorable 2010 CPAC Straw Poll Reaction, Asks Congressman 'Who Was Booing You?' (2/14/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwo0Iyrh1Zk
TIME: Calls Paul 'too extreme', 'isolationist', and warns that he 'can expect criticism' for 'disparaging comments about African Americans and gays' (2/16/2011):
http://www.time.com/time/specials/pa...048851,00.html
Politico: Congressmen "absent" from 2012 rance - mentions Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, but not Ron Paul (2/23/2011):
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50023.html
Washington Times (the "conservative" DC paper) online: "Earth to Paulbots: You Are Irrelevant" (2/25/2011):
http://communities.washingtontimes.c...re-irrelevant/
AP Story on 2012 mentions 9 potential candidates, but not Ron Paul (3/8/2011):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110308/...id_first_steps
Washington Post excludes Ron Paul from GOP primary poll; 8 candidates included (3/16/2011):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...a_graphic.html
Politico article on Tea Party's 2012 role fails to mention Ron Paul (4/6/2011):
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52629.html
9 candidates included, Ron Paul excluded from WSJ/NBC national poll (4/6/2011):
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/0...rump-surprise/
National Journal's "Meet the GOP's Potential Candidates" highlights 10 candidates, not Ron Paul (4/21/2011):
http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictu...dates-20110421
Politico summarizes NH poll that includes Ron Paul without mentioning him (4/22/2011):
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53570.html
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM19...fthestate.html
Capitol Hill Blue: "Ron Paul prepares another long-shot run for the White House" - extremely biased (4/26/2011):
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/40580
Rush Limbaugh looking for "Bold GOP Leader" to run in 2012; names 5 potential candidates, omits the Pauls (4/26/2011):
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...108.guest.html
David Horowitz falsely claims "Ron Paul would open America's doors to Sharia" (4/29/2011):
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/29/1-69/
New York Times: "Republicans Pursuing a Wider Field" - names 12 candidates, not Ron Paul (5/1/2011):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/us...s.html?_r=1&hp
Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone: Ron Paul's constitutionalist rhetoric a "convenient mask for racial-resentment politics (5/3/2011):
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-paul-20110502
LA Times on South Carolina debate: Pawlenty the "only top tier candidate expected to appear" despite Paul polling higher (5/3/2011):
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may...ebate-20110503
Fox News previews their own debate: Mentions every participating candidate except Ron Paul (5/4/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFMSL2wuAys
New York Times spins Paul's heroin response, saying Paul "brought up the issue" (5/5/2011):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/us...s.html?_r=2&hp
Chris Malagisi (CPAC Chair) of Washington Examiner: "Ron Paul wins the Democrat Presidential Debate" (5/6/2011):
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...debate-oh-wait
Byron York of Washington Examiner reviews South Carolina debate without mentioning Ron Paul (5/6/2011):
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...antorum-scores
CNN's Howard Kurtz calls Ron Paul a "sideshow" (5/8/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdtX3MAgpzw
WMUR TV9 in New Hampshire, hosts of the CNN GOP debate, leave Ron Paul off list of linked candidates (5/8/2011):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ong-candidates
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._6245284_n.jpg
AP runs down those who have entered the GOP race, excludes Ron Paul (5/9/2011):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110510/...s_gingrich2012
Michael Gerson of Washington Post: "Ron Paul's Land of Second Rate Values (5/9/2011):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...2bG_story.html
Brent Budowsky of The Hill: "Ron Paul's godless goddess of greed, Ayn Rand" (hit piece) (5/10/2011):
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...greed-ayn-rand
NBC Nightly News piece on the 2012 GOP race takes clips out of context and other shenanigans (5/11/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jmPwIRjX90
Don Imus: Ron Paul is "a loser" who is not worthy to appear on Fox News Sunday (5/12/2011):
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/46909...ox-news-sunday
Media Research Center reviews questions asked to Paul on his "Good Morning America" appearance (5/13/2011):
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20...medium=twitter
LA Times blog: "Who cares that he's seeking the Republican nomination?" (5/13/2011):
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla...54324a37b5970c
George Stephanopoulos repeatedly spins the truth on Ron Paul in his blog (5/13/2011):
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011...n-paul.html#tp
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...view-blog-spin
David Horowitz falsely claims "Ron Paul would open America's doors to Sharia" (4/29/2011):
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/29/1-69/
New York Times: "Republicans Pursuing a Wider Field" - names 12 candidates, not Ron Paul (5/1/2011):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/us...s.html?_r=1&hp
Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone: Ron Paul's constitutionalist rhetoric a "convenient mask for racial-resentment politics (5/3/2011):
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-paul-20110502
LA Times on South Carolina debate: Pawlenty the "only top tier candidate expected to appear" despite Paul polling higher (5/3/2011):
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may...ebate-20110503
Fox News previews their own debate: Mentions every participating candidate except Ron Paul (5/4/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFMSL2wuAys
New York Times spins Paul's heroin response, saying Paul "brought up the issue" (5/5/2011):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/us...s.html?_r=2&hp
Chris Malagisi (CPAC Chair) of Washington Examiner: "Ron Paul wins the Democrat Presidential Debate" (5/6/2011):
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...debate-oh-wait
Byron York of Washington Examiner reviews South Carolina debate without mentioning Ron Paul (5/6/2011):
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...antorum-scores
CNN's Howard Kurtz calls Ron Paul a "sideshow" (5/8/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdtX3MAgpzw
WMUR TV9 in New Hampshire, hosts of the CNN GOP debate, leave Ron Paul off list of linked candidates (5/8/2011):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ong-candidates
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._6245284_n.jpg
AP runs down those who have entered the GOP race, excludes Ron Paul (5/9/2011):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110510/...s_gingrich2012
Michael Gerson of Washington Post: "Ron Paul's Land of Second Rate Values (5/9/2011):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...2bG_story.html
Brent Budowsky of The Hill: "Ron Paul's godless goddess of greed, Ayn Rand" (hit piece) (5/10/2011):
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...greed-ayn-rand
NBC Nightly News piece on the 2012 GOP race takes clips out of context and other shenanigans (5/11/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jmPwIRjX90
Don Imus: Ron Paul is "a loser" who is not worthy to appear on Fox News Sunday (5/12/2011):
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/46909...ox-news-sunday
Media Research Center reviews questions asked to Paul on his "Good Morning America" appearance (5/13/2011):
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20...medium=twitter
LA Times blog: "Who cares that he's seeking the Republican nomination?" (5/13/2011):
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla...54324a37b5970c
George Stephanopoulos repeatedly spins the truth on Ron Paul in his blog (5/13/2011):
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011...n-paul.html#tp
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...view-blog-spin
Rush Limbaugh looking for "Bold GOP Leader" to run in 2012; names 5 potential candidates, omits the Pauls (4/26/2011):
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...108.guest.html
Capitol Hill Blue: "Ron Paul prepares another long-shot run for the White House" - extremely biased (4/26/2011):
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/40580
National Journal's "Meet the GOP's Potential Candidates" highlights 10 candidates, not Ron Paul (4/21/2011):
http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictu...dates-20110421
Politico summarizes NH poll that includes Ron Paul without mentioning him (4/22/2011):
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53570.html
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM19...fthestate.html
Fox News plays unfavorable 2010 CPAC Straw Poll Reaction, Asks Congressman 'Who Was Booing You?' (2/14/2011):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwo0Iyrh1Zk
Charles Krauthammer gives his spin on Ron Paul with Bill O'reilly Feb. 15 2011..
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreill...ylist_id=86923
New York Times previews CPAC; fails to mention Ron Paul, Rand Paul (2/8/2011):
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-at-2012-cpac/
Fox News commissions poll for 2012 primary; includes 14 candidates, but not Ron Paul (2/9/2011)
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...ection_web.pdf
CBS News defines Paul's foreign policy as "isolationism" (2/11/2011)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...02-503544.html
Politico gives Ron Paul's CPAC speech a "C" - lowest grade of any potential candidate (2/11/2011):
http://www.politico.com/2012-electio...port_card.html
Carrie Dann of MSNBC: Paul "almost certainly lacks campaign organization", before campaign has even started (2/11/2011):
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ac-straw-poll-
Joe Klein of Time Magazine called Paul 'isolationist', slams his 'opt-out' offer (2/12/2011):
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011...ther-red-meat/
Washington Post considers Ron Paul a CPAC loser, despite straw poll victory (2/13/2011):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021301463.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV6e0ioWE-U