Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama: Why Has the Media Forgiven One But Not the Other?

Blackberry Jon Hunstman gets way too much credit. And he wasn't shut out at all. He got more coverage than he deserved, with pretty much all of it incredibly positive. But the man sucked as a candidate. He makes Al Gore and Mitt Romney look like personality rock stars. I don't agree with what Ron Paul is about, but he does have a certain charisma, is good at debating, and knows how to talk to people. Huntsman was just a terrible candidate. If anyone hasn't gotten a fair amount of coverage in comparison to their standing in the polls, it's Ron Paul. Hunstman could barely break ONE PERCENT and he was always all over the media. And even VOGUE did a huge spread on him and his family. All that with one percent in the polls.

Kels Hey .....huntsman and Paul are two different beasts. My point about Huntsman was that in some ways he way equally a long shot as Bachmann or Cain yet there press was not equal. Huntsman did not poll well during the primary, but did Poll well with voters of all political affiliations .... It would have been great to see some analysis about electability during both the general and the primary election process.... But he was unlikely to ever win.

Paul: I tried to put some links here, but there is just too many. A quick YouTube search for news clips "Ron Paul ignored" and you'll see what I mean. Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll, Paul came in second and Pawlenty came and third. The next day politico announced that Bachmann won and Pawlenty was third....Paul's second place finish didn't make the news! There are countless more examples of this. Whether or not the news outlet thinks Paul will win had not bearing on whether or not the report how well he places, especially when the news is willing to discuss people polling well below Paul.

I'm a democrat and so do not vote in the republican primary, but the media cannot simply ignore Ron Paul. Who knows maybe if he got more coverage the outcome might change. Last I checked media outlets were still subject to the equal time rule.

delondrea7 Let me be very clear: I abhor racism and antisemitism. Please do not engage me any further.

Actually President Obama mentioned many of those "ever wonders" in his state of the Union address. Most of those problems are systemic and not easily resolved. Everyone knows they are problems but not how to fix them. Every once in a while, some "outsider" like H. Ross Perot or Ron Paul comes around and many people think that he is the answer to our problems. The fact is, Ron Paul can say what he wants because he isn't really trying to get elected. Those candidates who actually are trying to get elected have to deal with the real problems of governing and working with competing interests. Ron Paul will never get elected and therefore will never disappoint his followers.

Brice Cameron In other words, he's the right's Dennis Kucinich.

Obama's past includes a frightening alliance with Weatherman leader Bill Ayers and ACORN that the media has largely ignored, with full knowledge and substantial proof how damning the evidence is for one who would have power in America. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html. It speaks volumes as to why Obama is creating divisions by pandering to select groups while diminishing others, signing NDAA legislation putting Americans at risk, assaulting Christian religious groups under the guise of contraception issues and the backdoor fraud of Fluke, his lack of dedication to genuine attempts at diplomacy with Iran and his continuance of wars counter to his repeated campaign pledges, his 'no problem' attitude of killing Americans without due process, circumventing Congress and getting UN nod for undeclared action in Libya, and the list goes on and on and on. Historical grade reduction of our national credit rating, greatest debt load on Americans in history, longest period in history without a budget - Obama couldn't destroy the foundation under America with more focused effort than if our military turned on the People, which is allowable under his administration now, signature statement smokescreen aside. Is it any wonder many chant 'anybody but obama'? This power grab cannot be allowed to go on any further. The man posing as one 'versed' in the Constitution knows best only how to undermine it. He can't be removed fast enough. Ron Paul is everything Obama is not. Oh, and racist? Obama is the leader of the racist Democratic Party - the historical and present day racists. They simply hide their racism behind a mask of benevolence. http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/11/history-of-the-democrat-party-video/

Truth is tyranny in the empire of lies. Ron Paul 2012!     

and he is for whites only

Jay from Philly

I guess some of us take exception to his version of what it is:

Here are bits of his newsletter:

'A December 1989 newsletter quoted by James Kirchick in the New Republic predicted "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.' "'

'"I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."'

'“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.”'

'“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions,”'

'Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.'

'Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came "out of the closet," & started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?'

'...I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.'

'Aside from his racist newsletters, Kirchick notes that in 1994, Paul predicted a "holocaust" against South African whites and then advocated for a separate white state in South Africa. Kirchick also says Paul seemed to support the same thing in America.'

The Democratic Party is racism - hiding behind a mask of benevolence. http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/11/history-of-the-democrat-party-video/

I support Ron Paul and I do not believe Rev Wright is racist nor has he made any racist statements in any of the numerous videos and television interviews and commentary I have seen. He speaks to the overt and continued oppression of black people in America in blunt and honest terms that make some people uncomfortable - as truth often does. He speaks to social and  political manipulation, the inequity that continues despite decades of efforts through legislation - proven greatly ineffective - to resolve issues of marginalization of black people.  To paint Rev Wright a racist would be based on flawed thinking in light of truth. I hold the same has been done in the representation of Ron Paul.

Lili2009 You are right. Rand Paul was on Rachel Maddow's show saying that he disagreed with the Civil Rights Act because it forced private property owners to serve everyone, regardless of race. Ron Paul has said the same thing when interviewed.

The Civil Rights Act was a mandate to force people to cooperate and to force them to change their thinking. Many scholars and many blacks today believe they would have been far better off with an initial 'separate but equal policy', allowing blacks to receive education and other services on equal terms, rising over time to a status that would have been easier to attain and having far superior outcomes resulting in true equality. Force creates force, not cooperation. It takes time for views to change and greater time when prior force was imposed (southern states secession from the Union leading to the Civil War and a southern democrat racist agenda along with the KKK that blocked rights for blacks until Eisenhower), but they do, as we see over the course of our history regarding many social issues. Force divides, it doesn't bring people together, as evidenced in an ongoing and unsettled debate over inequality regarding race in America today. Why is it England, who had slavery, was able quickly, efficiently and effectively to settle issues of racism in the 1800’s, while America continues to flounder? Note: Ron Paul says the Civil War was avoidable also. I can attempt to clarify that if anyone is interested.

 alim I'm all ears.

Unlike the US, England took a more empathetic course to stopping slavery without a war resulting against its own people. England listened to their abolitionists (the US also had outspoken abolitionists who were a strong voice -  and who joined the new Republican Party that was formed to try and stop slavery). England recognized that slavery denied slaves their human rights through the outcry of individuals and the church, but England also considered it must address the grievances of slave owners. The English government approached slave owners and at extreme monetary expense to the country, purchased the slaves to set them free since the slaves were deemed 'property' that had been purchased by the 'owners'. England recognized  the monetary loss to slave owners to be real and the anger it would provoke and successfully avoided it. Racial tensions in England in relation to the US is in no way comparable. The Democratic Party at the time was the party of slavery who split from the Union upon the election of Lincoln (the anti-slavery president of the Republican Party). Before he was seated in office, the south (most Democratic states) had seceded. Ron Paul's stance is that America could have worked through the inequity of both slavery and the concerns of the South that their prosperity would be wiped out, because he looks to proof in England, who among many other countries including parts of Europe and Scandanavia, did just that.

Every vote Ron Paul has ever taken, every documented comment or speech he has ever personally made, every book he has ever written, is aligned against racism. He is also a Libertarian and thinking of people in groups instead of individuals is totally counter to Libertarian thought to which he adheres, and Ron Paul has said so - consistently. Further the fact that freedom is popular with individuals and groups does not, by default, exclude anyone, including racists. Individual rights per the Constitution applies to every American, even those with whom we most vehemently disagree.      

On second thought, Barack Obama was elected president. Ron Paul is generally regarded as kind of a kook by the main stream media. That might be the primary reason no one cares much about whether or not he is a racist. There is not much chance of him becoming president.

Kels Hey, I don't mind you disagreeing with me (even it you disagree vehemently), but cut out the profanity in the future. Or you can put an asterisk in curse words so that they are not spelled all the way out.

Jamila I'll use "b.s." in the future.

Kels Thank you. I will still know exactly what you mean when you say "b.s." :)

"...you cannot hold Barack Obama accountable for anything that comes out of anyone else's mouth. There is nothing in Barack Obama's past or present to suggest he hates white people or hates this country. That is a smear and I'm simply disgusted to read this essay claiming he has racial issues like Ron Paul."

My position is -  in light of Ron Paul's consistent speech and work aligning himself against racism and the fact that he strenuously denies personally writing the statements - that he says he does not agree with the statements and that he disavows them - and further, that understanding the statements are reflected in a small number of newsletters which have the preprinted application of  a 'logo signature'  of his name printed on the bottom of the last page of each, and the fact he had numerous writers over those years, many of whom point to others as the likely authors - it is quite legitimate to support Ron Paul's assertion he did not personally write them or read every word of the great number of newsletters produced over many years and to do so prior to each being published while much of the time working full time as a physician. You may say that you do not believe Obama should be held to the standard of another person's statements and I say you can not hold Paul to a few statements written by someone other than himself on preprinted signature paper when he has made no statements out of his own mouth that reflect those views. If you do not accept that position, then in my view you apply an argument based on a hypothetical bar that will always exist beyond the reach of anyone with whom you choose to disagree.

Patricia Kayden Rick Santorum just won 3 caucus/primaries over the weekend. I don't think Romney splits the Republicans and many are looking for the "anti-Romney" but Paul doesn't fit the bill because, like you said, he just has too many skeletons in the closet. Plus Paul is anti-war, anti-US imperialism.

Patricia Kayden Exactly Patricia! I don't understand the support for Ron Paul considering his ties with supremacist groups.

The Working Home KeeperPatricia Kayden What ties?

The Working Home KeeperPatricia Kayden I know some white supremacist and white nationalist groups support him, but other than receiving support from them, what ties do you mean?

JamilaThe Working Home KeeperPatricia Kayden i was thinking the same thing. the Jamie Kelso character mentioned in the leaks was challenged here by Ron Paul supporters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX8ZtykZLTk clearly, this guy doesn't have any significant/influential role in the campaign other than that he's a supporter. granted, i think it's very likely that Ron Paul's office/camp has been infiltrated by these white supremacist/nationalist groups based on the newsletters but it's quite a stretch to label Ron Paul as such.