Ron Paul Gets Ignored By The Media Again!

[RobertNashville]

Okay...it's happened again, a major debate/forum for Republican candidates held last Saturday by Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul is completely ignored...oh, never mind, Ron Paul didn't participate!!!

Obviously I'm being a bit sarcastic with this thread but seriously; almost every time I've heard an RP supporter call into a talk show or post on forums (like this one); a major complaint from these supporters is that RP doesn't get a fair shake in terms of coverage by the media yet this is but one example (there are others; at least one national Radio show he's refused invitation to be on) where he has had the chance to get major, FREE coverage and he declines. What's up with that?

Did he have a big schedule conflict that predated Huckabee's invitation? Even if he did, does it make sense to ignore free TV time on the most watched cable network?

I've watched the two Huckabee organized events and I think there are the best, most fairly conducted events I've seen in a long time but even if they weren't, if I were running for a national office I'd take every free offer of coverage I could so that I could get my message out.

Edited January 16, 2012 by RobertNashville

[kieefer]

maybe that YouTube kid will go on?

[Guest Miracle]

The reason he didn't go on Huck's show is because he's not a true conservative, and he wouldn't have an audience with who would typically watch gov. Huckabees show.

[E4 No More]

The reason he didn't go on Huck's show is because he's not a true conservative, and he wouldn't have an audience with who would typically watch gov. Huckabees show.

An interesting term and, IMHO, illustrates what's wrong with the right.

[Guest Miracle]

Explain?

[RobertNashville]

An interesting term and, IMHO, illustrates what's wrong with the right.

The only thing "wrong with the right" is that there aren't enough of them in position to exert power.

[E4 No More]

The only thing "wrong with the right" is that there aren't enough of them in position to exert power.

I disagree. There's enough of them, but they can't seem to get their stuff together. It amazes me how many on the right think that if we don't put up their definition of the perfect candidate then they refuse to vote and stick us with someone who's worse. That's the mentality that got us Oblama to begin with, and I think history will repeat itself.

[RobertNashville]

I disagree. There's enough of them, but they can't seem to get their stuff together. It amazes me how many on the right think that if we don't put up their definition of the perfect candidate then they refuse to vote and stick us with someone who's worse. That's the mentality that got us Oblama to begin with, and I think history will repeat itself.

I think I disagree with how you are defining "conservative" or at least those you call conservatives aren't, as I see it.

We never have and never will get the "perfect" candidate and if we accept that as true, then a choice has to be made...in my always humble opinion, a true "conservative" will then vote based on what he/she truly believes is best for the country. In other words, they aren't going to sit out an election completely or vote for a candidate (third party, etc) that they know cannot win just because their candidate didn't get the nomination (or didn't run at all).

That said, I'd really prefer to try and keep the thread on track if possible because I still don't understand RP's decision to not participate last Saturday!

[Guest FroggyOne2]

That is what I am afraid of.. I am going to hold my nose, but I am not going to withhold my vote..

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

I disagree. There's enough of them, but they can't seem to get their stuff together. It amazes me how many on the right think that if we don't put up their definition of the perfect candidate then they refuse to vote and stick us with someone who's worse. That's the mentality that got us Oblama to begin with, and I think history will repeat itself.

What we have is a bunch of RINO's in positions of power! We need more people like Ron and Rand Paul in those positions.

[Will Carry]

Ron Paul is pro second amendment and pro individual freedom. That scares the heck out of the powers that be. Republican flavored and Democratic flavored. That is why the media is ignoring Ron Paul. The less freedom we have the more we sit home and watch TV and surf on the internet. Mitt Romney would ban firearms if he thought it would get him elected.

I am not a political commentator and I could be wrong. I usually am when it comes to politics.

[RobertNashville]

Could, maybe, a couple of you Ron Paul supporters stop the rhetoric for just a moment and explain WHY he didn't participate in the Debate last Saturday???

[RobertNashville]

...That is why the media is ignoring Ron Paul.

Really? How can you say the medial is ignoring him when he doesn't participate in a debate that has national (and FREE) TV coverage???

[Will Carry]

It's just something I noticed watching TV. Ron seems to get ingnored...

[RobertNashville]

It's just something I noticed watching TV. Ron seems to get ingnored...

So how do you reconcile that in the face of him turning down major opportunities to be on TV and radio for free?

To be blunt, I don't think RP gets ignored or shunned by the media at all. I think he gets just as much air time as anyone else and I think examples like this (him turning down a major debate/free TV air time) supports my perception.

Edited January 16, 2012 by RobertNashville

[kieefer]

That said, I'd really prefer to try and keep the thread on track if possible because I still don't understand RP's decision to not participate last Saturday!

To give him the benefit of a doubt Paul might feel that he's answered enough questions from Huck's debates during his last showing?

Ron Paul - Huckabee Debate Part 1 - YouTube

Ron Paul - Huckabee Debate Part 2 - YouTube

I've heard him say several times during interviews that he's answered "such and such" questions before. Sounds like he's tired of repeating himself.

Seeing him talk again shows me why people do not take him seriously, he doesn't appear presidential at all and most people are looking for an authoritative commanding person as President. Another thing, people talk about S.Palin and her accent but RP's language and mannerisms comes off to me as looney as some of his ideas.

[Will Carry]

I think you're right. Ron Paul is not presidential. He has zero chance of ever becoming president, I just like what he says about individual liberties, small government and adherance to our constitution and bill of rights. Maybe I'm a closet Libertarian.

[hornett22]

I didn't know anyone took Schmuckabee serious. No one I know does.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Huckabee isn't a conservative, either.

Good question. Robert, about Ron Paul, that is.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

I found this on Weasel Zippers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been spending large amounts on airfare as a congressman, flying first class on dozens of taxpayer-funded flights to his home state. The practice conflicts with the image that Paul portrays as the only presidential candidate serious about cutting federal spending.

His congressional staff says Paul chose not to buy the cheaper economy tickets at a fraction of the price because they aren’t refundable or as flexible for scheduling.

An AP review of Paul’s congressional expenses and average airfares found that Paul charged taxpayers nearly $52,000 on the more expensive tickets, or $27,621 more than the average Continental airfare for the flights between Washington and Houston.

Paul portrays himself as the most frugal and serious deficit hawk in the race.

"Then again, this is the same guy who loads spending bills with earmark pork for his district, then votes against the bills knowing they would pass regardless."

Those statements do make me wonder..

[RobertNashville]

I found this on Weasel Zippers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been spending large amounts on airfare as a congressman, flying first class on dozens of taxpayer-funded flights to his home state. The practice conflicts with the image that Paul portrays as the only presidential candidate serious about cutting federal spending.

His congressional staff says Paul chose not to buy the cheaper economy tickets at a fraction of the price because they aren’t refundable or as flexible for scheduling.

An AP review of Paul’s congressional expenses and average airfares found that Paul charged taxpayers nearly $52,000 on the more expensive tickets, or $27,621 more than the average Continental airfare for the flights between Washington and Houston.

Paul portrays himself as the most frugal and serious deficit hawk in the race.

"Then again, this is the same guy who loads spending bills with earmark pork for his district, then votes against the bills knowing they would pass regardless."

Those statements do make me wonder..

This problem isn't really a "Ron Paul" issue...I suspect that compared to most in congress (especially Democrats) he probably is a penny pincher...the problem is that not more than a handful of Congressmen have a clue when it comes to actually saving money or any concept of what things really cost or how most of the country live. It's precisely why theses people aren't supposed to be there for 10, or 20 or 30+ years!

[Oh Shoot]

Sounds as though RP is getting all the coverage he wants tonight in Myrtle Beach..sounds like more boos than yeas from his foreign policy comments.

- OS

Edited January 17, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest FroggyOne2]

Robert, it appears that he tries to put the perception of a penny pincher.

[Spook]

Perhaps someone can answer for me why no one calls RP out when he says we have "900 bases in 130 countries." I've heard him say that several times during the debates. I'd ask him (or anyone else) to name those bases and countries. Also, tonight I heard him say that Pakistan was having a civil war. Did I miss something?

[Guest FroggyOne2]

nope, you didn't miss a thing! wink