Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Hey, Mainstream Media! Is Ron Paul Getting a Fair Shake?

First, let’s start by saying that LME endorses no GOP candidate. We feel, simply put, that any of the current GOP candidates would be a better option than Barack Obama. This article is neither an endorsement of nor a recommendation for Ron Paul. It is merely a look at the candidate and how the media is handling him.
With that, let’s cover some basic facts. Ron Paul is educated. He is a medical doctor and has practiced privately and for the military as a flight surgeon. Ron Paul is a family man. He has been married to his wife Carolyn for 54 years. He has five children, and he is routinely accompanied by his grandchildren. Ron Paul is a man of God. He has been a Christian his entire life. 

Now that the non-political personal stuff is out of the way, let’s get down to Ron Paul as a presidential candidate. Love him or hate him, there is one indisputable fact that any friend or foe of Ron Paul can’t ignore: Ron Paul sticks by the Constitution. Period. This shouldn’t be news to anyone, and this obviously puts him at odds with those on the left that believe the Constitution is a “living,” ever-changing document. But make no mistake; Ron Paul uses the Constitution as the foundation of his political beliefs. Paul is such a believer in constitutional precedent that even though he is staunchly pro-life, he routinely cites the Ninth and Tenth Amendment in stating that maternal and fetal health is a states’ rights issue. His disdain for Roe v. Wade is not a pro-life vs. pro-choice matter; in Paul’s view, it’s about preserving the Constitution and its protection of states’ rights. His respect for Constitutional and legal precedent hasn’t always put him in a favorable light with republicans, either. He did not support the Patriot act and has been the voice of congressional authority of wartime conflicts. He has opposed U.S. involvement in armed conflicts in the Middle East and has repeated claimed that the proper way to wage a war is to have Congress declare it as stated in the Constitution. 

Economically, Ron Paul is a true student of the Adam Smith School of Economics. He firmly believes that the size of the federal government should be decreased drastically. He regularly votes against virtually any proposal he feels would be an unauthorized use of taxpayer money, and he believes that the federal government should be restricted to only congressionally authorized functions. Ron Paul vehemently opposes the Federal Reserve and, not surprisingly, states that the Constitution does not authorize it. 

I can go on about Ron Paul’s positions but I won’t. His positions shouldn’t be news to his freedom-loving supporters. I am simply stating some of his positions to make my original point crystal clear: Ron Paul sticks by the Constitution. Period. Any American should find Ron Paul’s adherence to the Constitution admirable regardless their political ideology. I feel that his use and interpretation of the Constitution is exactly what our forefathers envisioned. They sought to establish a basic rule of law from which all government acts would be derived, and Ron Paul has adhered to that perhaps better than any elected official in the past 100 years. 

So, why does it seem that Ron Paul doesn’t get a fair shake in the media? Let’s see if I understand this. 

Again, I must say: this blog does not formally endorse or discount any GOP candidate. But let’s see if I have this correct (I’m sure Paulites will correct my discrepancies):
  •  Ron Paul is a defender of the Constitution. He applies a Constitutionality check to everything he does in politics. Love him or hate him, how can someone dislike a politician that defends the Constitution as Ron Paul has? This should be any public official’s main premise. Ron Paul does it to a “T.”
  • Ron Paul has a strong following:
    • Youthful voters tend to love Ron Paul:
      •  He currently has 600k + Facebook followers. That’s more than Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain combined.
      • His Twitter page is followed almost as closely as Mitt Romney’s
  • Scandals, what scandals? Can someone name any?
  • He defends FREEDOM. He wants the government’s power minimized and personal freedoms maximized. How does this not strike a chord with any American?
  • He wants the government’s hand out of our wallets.
  • He is ridiculously smart.
  • Flip-flops? See: “Scandal, what scandals?” Ron Paul’s voting record speaks for itself.
  • He dislikes war.
  • Though he is Christian, he strongly opposes the government imposing religion on its citizens.
  • He routinely does well in local (mainly straw) polls.

So... what gives? Why no air time? Why no headlines? Why is it that during the GOP debates Ron Paul is way off to the left or right near Rick Santorum (no offense to Rick Santorum fans, but according to nearly every recent poll, he virtually has no support) even though recent Iowa polls show him near the top of the field? When was the last time you saw Paul’s name on or Yahoo? ABC? Anybody? Can someone even provide one link to an article about Ron Paul?

The generic media apathy for Ron Paul is disgusting. When Barack Obama began running for president, he was barely known. He barely had positions. He was in public office for hardly a year and the media grabbed him and made him an instant celebrity. Argh.

What is the media afraid of? Here is a Constitution defending, small government, low taxes, anti-war, squeaky clean, scandal free, well educated, highly experienced presidential candidate with a strong, freedom-loving following and he is getting virtually NO press time? In LME’s Welcome post, we state that one of the reasons our blog exists is to give people an opportunity to see “the liberal media and its ostentatious bias exposed.” This article is a prime example if that. I would LOVE to see the media’s response to this.

With all this, we post the question: Is this right? Fair? What can people do about it? LME has said that taking to the blogosphere (of course this is a plug for our blog :-) ) is one of the best ways to get around the mainstream media. If there is a traffic jam in front of you, you take an alternate route. LME is an example of that alternate route. What do you think?


  1. Saw this on FB. Now following on Twitter. My comment: "Yup!" Thank you. Hope others follow.

  2. Are you sure you're not a Paul fan? But yes, all true.

  3. How do you know Paul hasn't had the opportunites to be in the media but rejected them? Maybe he is afraid of Cain?

  4. Why does it seem like it's coming to Cain v. Paul? Either way, LME is right. The media is screwing them both. Maybe they should unite.

  5. Blogs are good. Will follow. Thank you!

  6. Im sick of not even hearing his name when they list the canidates. Its so clear the fear they have, that a man that would do what is right instead of a man who would do what he is told would get back in office for the first time since 1960.

  7. Restoration - Thank you for your post. Isn't the media disgusting. We think we made good points about Paul in our post and yet he continues to get ignored. What do you think the solution is? We think it's the blogosphere. Social media is working, too. Any other ideas? We hope you follow our blog. Best of luck, and we hope to hear more from you soon.

  8. Thanks for this topic LME! Ron Paul, as you and I have discussed before is, in my opinion, the most qualified person to run this country and he is what this country needs. Prior policy, from both sides (I hate that there are only 2 sides but that's for another discussion!) have put an all out assault on the constitution and judges, who are no more than politicians for the most part and worried about reelection or, in the case of the Supreme's, not worried about anything and can rule with the hearts and minds without regard for the constitution, are all going along for the ride. We need to 'Occupy' the Constitution! :) I am a believer in social programs so that is a little discouraging for me but I also tend to believe that RP would lower taxes in such a way and bring jobs back in such a way that people will have more money to donate to social functions and the need for such will be dramatically decreased. I'm at least willing to give it a go. Getting our military out of all of these foreign lands will not only save taxpayer dollars but will be a sign of goodwill throughout the world and will advocate less hatred toward the US. I consider myself a fiscal conservative and social liberal. Ron Paul is my guy because he is much the same. Drugs, state and personal choice... Abortion, same... The government is not to be the moral police. I don't go into their homes to tell them how to live and I expect the same.

    Now, why isn't he getting a fair shake. I believe it is because he generally eschews corporate money or it is not offered to him because he doesn't play the typical 'you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours' mentality. He also would likely get rid of all of the corporate kick-backs and would get rid of all of the incentives to corporations to actually ship jobs offshore. We will get back to being the UNITED States of American. I hope he is able to pull some of that Obama magic and make a run. He is the ONLY candidate that has bi-partisan support. The undecided and/or independents would come out en masse for him. If he doesn't gain the Republican nomination, I hope he runs as an Independent.

    BTW, LME, why bring up his religious beliefs? i thought we agreed that that has no place in politics? I know it is factual but also irrelevant.

    Hope you had a great Thanksgiving break, welcome back!

  9. Whatsa! I didn't honestly realize you were a Paul fan. Not a problem though. LME doesn't endorse anyone yet, but this post was more of a stab at the media and how they are ignoring an extremely highly qualified, scandal-free candidate.

    So,... with that. Yup, I tend to agree that judges can be political... very political. Haha and of course, I'm anti-occupy ;-)

    Of course, I don't believe in social programs (I'm not sure Paul's position on this, but I didn't think he would be) but yes, I respect his views on reducing the government and lowering taxes. I do agree with your statement that people should donate to social programs. I don't think this is something the government should be involved in, but charity is a wonderful thing that perhaps if people didn't have to pay so much in taxes to the government, they can willfully give more to charity for social functions. With the military stuff, I don't necessarily have a position yet, but, I will admit I do like Cain's approach of defining a problem and what the solution would be before we tackle that problem. I work in the corporate world and to me, that's a corporate style way of handling things and it works. Of course, I'm fiscally conservative and more liberal socially, but probably not as much as you. I agree with smaller gov't and less gov't intrusion, but I think you and I will definitely disagree on drugs. Yes, things should be allowed in the privacy of one's house, but with drugs, the user, the crime, the break ins tend to leave the house... a lot. I also don't think that people should be able to do things to their minds that causes them to not make sound, clear-minded decisions. But, with that, I'm also anti-alcohol, which pretty much no one agrees on... so I'll compromise and at least cede that :-P

    As far as the fair shake? I don't know why... but either way, it makes me sick... and I don't even yet support the guy. Your theory could very well be true... I have no way to prove it to go with or against it. Trust me, though... if it is him v. Obama, he has my support 110%.

    As far as his religious beliefs, I was merely stating that he is faithful (typically that means he is good and sticks to it) and I pointed out in the bulleted list that though he is faithful, it never ever comes up in his political positions. In fact, he is HUGE in separation of church and state. I think you and I tend to agree on how important that is.

    Either way, I will wait to see how the GOP field shakes out before I throw my hat behind someone. I will admit one thing; Paul's fans are damn well faithful. I will continue to be a student. In researching Paul for this post, I definitely learned a LOT.

    Thanks again. Hope your Thanksgiving was great. I spent mine out in the middle of West Virginia in a cabin. 5 Days with no computer. Woof! 'Till I hear from you next, have a great day, night, week and whatever it is.

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. The only time the media gives Ron face time, they ask questions in a way that attempts to make him look "bad" in front of main stream America. "So you think America is to blame for 9/11?" or "Someone is sick and dying in the street, you don't think the government has a responsibility to take care of that person?" The main stream media takes people's worse fears and then phrases questions to Ron in a way as to make him look like he doesn't care about them. When in reality, the only GOP candidate I've ever heard say the words "middle class" or "the poor" is Ron Paul. He wants people to have liberty and their individual rights, I don't see how you could care for the people anymore than that. Ron even says himself when asked why the media portrays and treats him the way it does, it's because he threatens the very thing the main stream media represents, the STATUS QUO.

  12. Theron - Thank you for your post. I have to admit, it's pretty insightful.

    First, I gotta say it, LME doesn't endorse anyone at this point. I do highly respect Ron Paul, and, as the blog post says, I don't think he is getting a fair shake.

    With that, I completely agree. These slimy moderators are smart. They know how to "rig" a question, and yes, I do believe it's rigging. You mentioned the mainstream media taking peoples' fears and using them and I wholeheartedly agree. It just shows (as this blog has said many times) the disgusting, unchecked power of the mainstream media.

    And to your last points, which goes with the points this blog made: it is so true. A candidate that has is whole platform built on freedom and rights I would think would be getting wayyyyy more positive attention. Perhaps your final sentence is right.

    So with all that, what can people do?

    Thank you again. We hope to hear back from you. If we don't, good luck in all you do!

  13. LME - I had an excellent Thanksgiving, thanks. In fact, I too was supposed to spend it in WV but ended up at the Jersey shore. I am a big fan of WV and LOVE spending time there (I visit the White Sulphur Springs area a few times a year). Do you visit often? What area? (Not to get off subject... just not many people visit WV but if they did, my how they'd love it, IMO)

    As for RP, yes, I would vote for him if the election were held today and I'm a guy who, don't hold this against me, bought into the Hope Hype and voted for Obama. I believe we can solve many of this countries problems if we simply re-embrace the Constitution. I'm not sure what his position is on social programs either (to your point, he never gets the chance to talk about it) but I wasn't particularly fond of his answers on the person lying in the street (the question Theron pointed out) or his position of funding for AIDS research - he doesn't believe in it.

    As for the drug thing, you obviously have a personal preference, but do you agree that the federal government really doesn't have a right to tell you what you can and can't ingest? I mean, either one of us can walk into the woods of WV and eat something that would kill us or sicken us to the point of halucination (hell, kids do it with Robitussin and it's still OTC legal). Shouldn't that be illegal by your standard (i've taken the liberty of defining 'your standard'... you'll tell me where I'm right or wrong in my assumption: policing substances that have a negative body/mind affect upon ingestion)? I don't disagree with you on the crime aspect but I believe legalization will deal with the crime issue for the most part. Of course, you'll still have heroin junkies (as an example) who need their fix and will steal to get it. But, we likely have that with alcoholics today. We may philosophically disagree on this one but from a rights perspective, it seems clear to me... It is not the governments job to regulate morality!

  14. Hey hey Whatsamattausa - We stayed at a cabin probably 15 miles west of Hedgesville (not exactly the "middle" of West Virginia, but it is kind of the middle of nowhere). So far, I've only gone there for the past two Thanksgivings, but will probably start going to the cabin more.

    Oh no! You voted for Obama! :-P (I'm just joshing you.) Honestly, as a conservative, McCain was extremely disappointing. I can understand your vote. I haven't fully taken a position like yours, but, as the original Paul piece does say, I can completely understand the desire to just, darn it, get back to and stick to the Constitution. I mean, isn't that what America was supposed to do? I fully understand it, just haven't applied it myself... yet.

    Yeah, for the drugs thing. Trust me. Your point is 100% valid. The government regulating morality and/or telling its citizens what to ingest is a tough one. Remember my stance on alcohol... for me, I also don't even take medicines. It's a personal choice, and I would never enforce it on others. Like you and Paul fans and their strict adherence to the Constitution, I strictly adhere to never altering my mental state. But with this, my view is (trust me, it's not a solid view, and I've definitely debated this one) that drugs are a very special case. To me, that big overall part is there: that people shouldn't be allowed to alter their minds to cause them to think and make decisions and be "out of control" relative to normal. Of course, this is more applicable to hard drugs. The crime part (people breaking into houses for money for their addiction, or trying to steal the drugs) is one part. The crimes people commit while under the influence is another part too. Again, you're totally right. The rights perspective is tough to get around, but with the damaging effects of drugs, I would rather err on the side of safety (of course, I know that can lead to other issues... like if someone wants to say "well, hey, skydiving is dangerous, should we not let people do it" they would apply my drug precedent.) Great points, and a very hard thing to find a common road on. With religion, for instance. That's easy. The Constitution (thankfully) has an exact inclusion for that. With drugs, it's not as precise. We might not have a definite agreement in sight on this one, but it's always an interesting debate.

    Thanks again, Whatsamattausa. Your inputs are always appreciated. We had another commentor come aboard. I actually referenced you (explaining how we differ, but in a civil manner). You should check out his posts; they are in the Attn: Washington article. He is pro OWS as well. As someone I respect but have different views from, I'd always be interested in your take. Take care, and be safe out there!

  15. Thank you for this blog. It makes good points. RP is the only candidate that stands up for the constitution. God bless Ron Paul!

  16. Jessie. Thank you for your support. Please keep in mind our blog doesn't yet endorse any one candidate... We wrote this article because we felt that a very commendable and honorable candidate in Ron Paul wasn't being treated fairly. If you like our blog, please tell a friend. Word of mouth helps us get our message out, and that, most importantly, helps get around the mainstream media.

    Thanks again, and we hope to hear more from you soon. Take care!

  17. "Here is a Constitution defending, small government, low taxes, anti-war, squeaky clean, scandal free, well educated, highly experienced presidential candidate with a strong, freedom-loving following and he is getting virtually NO press time?"

    Your statement contains its own answer - liberals DON'T WANT smaller government...they DON'T WANT less taxes...they DON'T SUPPORT the Constitution. In a media which is highly biased toward the Left, why even ask why they don't give coverage to a man who stands for these things?

  18. Anonymous - Thanks for your comment contribution.

    Yes, very true. Liberals do not want a smaller government (yes, that's very scary). We pull away from the British Crown to hold our freedoms, and what do we create? A ridiculously over-blown, over-regulating, we can tell you how to run your life and save you from yourself government. Regardless, my statement about Ron Paul is still true.

    Also, I mainly asked about the little bit of right-leaning media out there. Yes, you're right. I don't expect MSNBC (who is ridiculously big-government left) to talk about Paul, but I'm a little surprised that Fox doesn't follow Paul as much.

    Thank you again for your post... Also, what is your take on tonight's debate. See our forum here:

    Hope you are able to contribute.

  19. I respect that you don't yet endorse RP. That's fine. That's your right. But, I gota say, this is a great write up. Thank you. I will definitely share it.