kennethto: For the Ron Paul supporters out there, the graph above (taken from Google Trends) shows a promising trend line (which relates to search index volume on 2012 candidates for the past year).  Yet despite: Ron Paul leading leading in all measures of online support Ron Paul leading all other GOP candidates combined in military support Ron Paul being in the top three of fund-raising among the GOP candidates Ron Paul and Mitt Romney being the only two GOP candidates on the Virginia ballot in 2012 (which speaks to organizational strength) …  Ron Paul is portrayed as being unelectable.  Meanwhile Gingrich is portrayed by the MSM as a contender, despite the fact that he is behind Ron Paul in fund-raising, organization and voter support.  I think it speaks poorly of Newt Gingrich’s campaign organization that he wasn’t able to get on the Virginia ballot (where Mr. Gingrich resides).  It speaks worse about the U.S. mainstream media that they are trying to portray Gingrich as a serious contender over Ron Paul when all the evidence points to the contrary. The one thing hurting Ron Paul’s campaign is poor reporting.  Examples of poor journalism can be found at the Christian Science Monitor: Most opinion polls for South Carolina, the third state to hold a 2012 Republican nominating contest, give a resounding “no” to Paul. The Texan has been polling in single digits in the state, home to many active and retired military personal who may not take kindly to Paul’s non-interventionist military doctrine. http://bit.ly/rGkKXL There are reasons why Ron Paul may do poorly in South Carolina.  Support from military personnel isn’t one of them though: This year, Paul has 10 times the individual donations - totaling $113,739 - from the military as does Mitt Romney.  And he has a hundred times more than Newt Gingrich, who sat out the Vietnam War with college deferments and now promises he would strike foes at the slightest provocation. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/soldiers-choice/?hp There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance among the mainstream media.  It seems as though these professional reporters can’t wrap their heads around the idea that U.S. military personnel actually prefer Ron Paul.  I wonder what the majority of the U.S. population would think if reporters actually noted Ron Paul’s support among the U.S. armed forces instead of attempting to portray his foreign policy perspectives as some kind of crutch.  Or what if the media played up the fact that Ron Paul served in the military as a flight surgeon? There was a time when bloggers were seen as amateur reporters.  Heading into 2012 though, I’d say that the reporters that are now the amateur bloggers. There’s no other way I can imagine reporters could actually believe Ron Paul is a racist. Below is a video of Ron Paul talking about race: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VR9YbBquRY&feature=player_embedded So Ron Paul: Wants to free thousands of minorities from prison who are unfairly prosecuted (and is also the only candidate who cares about the effects of the War on Drugs on minorities) Is the only candidate of either major party who wants to stop the bombing and killing thousands of innocent Arabs and Africans … and yet somehow he is the racist.  This is where the media would say Ron Paul is a racist because voted against spending federal money against a Rosa Parks medal.  What they’ll probably ignore is the background checking about how Ron Paul offered to pay $100 himself for the medal and how Paul asked other members of congress to put up the money themselves, instead of callously spending tax payers money.  In fact, here’s a video of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VR9YbBquRY&feature=player_embedded Keep up the misinformation campaign MSM, Ron Paul’s supporters will keep finding the factual evidence to shut down the smear campaign.

kennethto:

For the Ron Paul supporters out there, the graph above (taken from Google Trends) shows a promising trend line (which relates to search index volume on 2012 candidates for the past year).  Yet despite:

  • Ron Paul leading leading in all measures of online support
  • Ron Paul leading all other GOP candidates combined in military support
  • Ron Paul being in the top three of fund-raising among the GOP candidates
  • Ron Paul and Mitt Romney being the only two GOP candidates on the Virginia ballot in 2012 (which speaks to organizational strength)

…  Ron Paul is portrayed as being unelectable. 

Meanwhile Gingrich is portrayed by the MSM as a contender, despite the fact that he is behind Ron Paul in fund-raising, organization and voter support.  I think it speaks poorly of Newt Gingrich’s campaign organization that he wasn’t able to get on the Virginia ballot (where Mr. Gingrich resides).  It speaks worse about the U.S. mainstream media that they are trying to portray Gingrich as a serious contender over Ron Paul when all the evidence points to the contrary.

The one thing hurting Ron Paul’s campaign is poor reporting.  Examples of poor journalism can be found at the Christian Science Monitor:

Most opinion polls for South Carolina, the third state to hold a 2012 Republican nominating contest, give a resounding “no” to Paul. The Texan has been polling in single digits in the state, home to many active and retired military personal who may not take kindly to Paul’s non-interventionist military doctrine.

http://bit.ly/rGkKXL

There are reasons why Ron Paul may do poorly in South Carolina.  Support from military personnel isn’t one of them though:

This year, Paul has 10 times the individual donations - totaling $113,739 - from the military as does Mitt Romney.  And he has a hundred times more than Newt Gingrich, who sat out the Vietnam War with college deferments and now promises he would strike foes at the slightest provocation.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/soldiers-choice/?hp

There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance among the mainstream media.  It seems as though these professional reporters can’t wrap their heads around the idea that U.S. military personnel actually prefer Ron Paul.  I wonder what the majority of the U.S. population would think if reporters actually noted Ron Paul’s support among the U.S. armed forces instead of attempting to portray his foreign policy perspectives as some kind of crutch.  Or what if the media played up the fact that Ron Paul served in the military as a flight surgeon?

There was a time when bloggers were seen as amateur reporters.  Heading into 2012 though, I’d say that the reporters that are now the amateur bloggers. There’s no other way I can imagine reporters could actually believe Ron Paul is a racist. Below is a video of Ron Paul talking about race:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VR9YbBquRY&feature=player_embedded

So Ron Paul:

  • Wants to free thousands of minorities from prison who are unfairly prosecuted (and is also the only candidate who cares about the effects of the War on Drugs on minorities)
  • Is the only candidate of either major party who wants to stop the bombing and killing thousands of innocent Arabs and Africans

… and yet somehow he is the racist.  This is where the media would say Ron Paul is a racist because voted against spending federal money against a Rosa Parks medal.  What they’ll probably ignore is the background checking about how Ron Paul offered to pay $100 himself for the medal and how Paul asked other members of congress to put up the money themselves, instead of callously spending tax payers money.  In fact, here’s a video of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VR9YbBquRY&feature=player_embedded

Keep up the misinformation campaign MSM, Ron Paul’s supporters will keep finding the factual evidence to shut down the smear campaign.

Tags: Ron Paul 2012 racism newsletters military Mitt Romney newt gingrich