Mon Dieu, MSM!

My God! I never really bought into media bias that much before I supported Ron Paul. They ignore the man, and when they don't, they ridicule him. They attack him. They give him bad questions.
He mentions cutting the IRS, he's a kook. Huckster does and the people cheer and he's a winner. He wants to actually cut taxes by cutting programs, they say he's an extremist. Everyone else says they want to cut taxes while somehow maintaining the Empire and ignoring the paradox, they report it as possible. They don't press Hillary on how she's going to balance the budget while expanding the bureaucracy (I bet it involves making more money).
It's wrong that a brothel owner supports him, but it's not wrong that Rupert Murdoch supports Hillary? It's cool that an old meme and Ric Flair supports him, but they don't say Val Venis or Kane does? Oh, of course...the only people that support Ron Paul are anarchists, libertarians, white supremacists, terrorists, prostitutes, and all kind of fringe kooks.
They air Romney and Giuliani fighting like two little kids that have crushes on eachother. They air when people slap Ron down and he's not allowed to reply. They don't air when he shoots down the Neocons.
The ultimate knife in the American people's back? Hailing Mike Huckabee as the great winner of the debate! No, he didn't win. He showed himself as a tax lovin' liberal. Chris Matthews did make a good point, though. The questions he "hit out of the park" were inappropriate.
In all honesty, no one really won. Not even Ron. Yeah, I said that because he didn't get enough questions. He did a great job defending himself, though. There were clear losers.
Romney lost on the immigration lovefest at the beginning and over the CS navy jack question. Thompson lost on the government program cutting question. McCain lost with his failed attack on Dr. Paul. The audience lost because they booed the golden rule and the Sermon on the Mount. Blessed are the peacemakers (though they might have heard the Cheesemakers)
Check the results in the media. How do they choose the winner? Well, whoever happened to tell the best jokes, and to a lesser extent, whoever spoke the best.

Don't Mess With Us; Kudos to FBC

Click
John Harwood said

"Ron Paul dominated the debate, and some of my colleagues at CNBC thought that there was something wrong with that and they took the poll down. I want to tell you, my email box, thousands and thousands and thousands of email, like I haven't seen from any other -- you know,followers of Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson or Joe Biden."

I also caught a Ron Paul interview of Fox Business Channel. Kudos to the male host for being very respectful, and maybe even delighted! The female was a bit more FNCish towards him. Sidenote, I could have swore her accent kept switching from southern to none. I might just write them a nice email, and maybe even watch their show. Maybe not, though. If they end up being neoconish, I'll be a sad lad.

Ron Paul Astroturfing? And CNBC vs. Paul

Is it possible that a fake grassroots campaign is happening? Just what is astroturfing?

"Unlike genuine grassroots activism which tends to be money-poor but people-rich, astroturf campaigns are typically people-poor but cash-rich. Funded heavily by corporate largesse, they use sophisticated computer databases, telephone banks and hired organizers to rope less-informed activists into sending letters to their elected officials or engaging in other actions that create the appearance of grassroots support for their client's cause."

Okay, we're not going to use the term literally. CNBC pulled their poll because their numbers didn't match the national numbers. Was it astroturfing? Probably not since it wasn't possible to vote more than once. Remember when Hannity said it was just Paulites "spamming" the text message vote? Well, it wasn't possible to vote more than once.
Maybe the polls are a bit skewed, but that's the others' fault. What's so exciting about them? "More dead people and more government control although less than the democrats"? Only the most committed neocons can get excited about that.
Who is astroturfing? Anyone who brings in low numbers at rallies, like Fred Thompson and John McCain.

Speaking of CNBC, lookie at what I found.

"He lacks the support needed to win the GOP nomination, and would even if the media covered him as heavily as we cover Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because Paul's views--respectable, well-articulated and sincerely held as they are--are plainly out of step with the mainstream sentiment of the party he is running in."

Uh, what? His views are similar to Pat Buchanan. Yes, Pat didn't win the nomination, but he did well considering he was "out of step with the party he [was] running in". Rudy's views aren't quite mainstream if we're to believe that 25% of the party is the Christian Right. What he doesn't want to admit is that the media anoints frontrunners. Name recognition didn't matter to Mitt Romney, he was still the media's darling. And why is that? To make for good TV. Forget any sort of political bias, if the majority of the people were behind the president, they would have to report on some celebrities a lot more often! I doubt they would mind too much.
And how did he raise almost half as much as Mitt and Rudy(subtracting Mitt's own "donation" to himself)? Sure, there's a number of non-Republicans donating, but who's to say they're not going to join and stay like I will if Dr. Paul wins?
There are plenty of ex-Republicans, and those people are the ones who share Ron Paul's views. Most Libertarians are ex-Republicans too. He may not be a neocon, but if the GOP wasn't taken over by the Neocons, CNBC would need a new excuse.