Saturday, November 5, 2011

Amazing Diss of Ron Paul by the New York Times

This Sunday's New York Times Magazine has an interactive section on how potential Republican presidential nominees line up against President Obama.

Writes NYT:

Nate Silver models the likelihood of each candidate winning the popular vote based on 2012 G.D.P. growth, President Obama’s current approval rating and the ideology of the candidate

Listed are Huntsman, Romney, Cain, Perry Bachmann.

There is no mention of Ron Paul, though he regularly out polls Huntsman and Bachmann.

Bottom line: They are outright desperate to make sure that not even one more voter learns about Ron Paul.


  1. they are real deambasses, Censure causes opposite effect , in long term,
    Bubble is for exploding !

  2. Ron Paul is intellectuality honest and that is not a recontamination in leviathan politics.

  3. Disgusting bastards.

    The thing is, I don't see how they've got Huntsman as the front runner in this.

    But my guess is, that no matter how they sliced it, RP has the best chance and they just couldn't let that happen. If he was in back where Bachmann was on this, you can bet he would have been in there.

  4. Leave them site feedback and tell them you are informing all of your friends that New York Times is unprofessional and biased! Show them that we won't sit idle when they perform such a blatant media blackout!

  5. Totally Disgusting!

    NYT continues to lose readership, and this is one more reason why!

  6. RW, you (and Murphy/Woods) need to alert RP of your August call on money supply and your prediction for the next 6 months. RP needs to go into Iowa drumming the real danger. Inflation and not phony growth statistics or unemployment.

    Obama's weak point in 12 months is inflation, not unemployment. RP need to get back on message.

  7. I read the Economist, and Ron Paul is hardly mentioned in any talk of Republican Nominees. If he is mentioned, they call him a 'libertarian candidate'. I am glad we have a wonderful example of how MSM tells us what they want us to know...

  8. One positive of this attempted marginalization of Dr Paul is that it makes explaining the concept of "The Dialectic" much easier. I used the word today with a couple of friends today, and they were unsure of the meaning.

    I simply said that the only "legitimate" points of discussion were between mainstream Republicans/"cons"-ervatives and mainstream Democratic/"lie"-berals, and Ron Paul fell outside the acceptable limits of discussion. Thus the dialectic allowed the elites to control the conversation. It was like lightbulbs went off over their heads!