[libertarian complaints about Ron Paul 2012 campaign coverage]
Thoughts on New Hampshire
Posted by James Ostrowski on January 10, 2012 09:34 PM
To say that the mainstream media is extremely hostile to and biased against Ron Paul is not to allege a conspiracy but merely to acknowledge an obvious fact. A few examples will make the point. In Iowa, the MSM helped create a Santorum surge while giving him zero scrutiny and trashing Ron Paul. In New Hampshire, they did the same for Huntsman—promoting his nonexistent surge while trashing Ron Paul. There was zero scrutiny of Huntsman's record. As with Iowa, they kept insisting that Ron Paul was fading. In spite of that attempted self-fulfilling prophesy, Ron Paul beat Huntsman decisively.
Howard Fineman pointed out last week that Ron Paul has a tendency to "underperform" his polling numbers. Since Ron Paul outperformed his polling numbers by about seven points tonight, you would think that Howard and scores of others would point that out. Don’t hold your breath. The obvious historical comparison to what happened tonight was 1992 when another Southerner who was expected to do poorly, Bill Clinton, did well enough to be declared the unofficial winner against Paul Tsongas, like Romney, from neighboring Massachusetts. No mention of this no-brainer comparison.
Finally, the MSM repeats the Big Lie—a statement for which no evidence exists but which is repeated endlessly—that Ron Paul cannot beat Obama. That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as many voters make their decision based on the Big Lie. In fact, the polls show that Ron Paul can beat Obama and that Romney cannot—if he faces a strong third party challenge which is likely. Ron Paul's perfo
|