Ron Paul is doing very well in straw polls and is ranked in the top three as a fundraiser. Yet CNN reporter Roger Simon said: "The media doesn't believe he has a hoot in hell's chance of winning the Iowa caucuses, the Republican nomination or winning the presidency, so we're gonna ignore him. " and CNN anchorman Howard Kurtz agrees: "We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race" |
In a recent CBS debate about US foreign policy, all eight contenders were invited to a debate, but Ron Paul only got to answer 2 questions and received a total of only 89 seconds of speaking time - or 258 words from a total of 6380, less than half than any other candidate and less than a quarter than media-darlings Romney and Perry. In other words, only about 4% of the airtime was dedicated to the antiwar candidate, while the other 96% were filled by seven pro-war candidates, which proves Roger Simon correct: It is not just CNN, but indeed most of the mainstream media which is unwilling to give Ron Paul a level playing field.
If the CNN reporters are correct and Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination, then Americans will only get to choose between two pro-war candidates, just like in the last election. In that case it does not matter who wins because the wars will continue in any case and can be stopped only by fiscal constraints.