Wednesday, May 16, 2007

George Noory Asks Why Mainstream Media is Ignoring Ron Paul

Last night on the #1 rated late night radio show Coast to Coast AM, just after the conclusion of the 2nd GOP debate in South Carolina, host George Noory said:

"I don't know if you caught a glimpse of the GOP debate tonight, but I've gotta tell you, this is not an endorsement, I am just amazed at how Ron Paul continues to really, and effectively, out-maneuver the other candidates in these debates and he get's minimal national exposure and publicity. It is incredible. I mean you look at Fox News, Ron Paul on top, you look at MSNBC, Ron Paul on top. This is gonna be a very interesting election where it looks like Americans who are voting on the Republican end are picking Ron Paul, but I'm not so sure he'll get the nomination, unless he starts getting the exposure that he needs. But anyway, we've got the invite into Ron Paul to get him on a future program to talk about the issue of not getting the exposure, when it appears that America likes the guy! I mean, that's the story to me, America likes the guy!"

Ron Paul supporters should be extremely happy George Noory has invited him on the Coast to Coast AM, which boasts millions of nightly listeners.


marsha said...

He is an EXTREME libertarian. Haven't we had enough of ideologically-based decisions, already? Talk about gross over-simplification . . .

tierpin said...

marsha, you are a fool, and i pity your ignorance. why dont you actually enlighten yourself buy learning about his position of the issues beofre you name call... he takes the same position as the founding fathers on almost every isssue. you call him a extremist (and i do agree that he has libertarian views) but he is a true republican, not some political hack or corporate elitist like the republicans of today. do some research before you compare him to bush! people like you are the ones who elect extremists to power!

Jim said...

George Noory? Well, with that kind of endorsement you are sure to capture the vote of Bigfoot, Little Green Men and of course, Elvis.

The mainstream media doesn't have to give equal time to a fringe candidate like Ron Paul. He barely registers in any reputable national polling.

People want to read about candidates that have a reasonable chance of securing their party's nomination, not every Tom, Dick & Harry who decides to put on a tie and run for President.

If the George Noory's of the world are jumping on your bandwagon, it's time to either get off or find a new bandwagon because things aren't looking good for your candidacy in its current form.

Phillip Rhodes said...


The mainstream media doesn't have to give equal time to a fringe candidate like Ron Paul.

No, they don't have too, but they have a moral responsibility too. Every candidate who is properly registered / declared should be treated equally by the media, or the media move from simply reporting the news to shaping the news.

He barely registers in any reputable national polling.

And that couldn't possibly have anything to do with the media ignoring his campaign, now could it?

People want to read about candidates that have a reasonable chance of securing their party's nomination, not every Tom, Dick & Harry who decides to put on a tie and run for President.

I don't know what "People" you're talking about, but the "People" I know want to be fully informed and make a decision about the best candidate, period, not the best candidate as anointed by media outlets.

James said...

Ron Paul understands what is evident in our society, but apparently not a big deal to most people: the federal government has gone outside the scope of its constitutional powers. This might sound radical, but it isn't. Ron Paul only advocates that the federal government focus on what's in the constitution. If you don't know what those few powers are, then read it. EVERYTHING ELSE is a state issue, and he seems to be one of the few people that understands how the founders designed our nation. In each state you ought to have two governments at work: state and federal. Lately, its been the federal government coercing and forcing the state government to do its bidding. That's not what the country was made for. That's just what it has become. And if more people like Ron Paul were making decisions, then we would have a more logical system of government.

Jim said...


I don't know what "People" you're talking about, but the "People" I know want to be fully informed and make a decision about the best candidate, period, not the best candidate as anointed by media outlets.

Phillip, the "people" you know are by far part of a very small minority in this country that know or care about fringe candidates like Ron Paul.

Running for President is part politics and part popularity contest. In the playground of life, Ron Paul would be one of the last people picked for the kickball game.

LeBriz said...

Ron Paul would be the first one picked at kickball...only the team captains would openly talk him down just to secure their positions. There is very little that the Corporate Media is required to do and among those things, honesty and information are not on their list any longer.
Once you understand that Westinghouse, General Electric, News Corp. are giant benefactors from the State of War AND you take time to examine the depth of entrenchment that CORPORATE Lobbying money runs D.C.......well, then you can start from there to have an intelligent conversation about election dynamics. Hilarious to pick one side or the other of the SAME COIN! You may participate in the ELECTION, but, clearly, you do NOT participate in the SELECTION process... Have fun kids!

Jim said...


Time to take off the tin-foil hat and stop participating in marathon viewing sessions of the X-Files.

Your paranoid delusions are amusing, but unfortunately you're the kind of person that Ron Paul is gather support from; that's the kind of support which relegates Paul to the bottom of the bottom of the pile.

K said...

Ron Paul would run this country like he runs his campaign. Fiscally sound, out of debt, responsible, and with a deep knowledge of the role of government as it was intended by the Founding Fathers. Here's all you need to know about last night's debate:

Romney: 27%
Paul: 26%
Giuliani: 18%

Romney, Mitt
Raised: $23,434,634
Spent: $11,570,981
Cash on Hand: $11,863,652
Debts: $2,350,000

Giuliani, Rudy
Raised: $16,623,410
Spent: $5,688,207
Cash on Hand: $11,949,734
Debts: $88,862

McCain, John
Raised: $13,087,559
Spent: $8,379,214
Cash on Hand: $5,180,799
Debts: $1,812,636

Paul, Ron
Raised: $639,989
Spent: $115,070
Cash on Hand: $524,919
Debts: $0

Lord of Wealth said...

Ron Paul is the only person in Gov who truly understands the natue of money, how it is created, how it no longer is backed by anything of real value, how the constitution has been voided by allowing an outside private entity (the FED) to control the money supply. How inflation, debt and trade deficits will destroy America.

Ron is the only Candidate funding from individuals and not corporations. The only obligations he needs to fullfill is doing a good job and defending the constitution not paying back corporations who will demand he move their agenda.

The media is controlled by the same corporations and they are marginalizing him because he's bad for business, at least dirty businesss.

DEM or REP they are all the same money sucking lobby whores, with Ron Paul the only exception on the horizon today

Jim said...


It's people like you and your boy Ron Paul who do not understand the nature of global economics and the role of the Federal Reserve.

The good news is that Paul will never be President, so all of this discussion is really much ado about nothing.

Chris said...


It's a good thing you explained yourself with that comment.

Oh, wait...

Douglas said...


Oh please enlighten us almighty one. Have you read any of Ron Paul's works? Check out and read some of it.

Yea, 9 trillion dollar debt, America is certainly on the right track with the federal reserve :/

kuantan97 said...

Marsha writes, "He is an EXTREME libertarian. Haven't we had enough of ideologically-based decisions, already? Talk about gross over-simplification . . ." Ah, yes, an "EXTREME libertarian"--as opposed to the EXTREME statists he runs against. Indeed, those "EXTREME" nonagressors are sss...sspp...sspppooookky!

Poniolo said...

Ron Paul appeared to be the only candidate on stage last night who has actually read and understood the 9-11 Commission Report. In the post-debate interviews when asked to comment on the Congressman Paul's statements, all of the candidates that were asked commented to the effect that they had never heard of such a thing. My gosh, a bi-partisan report by a commission that included some of the leading experts on terrorism, and none of the wanna-be's have read and/or understood it, the lone exception being Congressman Paul. Those clueless people want to be president and direct the war on terrorism?! Wake up America; please. We need an honest, straight-talking person who actually understands foreign policy, to lead this country; and Ron Paul IS that person.

MyK said...

Mainstream media is ignoring Dr. Paul because they are given the scripts ahead of time. Not too far from the truth, they already have in mind who the "nominee" will be. But everytime there is a poll, Ron Paul is on top. More and more people agree with his true principles of smaller government and states rights. Since when is that "outrageous"? Since when is the constitution not the most important document in this country? Should we not be following it anymore? Apparently those who endorse Guiliani seem to think so. I pity those who will never even take the time to research Ron Paul. But I have great hope and we will see some great debates.

Ben said...


Unfortunately for the country, he is the ONLY Republican who truly does understand economics. He was elected and reelected repeatedly primarily for his economic positions. He is being attacked because he consistently applies his domestic laissez-faire policies to some international matters. If anything he is a champion of free market economics.

Benjamin said...


As a Global Economics Major I'm going to have to completely disagree with you.

Rob Mercker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob Mercker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob Mercker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...


You can certainly disagree, but if I were your parents I'd ask the college you attend for a refund.

David said...

@ Jim

You are making claims that you haven't backed up with real proof. Other people on this form have shown statics and other forms proof for their argument. You have provided nothing but FUD. Seems to me you are trolling around.

alinuxfan said...

Be a nice troll and say something useful in response.
How is the Federal Reserve good for the US?
Why are most policies made inside the DC Beltway? And not at the State level as intended by the Constitution?
Why are there new bills and/or laws almost daily infringing upon our privacy or other rights afforded to us in the Constitution?
Why is our government continuously drawing up plans to steal money from its Citizens and use it for what they deem "important"?

Let's get back to the smaller and less-obtrusive government that our Constitution described.

Luigi said...

In some polls, Paul comes out as a second tier candidate. In others, he wins by a significant margin. What's the difference?

The former tend to be randomized telephone polls: calls to random people around the country, generally in the hundreds. These polls are notoriously inaccurate, and are based on media exposure and "buzz". Frequently, the location of the calls is manipulated to alter the numbers. For instance, a nationwide poll where 80% of the calls were made above the Mason-Dixon line would have a totally different outcome than an election.

The latter tend to be internet or text polls, where the voters are the active party, rather than the pollsters. These polls are also notoriously inaccurate, but they are EQUALLY INACCURATE FOR ALL CANDIDATES. That is to say, people will spam the polls, but the distribution of spamming will be roughly even across the board. So while the specific numbers and individual polls are unreliable, the relative ranking tends to be reasonable. Ron Paul has come out on top of many such "passive" polls.

What you can glean from all this polling is that Ron Paul does not have enormous national exposure (2% last I heard, which is better than any of the other "second tier" candidates). However, his voter base is very active, and forms a majority among the people who watch the debates, political websites etc at this point in the game.

It is not reasonable to call him a marginal candidate at this point. Howard Dean had a terrible record in telephone polls for a long time; his publicity was a similar grassroots campaign, that as far as the phone polls were concerned, came out of nowhere. He didn't win the nomination, but he was a significant contender. Similarly, if Ron Paul has such an active voting base, he could have a significant impact. He certainly shows more promise than any of the other "second tier" candidates.

Ben said...

@ Jim,

As Chair of the Rochester Township (MN) Republican Party, and as a MN State Delegate, I would like to express in strongest possible terms my disagreement with your appraisal of Congressman Ron Paul. I am President of the Federalist Society at Case Western Reserve School of Law, and I firmly believe and maintain that not only does this country need strict constructionists on the federal bench; we need them in the White House and halls of Congress. I am a lifetime conservative, and I find that the "conservatives" of today are mere shadows of true principle and right reason. Why embrace the failed leftist foreign policy you advocate? What shall be our guide if not the founders, the Constitution, and the tradition of American conservatism we come from?

Congressman Paul is the epitome of this tradition, complete and non-contradicted. In the debate last night, contrary to your perspective, he stated the obvious, that if you intervene in a bar fight, even if you are far bigger and stronger than the two belligerents fighting, one of them may, in an irrational and angry moment, punch you square in the nose. This does not mean that you deserve the punch, just that, by intervening, you dramatically increased your chances of being hurt. Paul is not isolationist, he is non-interventionist. There is a profound distinction, isolationists promote protectionist-America-first mentality, non-interventionists merely advocate free commerce with all, peaceable relations with the willing, and consistent and compatible domestic and foreign policies. You say you agree with Ron on Constitutional issues, good, so perhaps the Congress should in fact have declared war as Article I demands? You write that his philosophies could perhaps be viable if the United States were only dealing with "nation-states," and not stateless terrorists, but this does not answer Congressman Paul's fundamental challenge, that by interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign nations, the U.S., clearly militarily beyond the retaliatory reach of any such regime, could only be vulnerable to attacks by "stateless" terrorists. Individuals fight as they are able. Merely because the Islamic fighters are fundamentalists does not mean that they are devoid of reason. They have no intention of just dying for anything, they will trade their lives, but only to cause harm. It is not appeasement to say, "let us alone, and we will let you alone." If indeed we are, as we were attacked on 9-11, we can expect President Paul to support an immediate and constitutionally-mandated forcible response. Afghanistan would not be under Taliban rule if the U.S. adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy before 9-11. Non-intervention does not mean inaction, it merely means America does not seek global hegemonic domination

Tarring perhaps the only candidate who truly will uphold the Constitution and a foreign policy governed by the fundamental benchmark guideline of civilization, "what's mine is mine, and what's thine is thine," is unfortunate, and I trust not founded on animus, but on mere misinformation. Why should we as conservatives settle for the promise that the chief executive (who as you recall is constitutionally sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States) will appoint strict constructionists to the federal bench when we could elect one. The President's job is to enforce the law, how is this possible in the absence of a good grasp of Constitutional principles? The Legislature is the policy making branch in the constitution I know, the old constitution. You refuse to actually discuss the issues underlying the policy-position differences by seeking to paint Dr. Paul an extremist crackpot. How juvenile. As a law student clerking in federal court, I assure you that should I read a motion made with the logic of your attacks, I would laugh and discard it.

Pedro said...


I am a Democrat at heart in most issues, but I feel more like voting for Ron Paul every day that passes and he continues to make rational comments and stands up to the criminal hypocrisy of Giuliani and most of the other nominees. I actually prefer sacrificing Democrat social values for a more responsible Federal government. In reality though, most social policies would not be jeopardized by Dr. Paul either, since a lot of it would be left to the states, as a Federalist system should do.

Pedro said...

I agree that the first form of polling is inaccurate for the reasons you pointed out, but I disagree with your account on the second form; I think the results lie more towards the middle of the spectrum.

The second form is also biased by the fact that online polls are dominated by more internet savvy and interested votes, especially when you consider multiple votes by the same person (scripts for example). As it happens, Digg, Crooks and Liars, and a lot of other websites have been exposing how valid Ron Paul's positions are, and how irresponsible his opponents are, at least in some of the issues. As such, the proportion of people who vote online tend to be more educated in some of these issues than the general populace.

Imagine for example the political distribution of FOX viewers. Now consider how most of the Hannity and O'Reilly viewers must be the most ignorant tools in the planet, and they must all buy that Ron Paul is unpatriotic, etc... Now if you poll nationally and not online, you will include more of these individuals in the results and get a reading in between the two forms of polling you identified.

Is my point clear?

cowbot said...

We have to prevent them from burying him. Get the message out people. Download and burn the Ron Paul videos and give em to your tv-addicted parents, relatives etc. Give a republican wank an object lesson in aggression and hypocrisy. Teach a democrat that they can implement their social-issues agenda better when states have more freedom, and the Fed doesn't control everything.

KineticReaction said...


shut the up you evil shill. You understand nothing about economics or the national interest. If you care about the nation, which at the moment is being crushed under a mountain of debt, then you support Ron Paul. If you are a selfish traitor, then you vote in the establishment that got America to where it is at right now.

Greg Butko said...

Ron Paul is ignored by mainstream media because he is addressing the issues. This is something our Ministry of Propaganda (mainstream media) will not allow. The media promote the views of the same globalist, special interests who have control of both major political parties. These globalists can be found in organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations. It's the CFR who has been writing our foreign policy for decades. And the CFR has representation in the media. What more need be said?

Bob said...

Remove adware