I agree 100% Brad. Of course with bachmann winning AND being a close second on the list of people the "progressives" love to hate she's gonna get all the attention over some grandfatherly senior citizen who can't hope to win. But your concern to prop up the only one in the pool who can't beat Obama is noted. Perhaps you should set the example and include him in the childish "green report" picture you have of Bachmann and Perry, let the squeeky wheel lead the way. No? Didn't think so.

Yeah, I loved watching that segment too. Also, while the good Dr. Paul may not have been electable in the past, he's looking saner and saner compared to the "mainstream" candidates nowadays.

Yeah, Paul is the Republican Kucinich.

WingnutSteve -

Wow. Lots of passive aggression packed into that one short comment. But I'll play along...

Of course with bachmann winning AND being a close second on the list of people the "progressives" love to hate she's gonna get all the attention over some grandfatherly senior citizen who can't hope to win.

The bulk of the "progressives" seen giving the attention to Bachmann and ignoring Paul in that clip are Republican officials, Fox "News" reporters, and CNN's died-in-the-wool wingnut Drew Griffin. So you lose on that score, at least.

I'm sorry you feel the only guy with legitimate core beliefs, the only actual conservative in the current field is the only one who couldn't beat Obama, but that speaks very poorly to your wholly hijacked political party at this time, I'm afraid.

But your concern to prop up the only one in the pool who can't beat Obama is noted.

For the record, given the issues about which The BRAD BLOG reports most often, it's my opinion that anyone "in the pool" could "beat" Obama at this time. So you lose on that score as well, I'm afraid.

I'm a bit surprised, in the meantime, that you're silly enough (or have read so little of The BRAD BLOG) to charge that my assertions about Paul are, somehow, a cynical attempt to "prop up" someone that I believe to be unelectable. In fact, on a personal level, I have far more respect for Paul than any of the other candidates currently regarded by the MSM as legitimate candidates (in other words, the ones who are allowed to participate in debates at this time, etc.)

I have covered Paul for years, and have excoriated media and the GOP for treating him and his real conservative values as if he's from Mars, and the corporate "Tea Party" for co-opting his legitimate Tea Party uprising which was ignored and laughed at by those very same folks way back in 2007 before the fake "Tea Party" was instructed to act as if they give a damn about things like federal spending. Here's just one example of that.

Perhaps you should set the example and include him in the childish "green report" picture you have of Bachmann and Perry

If he shoves one of those things in his mouth on camera, and our report that day has to do with him, we certainly will! Especially if he goes on record denying science as *all* of the other "mainstream" GOP have now done!

let the squeeky wheel lead the way. No? Didn't think so.

As mentioned, we've covered him for years, legitimately, likely more than most MSM sites or Wingnut blogs or even Progressive blogs. I suspect your unsupportable charge that I'm cynical in my coverage of Paul reveals far more about your own cynicism than it does mine.

Want to try again? Again?

windbag steve, u have a severe prognosticaing deficiency.

What is RP strongest on, derive his strongest support from? the economy. where do you predict the Dow, unemployment or forclosures to be on Feb 6, 2012, just over 5 months away. Better?

Or,as most of us fear, not only in the toilet but half way to the sewage treatment plant.

Michelle-mittens-perry have no chance as they are 100% tricked out empty headed whores for exact people who robbed us so blind we aint gotta pot to piss in.

Dr. Ron knows who done it. And he's comin fer em.

All the MSM fluff in all the kings mens rooms cannot give an angry mob good jobs.

Dr. Paul is gunning for the Fed. And the Pentagon.

That is why he is so astonishingly ignored when he missed winning Iowa (supposedly) by a mere 152 "votes".

As the masses continue their pre-determined slide into abject poverty, many will wake the fuck up and also be gunning for the Fed and the Pentagon.

I think there is a good cance Ron Paul will win in a huge landslide in Iowa Feb 2012.

They're doing to Paul what they did to Kucinich and Sharpton. It sure seemed to me that when Kucinich and Sharpton participated in the "debates" they repeatedly got the loudest cheers from audiences. As far as the media was concerned this did not happen. Same sort of thing now with Paul, I suspect.

Glenn Greenwald covered this topic beautifully today. Any true populist voice from our political cast of characters, anyone not towing the conventional accepted dogma of the bubbleheads in Washington is just not going to be recognized.

As I periodically try to do over at Greenwald's site, I once again introduced the topic of election integrity into the conversation. I'm not sure I've ever gotten even a single response. Here's what I posted today.

Another elephant in the room...

The only point less acknowledged than all these excellent ones Glenn makes here is about how dysfunctional, unreliable, and undemocratic our vote tallying processes are in this country.

Further damning evidence that the 2004 election was in fact hacked was revealed a month ago in a court filing in the King Lincoln Bronzeville v. Blackwell case in Ohio concerning the 2004 election results. Here's a link to Bob Fitrakis' article on the subject.
http://freepress.org/dep...nts/display/19/2011/4239

The evidence of false vote tallies in the last three presidential elections is substantial. But even our champion Glenn here acts as if none of it exists.

From the belief that Bush ever won the presidency flows every consideration of strategy for what works and what doesn't work to get elected. If he NEVER was elected(and he wasn't)EVERY prognositcation, opinion, strategy, assertion on the subject of how to get elected in the U.S. is based on false premises. This is madness.

Glenn Greenwald is one of my core curriculum guys. In my estimation he is brilliant at consistently pointing out the many inconsistencies and hypocrisies of our leaders and the media. I consider him a national treasure. But everyone has their blind spots and it seems the topic of election integrity may be one of his. I've never heard him say boo on the subject. Hope I get to.

Wing Nut - once again, you show your true turdy colors in your odorous comments; this one probably one of the worst you've driveled from your uninformed, dispepsic (look it up) naughty parts (Yes, you have them, too!)

As a former Ron Paul voter, I find your comments in this thread far so far removed from your occasional Wing-Nut "cute"...you have just cooked yourself (again?!) by revealing yourself (again?!) to be a corporate, lacky shill-toad.

You're not funny, you're not cute; the positions you advocate are nothing short of un-American, and you're clearly not all that sane.

DONE commenting / responding to you forever after this Ron Paul dig. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I know you're not. That would require a moral constitution; and you have proven time and time again that you lack even the most basic moral center, bestowed by "God" on even the most basic, lesser creatures on the planet.

I will never respond to one of your posts ever again. I know there's nothing you can't stand more than having your stupidity ignored...so that's EXACTLY what I intend to do from now on.

This is typical of what John Nichols & Robt. McChesney, in Tragedy & Farce, refer to as the corporate media "policing" of the electoral process.

They cite the instance in which Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) launched into ABC’s Ted Koppel for his effort to avoid serious issues while moderating a New Hampshire debate. When Koppel suggested during his questioning that Kucinich, Al Sharpton and Senator Carol Mosley Braun were vanity candidates who should drop out, Kucinich replied, “I want the American people to see where media takes politics in this country. We start talking about endorsements, now we’re talking about polls and then talking about money. When you do that you don’t have to talk about what’s important to the American people.” The audience responded with a “loud and sustained applause.”

ABC responded one week later with “a formal decision to cut back on its already scant coverage of Kucinich, Sharpton, and Moseley Braun.” This drew not only a sharp e-mail from Kucinich supporters, but a rather insightful comment from the candidate himself.

“The American people,” Kucinich observed, “clearly do not want the media to be in a position where they’re determining which candidates ought to be considered for the presidency and which ought not to be considered for the presidency. Such practice by the media represents a tampering with the political process itself. The role of the media in this process has now become a national issue central to the question of who’s running this country….”

In this instance it is clear that the corporate media and, especially, Fox "News" do not want a candidate who so forcefully speaks out against our imperial wars of aggression, hence the transparent effort to marginalize Ron Paul.

While we're on the subject of corporate media "policing" of the electoral process, we should not overlook the one GOP candidate who is undoubtedly the most marginalized by the MSM.

That would be Fred Karger, a former Ralph Nader supporter, who is the only openly gay candidate running for President.

Kargar announced today that he is filing a complaint with the FEC against Fox "News" in relation to its decision to exclude him from the Iowa debate.

Brad conducted a terrific interview of Karger while guest hosting the Malloy show.

Ron Paul has been right about the Bush-Obama wars of imperialism from day one. There's no way in hell the corporate media will ever tell the truth about that. And the easiest way to avoid the truth is to ignore it.

I've gotta say it hurts to know that Jeannie Dean will no longer be calling me names or telling me what I think, which is all she's ever done anyway.

I stand by my comment that Paul can't get elected Brad; he'll turn 80 soon after the election which is a huge strike, the left wing racism charges regarding his "writings" in his "journal" would resurface, and things like the Fed and taxes, and prisons and drug laws serve a purpose that most people likely support. Whether I agree or not with any of his positions doesn't matter. The fact that you've written three or four stories over the years using him to slam the modern day tea party or Fox News, wow man you're awesome!

Does he deserve more attention for his near "victory" in Iowa? Sure he does. But the left wing media is so focused on hating Bachmann it's no wonder that Paul got no attention and it all went to her... and of course to Perry for throwing his dimwitted hat into the ring. I just thought it was amusing that someone so politically biased as you would suddenly be so concerned about Mr. Paul.

WingnutSteve -

The fact that you've written three or four stories over the years using him to slam the modern day tea party or Fox News, wow man you're awesome!

Have written many more than that, and most not as "slam [of] modern day tea party or Fox News." Moreover, have been on the radio shows of many Paul supporters (including the guy who created his "LOVElution" logo, and had hid him on my show as well) but your continued knee-jerk cynicism and intellectual laziness is noted. Again.

the left wing media is so focused on hating Bachmann it's no wonder that Paul got no attention and it all went to her...

I already responded to that same point in my previous comment, in reply to your initial comment, but apparently it didn't take. So I'll try again. You are suggesting that Fox's Chris Wallace, Brett Baer and CNN's Drew Griffin, among other Rightwingers as seen in the clip above, who have all ignored Paul's success at the straw poll (and elsewhere --- for years) are "left wing media"? Really?

I just thought it was amusing that someone so politically biased as you would suddenly be so concerned about Mr. Paul.

Nothing "sudden" about it. Seriously, as they say, "Google is your friend."

She's the darling of the right wing, she's the boogywoman of the left wing, she gets the attention. The left has made her much more formidable and much more newsworthy because of their fear/disdain of her. I didn't think anyone could surpass Palin on the progressive hate list but let Bachmann get a few delegates and she will.

I did find a few stories about Paul searching your archives, several of which link to this story even though they are supposedly about another topic.

You have: the one where you use his campaign managers death in the argument about health care, one using Paul to skewer Fox for not including him in a debate, one using him to criticize the Tea Party, and an interview with Maher in 2007. Oh, the one where he applauded wikileaks too...

WingnutSteve -

She's the darling of the right wing, she's the boogywoman of the left wing, she gets the attention.

So odd then that the "boogywoman of the left wing" caused Fox and CNN's wingnut Griffin to report on Santorum and Huntsman instead of Paul, eh?

The left has made her much more formidable and much more newsworthy because of their fear/disdain of her.

I think you mistake ridule for "fear" and fact-checking for "disdain".

I didn't think anyone could surpass Palin on the progressive hate list but let Bachmann get a few delegates and she will.

I couldn't tell ya for sure, but my guess is Progressives would *love* to see Bachmann get ALL of the delegates!

You have: the one where you use his campaign managers death in the argument about health care, one using Paul to skewer Fox for not including him in a debate, one using him to criticize the Tea Party, and an interview with Maher in 2007. Oh, the one where he applauded wikileaks too...

Not sure what your point is. You made unsupportable assertions about why I ran this article. I have spoken in favor of Paul, and the fact that he has actual conservative convictions and values for years, and that those pretending to have the values that Paul actually does have, have done all they could to marginalize him in order to protect the fact that they are anything but actual conservatives.

While I don't agree w/ Paul on everything, I greatly respect the fact that he actually believes what he's saying and that he actually gives a damn about the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law, whether it rankles his own party or not. I have similar respect for Kucinich, etc.

I also despise the fact that the corporate media believes they, not the voters of the United States of America, can best determine who the President of these United States should or shouldn't be.

So what was your silly, knee-jerk, unsupportable point again (which you would have been wiser simply correcting and apologizing for in the first place)?

Apologizing? Lol! I find it amusing that a (very) left leaning site is so concerned about Ron Paul not getting enough media attention and I made my point. You get a little too defensive sometimes Brad.

WingnutSteve @15 wrote

I've made my point.

Give it up, WingnutSteve. The only point you've ever made is that you haven't got a clue.

I think Ernie's got it at #16. Steve is having a different conversation here than everyone else. His lens filters out what Brad is actually saying. It doesn't register. Responding to and then insisting on things that have not actually been said would seem to make coherent dialogue problematic. To say the least.