Rudy spent more days in Iowa than Ron Paul, so I am not sure how you can say he didn't compete but Paul did. Still, your point is right about the next few states being more telling. We'll see. Go Ron Paul.

The idea that how you do in the states you campaign in is all that matters is a total copout. These candidates are running for President of the United States of America, not President of a few states in which they perform well.
Besides Thompson and Giuliani have far better name recognition than Paul, and in addition they are given far more media publicity (for free) than Paul. Paul has to take his message to the people and to the airwaves unlike Thompson and Giulani who can have the press do that for them.
I would say that all things being equal Paul would undoubtedly be in the top 2-3, unfortunately the press doesn't cover him, and he is constantly the target of smear campaigns. Paul has overcome adversity and will continue to do so. The only thing Giuliani and Thompson have done is underperformed.

Good one. Except you forgot that Giuliani spent more time in both Iowa and New Hampshire than Paul, so that excuse doesn't fly.

It worth noting that Rudy Giuliani, for all his protestations of 'not competing' in Iowa, spent more time there than Ron Paul did.

WRONG - Rudy and Fred spent more time/had more visits in Iowa than Ron Paul. And Rudy had more visits to New Hampshire (albeit over a longer period of time). Get your facts straight please. Oh, and how do you explain Ron Paul trampling Rudy in Michigan where both had little investment?

"It's worth noting Mr. Paul has competed seriously in all three states he points to, while Giuliani spent little time in Iowa and Michigan and Thompson ignored New Hampshire and Michigan."

No, it's not "worth noting." I live in Michigan and have spent nearly a year volunteering for him. He has not "competed seriously" here. There have been NO TV ADS, only a few radio ads on cheap stations, and for months there was nobody from the campaign here to help. Michigan was done ENTIRELY on grassroots. Hardly ANY campaign influence at all. In fact, we couldn't even get signs or literature for over a month right up until the week of the primary.

And he STILL beat Giuliani who has been here more times, spent more money, and had several paid staff here.

This crap BS of dismissing Giuliani's losses (and continued *front runner* status, regardless) while relegating Ron Paul to un-noteworthy status just isn't cutting it. Giuliani and Thompson have both outspent and outcampaigned Ron Paul in all three states, yet Ron Paul still beat them fair and square.

So don't go lying to your readers and telling them how Giuliani's strategy makes sense while Ron Paul's is just a sign that he should be ignored and dismissed. The people are really getting sick of this crap, Stephen.

If, by some miracle, Ron Paul wins (and even if he doesn't, at this point) there is going to be some serious paypack towards the media for their attempts to manipulate this election. The MSM has seriously crossed the line this time and it is not going un-noticed.

Stephen,

Great article. One thing to also factor in is the amount of media coverage. It has been biased against Ron Paul. This is truly a grassroots campaign because Ron Paul is not a billionaire and his message, being conservative, is flying in the face of current Republican positions which have effectively grown government over the past eight years. Given that, I think Ron Paul's campaign has been an amazing success thus far.

I have to disagree that Paul campaigned in Michigan. As a Michigan resident and Ron Paul volunteer, I can tell you his campaign ran 1 radio ad, zero TV ads and he hasn't visited in over 3 months. Yet he more than doubled Giuliani's votes.

Thank you for the article!

Remember to donate on MLK:

www.freeatlast2008.com

I live in SE Michigan, the most populated area. Ron Paul hasn't been here since August. There was an office, but little campaigning. I heard one radio ad all year, and saw no tv ads. I saw tons of huckabee, romney and mccain ads. and rudy is all over the news every time he speaks.

Actually, it's worth noting Dr. Paul did not compete seriously in those three states. He competed, but he spent LESS time and money than Giuliani in Iowa and Michigan.

Also, it's more like New Hampshire and Michigan ignored Thompson.

The Paul campaign has apparently spent less than a million total in media buys in those three states. Things will probably get interesting when he unloads the other $20+ million before February 5th.

Also, you mentioned South Carolina, but don't forget about Nevada.

Ron Paul didn't spend more time in Iowa than Giuliani and only spent little time in Michigan as well.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124231.html

The bias in the media against Ron Paul is so obvious, that it is ridiculous to deny it.

Why can't Ron Paul's enemies challenge him intellectually? Why do they fight him with this media censorship bs?!

People outside of the US really wonder what's going on.

Swiss Friends of Ron Paul
http://switzerland4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

ACTUALLY, Giuliani made MORE visits to both Iowa & New Hampshire than Ron Paul and still got only half as many votes. Do you honestly think visits by the candidate has much to do with it?

This is the sort of shoddy journalism that Ron Paul supporters have become so familiar with. I was personally interviewed by a Nevada newspaper during a Ron Paul visit here and I was quoted completely different than what I actually said. The press in general is totally inept.

Unfortunately, Ron Paul will not stack up well in the relatively uneducated and heavily populist southern bible belt regions. Individualists don't stand much of a chance down there. Fortunately, neither will Rudy Guiliani.

Stephen, You are full of it. Giuliani spent significantly more time in Iowa than Paul. Paul spent very little time in New Hampshire or Michigan.

I have no doubt that Paul will again defeat the has-beens Giuliani and Thompson in both South Carolina and Nevada on Saturday.

Actually, Rudy Giuliani spent more time in Iowa than Ron Paul did, all his protestations to the contray. There's a website that tracks the candidate's appearances, and it shows much more effort by Giuliani in Iowa, than Paul.

But that's besides the point, the real question is:
Do we really want a President who runs away when faced with a tough job? Do we want a president who does nothing for fear of doing something wrong? Everyone acts like Giuliani in Iowa, or Thompson in NH were doing something intelligent, when they were simply doing something safe. The 2 delegates that Paul won in Iowa may just be the 2 delegates that push him over the top.

This race is going to be about stamina. Every delegate is going to matter. A state like South Dakota (primary June 3rd) usually doesn't rate any attention, because it's all over but the shouting by the time we have our primary.

This year, our 27 delegates may be sorely needed by someone, and this may become a hotly contested state.

Even Tsunami Tuesday may not resolve the issue, unless one candidate wins a clear majority of the states. If the candidates split the states, like they have been, then how much money a candidate can raise is going to be huge factor.

Obviously, Mitt can write himself a check anytime he needs to, so he will be in the race until the finish line. Duncan Hunter, probably not so much.

Ron Paul is obviously flush enough, and has the volunteer army, but McCain may soon have to join Edwards on political welfare. Thompson is an unknown, but I suspect unless he pulls out a win in SC, he will have to drop out ... the latest polls show him in fourth place, and that could easily melt between then and now.

Everyone is in it until Feb 5th, that much is certain. After that, I expect to see Hunter / Thompson drop out.

(I've been waiting all campaign to use that, now seemed like a good time, since Hunter is almost certainly not going to be the nominee, and if he was, I doubt Thompson would agree to be VP. ;)

A serious discussion about what this candidate is proposing would serve a useful purpose. As a voter looking to choose a candidate I would benefit from an intelligent reasoned argument as to why his ideas about currency and foreign policy aren't valid.

Ron Paul represents whats best in America.

Stephen, I certainly don't know WHERE you get your facts from, but I can tell you this: I used to be a Giuliani supporter and I have attended three of Giuliani's rallies in Michigan pre-November '07. It seems that he tried early on to get support in Michigan but could not drum up enough support so he had to abandon it. I can't tell you how many times Ron Paul's been to Michigan but I certainly did not know his name prior to the debate in Michigan, I can tell you that. For a person to rise out of anonimity (which Ron was mired in up until November or so) and beat the frontrunner Republican in ANY state, is an accomplishment worth lauding. Instead, you downplay Ron's accomplishments of having beat Rudy TWICE, and that too by wide margins, and try to offer excuses for TWO Frontrunner Republicans finishing BEHIND the "Fringe" candidate. There seems to be something wrong here. I would be lying if I told you I don't detect any bias in your article. I've attended 3 rallies for Rudy and none for Ron, yet I support Ron now. Seems like the more people SEE Rudy speak, the less they support him. I think he'd be better off just staying in Florida throughout the primaries so that he doesn't lose anymore support nationwide.

Rudy spent more time in Iowa than Ron Paul. So much for that argument.

Why does everyone think that Giuliani's poor showing in Iowa and New Hampshire was because he spent little time there. He spent almost as much effort and manpower as Romney or Huckabee.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801090011?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801050006?f=s_search

It shows the unpopularity of Giuliani, especially if you have the perspective of the mainstream media that he is legitimate and Ron Paul is not. Yet Paul is beating Giuliani in the polls consistently so far.

"It's worth noting Mr. Paul has competed seriously in all three states he points to, while Giuliani spent little time in Iowa and Michigan and Thompson ignored New Hampshire and Michigan."

What is also worthy of note is that Ron Paul did this WITHOUT the help from the mass media,that the other front runners have enjoyed. From day one of Ron Pauls Campaign he has been ignored,ridiculed,excluded by most every facet of the corporate owned mass media.

In an attempt to reach those voters not online, the Paul Campaign has been forced to go to extreme measures to reach voters, and thanks to their unpaid volunteer force they are able to canvass, call and attend public venues to get the Ron Paul message out. Ron Paul has spent less in all 4 post primaries than any Candidate running, including rudy.
www.ronpaullibrary.org

Ahh, the press. Unbiased journalism-such as is constantly found here at the Washington Times-makes my red white and blue heart pump at least three times faster than normal....

Giuliani did campaign in New Hampshire and spent more money then Paul. He also (like Thompson) has the distinction of being a media darling whose every movement will get press-along with the authoritative statement that he is "one of the front runners"-no matter what he does. The very fact that Thompson-an unserious candidate who's just along for the ride-gets more of chance from you guys than Paul who is campaigning his heart out demonstrates the extent of your bias against him. And to think, I grew up thinking the Times was the "conservative" Newspaper and the Post was the "liberal" Washington newspaper.

For the record, here is some data that demonstrates the real threat Paul poses to the CFR-secret-handshake-club in DC:

From Lewrockwell.com

January 04, 2008
Crunching the Numbers: Iowa Votes per Campaign Appearance
Posted by Nick Bradley at January 4, 2008 10:12 AM

Although 5% of the precincts have not yet reported their numbers, I think it's early enough to look at the data. At the NY Times Politics section, you can see where candidates have had campaign events throughout the country. Here is campaign event data for Iowa (01 Aug - 03 Jan):

- Paul - 27 Appearances, 11,598 votes
- Giuliani - 35 Appearances, 4,013 votes

- McCain - 38 Appearances, 15,248 votes

- Thompson - 75 Appearances, 15,521 votes

- Huckabee - 86 Appearances, 39,814 votes

- Romney - 109 Appearances, 29,405 votes

Based on that data, the candidates got the following number of votes per official campaign appearance:

- Huckabee - 463 votes
- Paul - 429.5 votes

- McCain - 401.3 votes

- Romney - 269.8 votes

- Thompson - 207 votes

- Giuliani - 114.6 votes

Be afraid. Be very afraid. We're not even in the South yet, where the bulk of the conservative base is.

What Mr. Snyder left unsaid because he thought it was blatantly obvious was that both Rudy and Fred have gotten, and continue to get much more media attention. The fact that Paul has done as well as he has in spite of media animosity says something about his message. Dennis Kucinich is the same "brand" of candidate, but his message hasn't brought the same groundswell of support.

The Republican party is fractured because each candidate represents a faction within the party. McCain is the Party man, Romney is the business man, Huckabee is the religious right, Guiliani is the neo-con, Thompson is the Reagan-esque defender, and Paul is the classic conservative (as in pre-international adventureism).

Each is a legitimate wing in the "Grand Old Party" and has a legitimate place under "the tent". The Republican party needs to define itself and on what issues it will stand. Most of the current media influence is an attempt to make the news, not report it. Rather than trying to artificially thin the herd of elephants the main stream media would do much better to HONESTLY and FAIRLY allow the candidates to put forth their viewpoints. Let the American People decide, not the pollsters.

Historically whenever a party is fractured and has to choose a brokered candidate in their convention they do poorly. BUT it also gives the opportunity for the discussion, debate, and a renewal that is necessary to re-build and unite.

----------

In my humble opinion:
If Paul doesn't pull off a miracle it wont matter who wins; Democrat or Republican. The end result will be bigger government, runaway executive powers, larger debt, international and domestic "intervention", inflation, and the clogged toilet backing up another inch before the big flush...But then again, what do I know? I'm just a "young" pessimistic independent with a love for history and his country.

Ron Paul votes are being stolen in the electoral process while other candidates are recieving excess votes... this is confirmed in the new hampshire primaries, i am sure its happened in the other electorials as well however are less transparent, NH was too obvious to miss. Don't trust this system it is a complete fraud, your votes don't count now has a new meaning

The most unbelievable thing about Ron Paul's candidacy is the level to which the far left has gone in providing false support for the man. On numerous far left blogs there is a very concerted effort being made to get left wingers to contribute money, blog, caucus and vote in primaries for Ron Paul. Their goal is to encourage the candidate to declare himself a third party candidate in the November race in order to split, to some degree, the conservative vote, ala Ross Perot, and take the presidency.

Sure there are some very avid supporters for Ron Paul but it includes a lot of people from the Daily KOS and MoveOn.org who are the extreme left of the Democratic party and who will vote for the Democratic Nominee in November. This is easily identified by the large number of net savvy KOS supporters/Ron Paul supporters who rant about the Great 9-11 False Flag Conspiracy which says the US government planned and executed the 9-11 attacks on the US. The same claim is also made by many Imams in the Muslim world.

The real kicker is the amount of money Ron Paul has mysteriously been able to generate via the web, where contributions are more difficult to trace and account for. It would be interesting to know how may left wing organizations, members of those organizations and liberal partisans are contributing to Ron Paul's campaign. The dollars versus his poll numbers suggest something is awry. It is no different than the last Fox News Debate. The entire country, the focus group present at the debate and political analysts across the nation all saw the debate and non, nada, zero, zilch, zippo thought Ron Paul won the debate. In fact, while they agreed with his participation in the debate, most only commented on his bizarre behavior and answers to questions. However, by some miracle, in the text poll by Fox News following the debate, texters by 5 to 1 claimed Ron Paul the victor of the debate. It was so ridiculous as to be pathetic and was obviously an organized effort by the tech savvy conspiracy KOS clan. Even on this blog, it is full of people praising Ron Paul, this being the only dissenting post.

If a journalist truly wanted to do some real journalistic news, it would be delve into who is really supporting Ron Paul. Is it truly conservative Libertarians as many would have you believe, or is it left-wing trolls? I'll bet on the later. I'd even suspect there is some George Soros money going to Ron Paul.

Strange how quiet it has been in recent months from the George Soros camp unlike the last three elections. Usually there are big stories about his push to finance Democratic candidates. Could it be it is quiet because he is funding Republicans that he believes can be easily defeated by a Democratic nominee? That might help explain how John McCain came back from a bankruptcy candidacy and how an obscure Baptist Minister rose to the top sidelining the only true conservative, Fred Thompson, who actually embodies the ideals the vast majority of Republicans claim to desire in a candidate. It may also explain Rudy's fall from national supremacy as the leading Republican.

As for Mitt Romney, well, he can fund himself.

So what is the truth about Ron Paul....really?

Giuliani campaigned everywhere. Stop being ignorant.

Oh, misinformation. Makes you wonder how people get jobs at these media outlets without doing any research before publishing a story.

Paul spent less time and money in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. Rudy, while he wasn't involved much in those states, did spend a lot more money and time in those states.

Let's not make excuses.

The more I think about it, the more impressed I am by the media blackout of Ron Paul. This takes an enormous effort on the part of the corporatists. And so far, no one has stepped out of line, following their marching orders to perfection. Makes me think that in some alternate dimension, the media are actually singing Dr. Paul's praises in unison. If only I could go live in that dimension.

As noted already, you obviously haven't checked your facts. Because Rudy has spent more time in Iowa than Ron Paul. Not to mention nowhere near the same media attention and all the cheap shot hit pieces and "He can't win" articles.

This is just more pudding on the bias cake. Too bad for you the internet pretty much shows the bias. Hey, how do you like it when Americans are informed and don't rely on you for the news anymore? Getting nervous yet? Looks like it to me.

Here is 10 years of Ron Paul's writing. Let them link to this and find out the truth.
Many thanks to Lew Rockwell for creating the Ron Paul Archives. Here is the truth about Ron Paul!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/

The bias in the media against Dr. Paul is becoming so blatant that it is starting to become funny.

Oh, and Stephen, the facts in your post are flat out wrong. Ron Paul campaigned LESS in Michigan either Gooliani or Thompson.

Pffttttt....

McCain never met a Bill or a War he did not like. He admits to being part of the problem in the Republican party in the past, too bad he could not have figured that out BEFORE the election. He certainly is not the brightest bulb in the bunch..President?

Huckabee wants to do to the Constitution what sharia law does for middle eastern government. Taxes? All of a sudden (during election) he becomes the great anti-Tax man. How convienant, too bad he could not have figured that out before the election..

Romney as McCain called the kettle black is truly the "Candidate of Change" (Changing sides) Can anyone say flip-flopper?

Rudy... Can anyone say 9-11 a hundred times fast without a lisp?

Thompson..Can anyone say Law and Order? Thompson could certainly ACT the part but could he play it? Very doubtful.

Ron Paul.. With the whole GOP against him he is definitely an underdog and with his radical idea of following the Constitution and strengthening the dollar he is on a rocky road. on the other hand most Americans love an underdog too..

We haven't even seen Ron Paul spend money yet and just take a look at his following.

Ron Paul did NOT seriously campaign in any of the first 3 primaries. He made less visits to Iowa than Giuliani. He campained about the same as Thompson and Giuliani in New Hampshire, and he barely campained at all in Michigan.

Please check your facts.

When all the others are broke; Ron Paul will still be there!

Ron Paul 2008!

The only time the media covers Ron Paul is to call him a 'racist'. However, the media never mentions that John McCain was blatantly racist in the SC debate, read it here:
John McCain's racism in SC debates

Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.

Hollywood3763 you should pay attention next time you watch Faux news and count how many times they say the words "Ron Paul". Or watch the next caucus to see the pie chart with the large unmarked pie slice.

I don't trust the "polls" because so many people are new voters, don't have land lines, or are on the do-not-call list. So how can a poll get a true "random sample" of the voter base? I encourage you to research each candidate's real record of policy change or congressional voting record, and compare that to their campaign message(s).
Huckabee - raised more taxes in 10 years than Clinton did in 12 as governor of Arkansas.
Romney - changes his campaign message with every caucus.
Thompson - running for V.P.
McCain - wants to spend 100 years @ $1 trillion/yr in Iraq
Paul - never voted for tax increases, always votes for individual rights.

Ron Paul is staying steady and is growing his support, and donations across the country. No wonder Fox News deleted the segment from the SC Debate when Brit Humes asked the question about Ron Paul's electability, Ron Paul laid into Brit Humes, and rightfully so. Ron Paul informed Brit of the truth regarding the other Republicans, and what the Republican party has turned themselves into. Ron Paul also stated some very important truths, but you will only see it on YouTube.com. Ron Paul is not your typical politician, in fact I do not think of him as one. Ron Paul is an intelligent true conservative, that follows our Constitution, and laws, period. Ron Paul does not sugar coat anything, and is not pandering to special interest groups for votes, he is wanting to do what is right for WE THE PEOPLE, and our Constitution. I recently read that Giuliani is having a very difficult time in Florida, and I am not surprised. People can see through his lies and deception, but then again he is Fox News and Murdoch's golden boy, just ask Hannity.

You're grasping at straws, "Hollywood." Mr. Paul is running the most transparent campaign of ANY candidate. His money comes from individual donors (his website updates with donor names in real time). In fact, he has received more monetary support from active and retired members of the military than any other candidate--Republican or Democrat. You might do some investigating to find out who funds the other candidates (try www.opensecrets.org). Here's a hint: it's not individual donors.

What people like you don't understand is that there is a serious portion of the Republican party that DOES NOT APPROVE of the direction the party has taken. I am in this group. The bulk of Mr. Paul's support comes from people EXACTLY LIKE ME--life-long Republicans who believe the party has abandoned its principles. Mr. Paul's support is a perfect example of "blowback," i.e. actions having unintended consequences. Maybe other Republicans will better understand the premise now.

Folks like you make absolutely no sense. Mr. Paul cannot be both a kook with no support AND someone who could "split" the Republican vote in a three-way race. Do you even understand the concept of logic? Republicans have zero chance of winning the White House without the votes of people who support Mr. Paul. If he runs third-party, you bet I'll vote for him! And I won't be "handing the presidency" to Hillary or Obama. The fault for that will lie squarely with the Republican party, which has abandoned its platform and completely sold out to big government. Paul supporters vote principle over party -- which will be an enormous problem for Republicans unless there are drastic changes to the party in the near future.

Last week in the SC debate, didn't Ron Paul say something about the US already being in a recession and it was getting worse fast? The other candidates were basically saying, no not true, economy is not great but doing fine. Now this week the economy is so bad we need an emergency stimulus plan? Wonder why Fox or the rest of the MSM hasn't reported this?

Well thank god for journalistic reporting BY THE PEOPLE here on these comments!

Here in MA, I almost fainted to witness myself changing party affiliation from Green to GOP...

What kind of reporting is this? You should find another career if you're too lazy to find the FACTS!!!! Your paper, if it had any credibility should print a retraction.

You call this journalism? you are a corporate puppet and a deceiver, just like the rest of all MSMs.

You'll get what's coming to you.

Want to know, why Giuliani is losing while Ron Paul wins? Is it his bigotry?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOkVTJWnI4

RON "I take my marching orders from the Constitution" PAUL

www.ronpaul2008.com/issues

Talk about spin.

The reason Thompson didn't campaign hard in NH is because he is broke and is putting all his eggs in one basket in SC.

Giuliani is in a similar situation.

So just because they could not afford to campaign (because they lack real support) is a cop out for them doing poorly?

Interesting world.

Wow Stephen. There is some very strong evidence provided by the previous comments that you are full of it. I'm not sure if you typically respond to criticism of your articles, but I would think yourself and the Washington Times would lose some serious credibility if you can't support your article with data to the contrary. If you just threw this together in a 1/2 hour to beat a deadline, I can understand. I did that a few times in high school when I never really cared about a subject too.

Show me the money spent per campaign and the number of votes they got?!?!?!

Mitt Romney is simply buying votes. He has almost spent more money than all the republicans put together in all the states. In Michigan he spent 2 MILLION dollars.

Some are saying that a third-party Ron Paul would split the DEMOCRATIC votes, because he is against the war and so are the Democrats. After all, "It's the Iraq War, stupid!" I agree that the Republicans have no chance of winning the Presidency with or without Ron Paul, but hopefully he won't take away some Democratic votes. That might make it closer.

Everyone knows who Rudy is already, Mr. 911
Most have seen Thompson on TV, Law & Order
Most have seen McCain, unfortunately
People are looking at Huckabee, I'm a Christian and had a radio show.
Mormons are voting in block for Romney

Go Ron Paul!

Media bias makes me ill. Journalists don't check the facts anymore. Ron PAul DID NOT campaign in Michigan and won more votes than Rudy and Fred together. Here my letter to the Economist. Citizens! You have Power! Ron Paul's campaign is relevant

Sir,
Being a long time happy reader of the Economist, I find the blackout on Ron Paul most disturbing. Even more so that I did not learn about Ron Paul by reading the Economist. But by sheer luck when reading user comments on a Belgian newspaper, just a few days before Iowa's caucus! And it is even more so disturbing, that compelled by Ron Paul refreshing ideas and integrity, my support for Barack Obama swapped overnight to Ron Paul. I therefore question the relevance of my paid subscription. Your paper failed to inform me objectively. Why should I continue reading a paper that ignores respectable ideas of freedom, a paper that follows the mainstream media in despising a principled politician who loves his country and does not pay lip service to corporate interests. How many world citizens are kept in the dark by the media. This is bordering on fascism, i.e. suppression of the opposition through censorship. I never felt that so vividly. This is a troubling coincidence. Ron Paul, a true fiscal conservative, supports a platform that goes against mainstream establishment ideas. Being relatively unknown, and polling in the single digits because of that, he is labelled as "Crazy." And therefore he is discounted as a "cannot win" candidate, even though those ideas are perfectly relevant and he has millions of citizens dollars of donations in his coffers. Yes, contrary to other major candidates, Ron Paul refuses donations from corporations which protects him from vested interests.
I don't see any single article explaining his ideas, their relevance or their merit. To your credit, I did found through google two buried articles of the print edition: Paul the apostate Jul 19th 2007 and "Live free or get hauled off to prison" Oct 11th 2007 . But that's very poor journalism for a paper dubbed "The Economist."

Charles-Philip Bentley, a sane Ron Paul supporter.

Brussels, Belgium

According to your story:

"According to their math .."

Ron Paul had received more votes than Rudy G. and Fred. T.

Why the "according to their math"? introducory clause. Is "their" math wrong? Can you not easily confirm or refute this?

Sir, this is a FACT - easily confirmed or denied - not needing a qualifier.

Just this phrase shows bias, in my opinion.

Bill Rice, Jr.
Managing Editor
The Montgomery Independent
bill@montgomeryindependent.com

Until our present election process becomes more than a carnival side show and until the political pundents and so-called "commentators" begin to act less like Jerry Springer "wanna bees" anyone other than the "major" candidates of the "two" political parties (now that is an oxymoron) blessed by the powers that be... we are doomed to creeping communism and a nation sinking into mediocraty.

We have seen Ron Paul deemed unfit for any more than the most inane of comments. Even when he raised large sums of money in Q4 2007 and did better than the darling of the establishment, Gulliani no information can be imparted to the public. Just ask people at random "who is Ron Paul" and most will shrug their shoulders. Nothing special should be expected from the media... that is unless a tittilating story can be told or if that candidate is deemed fit by the major party people. The attitude and silliness of our media is best summed up by AP "reporter" when she commented that Ron Paul was mounting a "quixotic campaign". Perhaps more than a soundbite is too much for such reporters?!

Why does the media and our policital "establishment" treat Americans as if they are juveniles? Even if one disagrees with Dr. Paul or any other candidate doesn't the public have the right to hear their ideas and doesn't the media have a responsiblity to report more than tittilating stories and silly soundbites?

Bj

mitt romney owns clear channel communcations!!!!

Oh please. If Paul was given all the free air time that McCain, Mitt, Rudy, Thompson, & Huckster were given his numbers would be much better. He still beats the so called "top tier" guy's in most states. Write all the crap you want, but the bottom line is you media types blacklist him and he still does better! Now, go kiss you're masters boots.

Ron Paul did pretty good in Nevada today. Hope to hear a piece about that soon. Please beat your cross town paper (the Post) to the punch...for once.

Sent to Ron Paul 2008 campaign:
I am asking that Kent Snyder the campaign chairman be fired now. It should have happened a long time ago - in Philadelphia when he was yelling at the people who paid $500 to speak with Dr Paul. But this South Carolina fiasco was too much. How much of our money did RP2008 spend to get 5% of the vote there? A complete debacle - could have gotten that without any campaigning. No more money until Kent Snyder is fired! You are also spending time in the wrong states. New Jersey has a lot of independents and Dr Paul is trending upward there. Please come to New Jersey! And please fire Kent Snyder now and put in a professional!

Rudy Giuliani is a long-shot candidate. He won't win the nomination, but he could affect the outcome in some states. He has yet to reach double digits in any primary or caucus.

Now, who's top tier?

Ron Paul -- 10% in Iowa, 14% in Nevada, $19.7 million raised in the fourth quarter, and 100,000 volunteers nationwide.

The real question you and other journalists should be asking--as I know the politicos are--is what happens to the flimsy coalitions of voters in the Republican camp once a few candidates drop out? After looking at the enormous amount of free press coverage given to the "pick of the week" (first, Giuliani, then the looming campaign of Thompson, then Romney with his Bush I photo-op, then Huckabee, now McCain), and the monumental sums of money pumped into these candidates by special interest groups, all that I see is more splintering. In fact, what we're seeing is patchwork constituencies that serve the moment or a particular sect--voter bloc politics resulting from interests of evangelicals, Mormons, warmongers, and others favorable to some type of pandering from a particular candidate. The "herding" effect is not yet to be seen. The Republican platform, if there is one at this point, is nothing more than a buffet.

So, when a few of the Republican duds drop out (probably Giuliani and Thompson soon), the anti-war voters get tired of Obama (when they start asking some hard questions or doing some research), then who scoops in the "states'-righters" and the anti-war voters? Could it be Paul? Or will all of these disgruntled people go away? Will these diverse voter-blocs merge into something else?

Well, two of the biggest voting blocs in this country are now economically-concerned people and the anti-war crowd. The pro-war Clinton/Obama and McCain candidates, all of whom are not very strong on economic issues, are going to rake in leaner and leaner crowds as the days roll on. The state-by-state results are showing little cohesion to date. There is a lot more to come.

RON PAUL is the ONLY candidate deserving of our support and votes! The rest are all part of the establishment and part of the problem. The media, as this pathetic article demonstrates, is the lick-spittle lapdog of the establishment. For an eye-opener on why the establishment hates Ron Paul so much, go to www.chuckbaldwinlive.com and look at his recent weekly columns. Vote RON PAUL for President!!!!

I just finished reading through the posts here to date. Scott Harmon, with his views on the divisions in the GOP camp, underscores my concerns. I have yet to align myself with any candidate. I've discarded a few along the way-Clinton and Obama are boiler-plate left-wing socialists, albeit with different sales pitches. Hunter and Tancredo are good guys, but never were able to articulate themselves beyond the single issue that gave them a name in the first place. McCain is way too much of a deal-maker and D.C. insider. McCain-Feingold merits a lot of the credit for this protracted farce of a nominating process we find ourselves in, and he showed a level of arrogance during the immigration reform legislation farce last summer that did for me. He will be the only candidate for whom I would have to seriously consider staying home in November if nominated. Guiliani is strong on defense and law-and-order in general, but his record is way too lefty overall. Romney will be hobbled by his Massachusetts past. Someone the voters in Mass. label as "conservative" is hardly a compliment. Huckabee has equally significant problems with some of his past actions. Thompson has good conservative credentials, but got off to a relatively late start and might have missed out (the same may be said for Rudy). I have tried so hard to find a way to like Dr. Paul. I just can't. His isolationist views on foreign policy scare me, and he came across to me as shrill and defensive in all the debates so far. Our president will have to go head-to-head with some bad people who are in power around the world, and he or she will have to be able to put their game face on when needed with them some day. That's why I know in the end I will be OK with all of the GOP candidates except McCain and Paul. They're the only ones that I doubt will be able to stand face-to-face to the various thugs in power around the world and do the right thing. McCain will try too hard to cut a deal, and Paul will never be taken seriously.

Ron Paul has a grass roots activist campaign that is not based on spending big money in the media-which naturally is all for profit.
Prediction: John McCain will finally be the death of the rino Republican party. He is no conservative and it is time for new blood. Mitt Romney is the best, actually electable Republican; but the electorate is too ignorant to vote for a constitutional, classic republican executive...The same old promises that rino Republican majorities will never, ever deliver on no longer cut it. Long live the republic and go Ron Paul...

good god, you ron paul people are out of your mind.