The New York Times hates Ron Paul

The word has gone forth from the upper echelon of the New York Times; Rep. Ron Paul is to be treated with the utmost disrespect—again–in our coverage of the Republican presidential primary campaign.  What else explains the disingenuous front-page article (“Candidates show G.O.P less united on goals of war,” June 15th)?

The Times reporter, Jeff Zeleny, correctly points out that the war mongering that occurred during the 2008 GOP primary campaign, led by the chief hawk, Senator John McCain, who was defeated by the “peace candidate” Barack Obama in the general election, has been muted this time around.   Why?  The costs of war, more than one trillion dollars and counting, plus thousands of dead soldiers and tens of thousands wounded, some with horrific injuries, have finally forced many of the GOP presidential candidates to temper their enthusiasm for an interventionist foreign policy.

Instead of leading the article highlighting the one candidate, Ron Paul, who has been consistently advocating a noninterventionist foreign policy, Zeleny begins with a quote from Jon Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor who will announce his presidential candidacy next week and did not participate in the CNN debate on June 13th.  Next, Mitt Romney’s statement during the debate is quoted; it is “time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can.”  But Ron Paul said this and more four years ago about intervening overseas!

However, deep in the story, the Times reports: “Four years ago, Representative Ron Paul of Texas was the only Republican presidential candidate raising concerns about the cost of the war and urging a drawdown in troops. His positions, embraced by libertarians, are still outside the mainstream of many Republicans, but he is no longer standing alone in his call for a new stance toward foreign policy.”  That is it.  Ron was four years too early, and other candidates are now embracing his foreign policy positions.  Next.

Why did the Times not begin this article with the obvious fact that Ron Paul has consistently opposed the disastrous neoconservative foreign policy for decades?  In addition, public opinion is finally catching up to the most courageous and pro liberty member of the United States Congress.  Instead of marginalizing Ron Paul’s candidacy, the Times should at least attempt to be objective in its reporting of the GOP primary rather than show its overt bias and disdain for the candidate who was at the CNN debate who opposes the welfare-warfare state.

In addition, the article quotes Michele Bachmann, the new media darling, who opposes President Obama’s Libyan policy, is quoted: “We were not attacked.  We were not threatened with attack.”   Good for her.  However, did Bachmann oppose the invasion of Iraq in 2003 for the same reason?  Saddam did not attack nor threaten the United States?

In an editorial about the GOP debate (June 15th), the Times criticized the candidates but did not even mention Ron Paul at all, as though he did not even exist on the stage on June 13th.  Not only does the Times editorial smack of journalistic malpractice but a deep animus on the part of the Times’ editorial writers, bordering on the pathological.

One of the great oxymoron’s of our time is objective journalism.  The New York Times’ coverage of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign is shameful and dishonest.  Readers deserve better from a newspaper that claims “All the news that’s fit to print,” except in covering a presidential candidate who has stood steadfast for liberty, peace, limited government and sound money.

 

This entry was posted in Politics, Warfare state, Welfare state. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The New York Times hates Ron Paul