86 Percent of Romney Coverage Is Negative: Are Most Media Outlets Biased in Favor of Obama?

Moreover, as a Ron Paul supporter... we are no stranger to bias from either faction, of the failed liberal/conservative paradigm mouthpieces.

Nevertheless, you have to admit that Romney, a.k.a, Weather-vane Willard...is too easy of a target. As fiscally deficient, as Obama has demonstrated his platform to be, Romney continues to show his lack of skill and willingness to go after him. The Obama campaign has been effective at keeping Romney on his heels, and because Romney represents everything the democrats abhor, he is going to unite the left, and many of the Independents, in another anti-republican general election... and they have the numbers to do so!

If it was Ron Paul vs Obama, then the Obama machine would be falling all over itself trying to figure out how to win. Class warefare would fail. No possibility for using character assassination. Obama would be in constant defense against his support for the NDAA, patriot act, wars, failed economy, assassination of American citizens, abuse of executive power, unconstitutional wars -- all things Romney couldn't use, because he is on record for supporting the same.

This is Romney's weakness, and why most of his supporters are only behind him based on the "Anyone but Obama" mantra, and not actually for him.

Romney has failed to unify the conservative base, because they know he's closer to a liberal moderate. He was never popular in the beginning, and there is still a "Yuk" factor surrounding him.

If it's a two-man General election... Obama will win, because of the swing vote Independents, who constitute 40% of the voters and growing.

There is only one candidate who can unite the Independents, the Blue republicans, and the disgruntled from both parties with the Big government platforms advocated by the DNC/RNC establishment statist.

Only Ron Paul, represents the American taxpayer, and those tired of seeing their liberty eroded from the progressives in both parties.

Only Ron Paul, doesn't want to be "Decider In Chief" ...King, Emperor, etc. Dr. Paul wants us to simply follow the constitution, as the founders directions for preventing tyranny, and establishing a government that fears the citizens, instead of the other way around.

Only Ron Paul, cannot be bought, as his 12 term congressional career, is valid and verifiable testimony.

If you want to replace one corporate stooge, with another one... Romney is your boy! Just follow the money. With all the rhetoric Obama used to fool the voters, one would think hearing all of Romney's rhetoric would be disturbing.

For some of us, it clearly is!


Here's another doctors point of view, for what is happening, thanks to the two-party failure. If you can put down your remote control, you can expand your political awareness, dramatically, with a short read.

Reflections on a Medical Career
Robert S. Dotson, M.D.

http://bit.ly/Rut5g0

"...the US dollar has declined in value an average of almost 2.5% per year over the past 30 year period."

"The present puppet in the White House has completed the work begun by his predecessors in moving the nation into a police state. The NDAA passed in the Fall of 2011 was the final nail in the coffin of personal freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution. By suspending habeas corpus and even trial by judge or jury, the Act has made certain that no person is safe from being violated by a power-mad Security State. At the mere movement of the Unitary Executive’s pen, it is now permissible to “disappear” or even execute anyone on the planet – all on the whim of the unaccountable psychopath in charge. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, has reported that our present Unitary Exec spends every Tuesday morning reviewing and signing off on a kill list supplied by his loyal minions. Nobel Peace Prize worthy stuff, indeed!"

"One is presumed guilty now in Amerika until proven otherwise..."

I will not defend Romney or Obama, but I will say resoundingly that Ron Paul is not the solution. You may gather that I tend to side with Democrats/liberals on many issues, but I assure you I hold no particular political allegiance other than to do what I think is correct.

Ron Paul believes we can rely on the free market to stop pollution. I cannot even begin to fathom how that's supposed to work. (If you can, please explain.)

He believes we should privatize health care because it is not a Constitutionally given right (even though "promote the general welfare" is in the first sentence). He has actually stated that we can rely on doctors' feeling a personal obligation to provide free or cut-rate health care to the elderly and the poor (like they supposedly did when he was practicing in the early 60's). That is absurd.

He wants to privatize education. Are we not supposed to have standardized tests? Will there just be randomly disparate, per-institution criteria? This idea is completely unacceptable and reeks of ulterior motives.

He wishes to sell our federal parks to developers. Since there are industries more profitable per acre than tourism, some of the greatest natural wonders in the nation (and in the world) would be destroyed.

Also, Ron Paul would most assuredly be subject to character assassination. He is often accused of/connected to racist and homophobic comments. I would consider that bad character.

So that is a short starter list of my "liberal" gripes with Dr. Paul. I agree with you that corporations and billionaires have far too much influence/control over our government. But I feel pretty sure that Dr. Paul's policies would end up making the situation worse by removing what little oversight we have. His policies would give corporations (and thereby billionaires) more and direct control over our lives. The solution is not to become isolationist and dismantle the government.

Thank you, for a cohesive reply! One that deserves another, in return...

You brought up points that have been well debated, ad nauseum. So, I will be brief.

The biggest polluters enjoy government protection. The very regulations supposedly designed to protect us, are used to hide behind, from the major perpetrators. BP, being the latest and most prominent example. I understand your concerns, however, if a company had to be transparent, it would be a public relations nightmare. The marketplace would determine the fate of violators, with our dollars. Federal laws are their fallback, better to strengthen local laws, using local standards. Ron Paul wants to rid the taxpayer of federal waste. This is a states issue. Don’t confuse Dr. Paul’s constitutional positions, with a condemnation of states rights. You are making a very broad assumption. If you are affected by pollution, of any kind, your first call should be local... not your congressman. California enacted the toughest auto exhaust standards in the world. We didn’t need the federal government. Now our standards are the nations standards. If we had left it to our corrupt congress... Detroit would still be calling the shots. I could go on and on. It appears you are generalizing Dr. Paul’s position. Is it the federal government's responsibility... is it mandated in the constitution?

Actually, throughout our history doctors have answered a calling, and their generosity is well established. Dr. Paul never accepted medicare, preferring to treat fo free. You're being rather cynical, but it’s easy to do! Having competition, opening state border restrictions, and removing managed care... would put care back in the doctor's hands. Nothing has ruined healthcare more than the federal government. We got along just fine, without the federal government's mandates and regulations.

Hmmm! “Promote the general welfare” although, our founders meaning is clear--if you are willing to dig? It has been crony politics that has made the broadest interpretation of these words, as you appear to be doing, as well? Healthcare already is privatized. The problem is managed care, and the medical-industrial complex writing the rules, just as they wrote the entire legislation for Obamacare.

Here’s a link for a doctor's point of view... http://bit.ly/Rut5g0

We are already seeing the success, of charter schools. And, in the most neglected of demographics. “No child left behind” has been severely detrimental to education, dumbing down the “Test” for federal funding. Now, teachers are forced to... teach to the test, to please a failed federal mandated program. What a disaster, as we move further down the global list academically. Again, where competition and innovation are allowed to bloom... the kids win! ALL KIDS! Clearly, the DOE, is a disaster. Teachers unions and Tenure are the other cancers in educating our kids. Again, the consumers... parents who pay the taxes, will be the ultimate judge. Here in California, a group of parents fired the school supervisors, using a little known law, and took back their underperforming school, and made every teacher apply for their job, and hired others, as well! They are already improving. Centralized education is a failure.

Federal Parks are protected, thanks to Teddy Roosevelt. Ron Paul couldn’t sell them, if he wanted to? However, federal land, of which the US owns far too much, could be used for resources to help our economy. Big distinction there, which you overlooked. Highest and best use, as determined by congress... a better congress, someday... I hope! We need energy independence, until alternatives can become viable.

Ron Paul has been through three presidential elections, and 12 congressional elections. He has been thoroughly vetted, perhaps more than any other candidate before? The operative word, is the one you were forced to use... accused! He has come out clean in every circumstance. I would hope you are someone who demands proof, before judging another?

There is no “Isolationism” with Dr. Paul, only non-interventionism. Huge difference... look it up?

It would appear that you subscribe to centralized control over American citizens. When that is the very thing used by corporations and billionaires to legislate in their favor. That is a short-sighted mistake, because you believe government serves the citizen, when clearly, it serves a different master. To think that there is separation of government and Big financial interest, is a rose-colored glasses viewpoint. Ron Paul has fought these crony/corporatist... and has consistently predicted the outcome.

We ignore him at our own peril.

I invite you to offer something that has not, already been disproven. However, I know you cannot... no one has, to date!

We can argue political philosophy... however, with a 16 trillion dollar national debt, making us the largest debtor nation in the world. A world where the Canadian dollar and the Australian dollar are more valuable than our own debased currency. Well, it would appear that your way has failed America.

Smaller, fiscally conservative and sound government. Get the government out of our ways. They have a record of failure, across the board... enriching their cronies, at our expense.

Remove the ability of the Big’s to control an oversized government, and the little guy can compete on an even playing field, once again.

You and I want the same thing, we just have different political philosophies. I no longer trust my government, to do right by the citizenry. The evidence is too overwhelming.

Likewise, thank you for your reply, Rick. Forgive me the arguments ad nauseum.

I do understand large corporations are able to work the system. They work the system at all levels, not just federal. Am I to believe that state and local governments are immune to corruption? Do you think that state and local governments don't already have a large say in environmental policy? Federal regulation is at best a minimum, and a much needed minimum. Yes, California managed to enact tougher emissions laws beyond federal requirements, but there is zero percent chance of doing similar anywhere in the Bible belt (where I live). I am also confused by why or how companies would become more transparent simply because federal regulations were dismantled. I'm pretty sure the free market has as much say in environmental policy as it ever will have already. Most people are quite aware of the insane environmental disasters caused by various corporations. But (I guess) those same people are unwilling to believe the full extent of the effects because BP stations are still going strong. You can't tell me that government regulation caused consumers to not boycott BP.

Forgive my cynicism, but I am unwilling to accept generosity as health care policy, not even locally. I believe Dr. Paul is confusing what is possible in a small town office, where the physician is personally acquainted with poor old Mabel down the street, with what is possible everywhere. In the panicked environment of a metropolitan emergency room, the doctor may not even have the luxury of the patient's name. It is all too impersonal. One of my clients is a medical management company... I see it every day.

I have read the Constitution many times, and I have never seen a "clear" delineation of the word "welfare". I freely concede that health care is not specifically mentioned in the powers afforded to Congress, so we can rehash that debate also (to my knowledge nothing Ron Paul says is really new or revolutionary either). Neither medical care nor medical problems from the 18th century can really be compared to the issues we face or solutions we have today, so it seems entirely too convenient to think the founding fathers could have forseen a be-all, end-all solution on the matter... or even that it might need to be addressed on a national level at all. I do believe in the rule of law, and I do support our Constitution. If you believe health care should not be addressed by the federal government, you will need to find some way of getting a conservative Administrative and Legislative into office or a case in front of the Supreme Court because the nine wise guys recently disagreed with you (only saying so as a matter of fact, not that they are infallible). When the time comes, if I need to support an ammendment in order to provide for a federal health care solution I will do so.

As far as the AFA (i.e., Obamacare), not to be patronizing, but here are a few thousand doctors' opinions:

http://www.drsforamerica.org/
http://cmhmd.blogspot.com/201...

Am I certain that I want to trust the collective opinion of the medical field? No, not really. Am I certain that I can believe what appear to be the conspiratorial ramblings of one doctor from East Tennessee? I'm afraid I can't do that either (yes, I read the whole thing... it's maybe not as coercive as you thought?). I am reasonably sure I don't trust the insurance companies. If you show me something akin to an ALEC model bill penned by some insurance collective that resembles the AFA, I will be much less dismissive.

I am certainly willing to listen when it comes to charter schools. I have heard their praise from several teachers in their employ. However, I am not gullible enough to believe that every charter school has been successful. I know for a fact that many have been very unsuccessful (check around Columbus, OH for examples). I also know that some charter schools have received preferential treatment in order to pad the statistics (see NY). Even still, I am cautiously willing to listen. We also could be talking about very different things simply saying "charter schools", since some of these are tax-funded and some are completely privatized. I'm fairly sure I know which ones Dr. Paul actually supports, although I am not aware of statistics differentiating between them.

We definitely agree that there is a problem with teaching to the lowest common denominator. I do not think an absence of federal regulation will see any improvement in that arena. Public education all over the country has seen nothing but consistent budget cuts in recent years/decades, even as costs increase, and it is incomprehensible to me how the public education system is supposed to "succeed" in that hostile environment. As a product of the public education system, I do not see it as a failure by any means. I see more a collective failure on society's part, our part, to make education a priority. The attempts to localize control have been egregious assaults on reason, like the Texas schoolboard literally wanting to rewrite history books (seemingly to exclude minorities and revolutionaries), or religious zealots wanting to remove evolution from biology books (or at least include Creationism). Nevermind the simple fact that public education has gotten us to where we are.

I am fairly sure you are mistaken about national parks. Dr. Paul's Restore America plan calls for the complete dismantling of the Department of Interior (and four other departments) and selling off of all federally held lands. If you know of some provision to re-organize the National Park Service and fund their upkeep, please let me know. Everything I have read expressly states otherwise. I am aware that most of Ron Paul's policies would never actually be implemented were he elected president (because he would face the same nauseating stalemate with Congress that every recent president has faced thanks to our split-ticket friends), and so I am referring only to his expressed intentions.

You don't really have to sing Dr. Paul's praises to me. I have heard them. I apologize that I asked questions you feel had been answered before. They were not, at least not to my satisfaction. They are not still. I am sorry you feel that your points have been proven and (before I even stated them) my points have been disproven. They are not. I cannot drink your Kool-Aid. In fact, I believe much of Dr. Paul's plan would actually work to send our economy and our livliehood into the gutter. The sort of drastic austerity Dr. Paul has in mind would most likely have the same effect here as the austerity measures currently derailing European markets. I'm afraid, my friend, I have to agree with Noam Chomsky that Dr. Paul's removal of the barriers put up by federal government is a step towards corporate tyranny, not away from it.

I would hope, too, that you take a minute to second guess the things you have been told. Do you honestly think that one man has ALL the answers, and, what's more, that ALL the answers happen to be the same answer? Has anything in your life ever really been that simple? Is it really just coincidence that much of Dr. Paul's platform is in line with the by-far-more represented party at ALEC meetings? If he doesn't personally want corporations to take over, I really don't see that he wants to stop them. I can't help but think, also, that some of your optimism is a result of a more conducive environment. California, which you have used as an example a couple of times, is one of the most liberal states in the union. Removing federal regulation there would simply leave a populous that generally agrees education is a priority and life should be all sunshine and rainbows. Do the same in South Carolina and the Earth is suddenly 2,000 years old and it's God's will that rape victims carry to term. Believe it or not, we've seen the wonderous things the States' Rights ideology has to offer several times in our nation's history, and it has never been a pretty picture.

Well, we can certainly have a conversation.

As far as weak diplomacy in the Obama camp, the Medvedev incident comes to mind. Yes, it does trouble me that our president would imply that he could work out a deal (on nuclear arms no less) after he's elected, presumably admitting he plans to say one thing and do another. But it does not surprise me. Between the two of us, I doubt we can come up with a single politician on the national stage that doesn't have that modus operandi. (That is not an apology... I will forever openly condemn that sort of behavior.) You'll have to remind me about any other incidents.

Jumping over to Romney, he's already being accused of weak diplomacy because he cancelled meetings with Palestinian leaders immediately after meeting with Netanyahu. It looks like Netanyahu demanded unilateral support for Israel or he wouldn't back Romney in the press (and let's face it, a little support from the holy land might help a Mormon vying for control of the Republican party). Personally, I'd like to see some progress made in the Middle East that doesn't involve an unmanned drone. I'm also pretty concerned that Romney only managed to be ridiculed in Britain (our "greatest ally")... by Britain's conservative politicians (who should have been Romney's greatest allies). I have exactly zero confidence that he would be able to command the respect of any nation's leaders.

Neither of these men will be the great, infallible leader of men that we really want. For now, on my board there's a little tick in the left column for diplomacy.