 |
| Image: Adam |
Former Bush political strategist Matthew Dowd brings up a
question many of us have been asking for a long time - why are certain qualified presidential candidates excluded from the debates [former Republican governors Buddy Roemer (LA) and Gary Johnson (NM)] and given far less time in them when they (Ron Paul) clearly have just as much of a shot or better than some of those who are there? Establishment parrots always say Ron Paul doesn't have a shot at the nomination. How would they know? They've never given voters a chance to make that decision. Paul's poll numbers have been high and he has a larger following than Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain and Jon Huntsman combined. His fundraising ability also leaves theirs (collectively) in the dust.
The only sensible answer is that some candidates are acceptable to the establishment and some are not. And big media does its best to serve those interests. So, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the system wasn't rigged in this way, Paul would get as much air time in debates as Mitt Romney, Roemer and Johnson would be included in the debates and it would be left up to the voters to decide who's viable and who isn't.
The way it is, it's no wonder so many people don't trust big media. Why should they? It can't even come up with a plausible excuse as to why it ignores candidates who might actually just steal the show. When it comes to experience in governing, independence and common sense, Paul, Roemer and Johnson are all head and shoulders above the current crop of candidates (Huntsman excluded). But then, that's probably what makes them so unacceptable to the powers-that-be.
Image source
