Mr. Newman and Professor Kramer,
Do you two work for Fox News?
When I opened The Observer on Jan. 26, I was excited to find a couple articles discussing the Republican primaries. I was just as quickly disappointed to find that both were more of the same old thing: discussing the shortcomings of the media-propped potential Republican presidential nominees. But just as the aforementioned Fox News — and many news sources — they neglected to discuss one of the strongest candidates the Republicans have: Ron Paul. Though he is treated like the 13th floor of a hotel (thanks, Jon Stewart, for that analogy) Ron Paul is probably the only legitimate candidate in these primaries.
Newman disingenuously includes Ron Paul among the Republican hopefuls, but when he discusses their weaknesses, he forgets Ron Paul. Perhaps because Ron Paul doesn't have the fraud and adultery in his past that the others have? More than likely, Mr. Newman's true reason for omitting Paul from the article is his fear that Ron Paul would be a strong enough candidate to beat Obama (his favorite in the upcoming election). Ron Paul has repeated success in polls when pitted against Obama over the other Republicans.
I was more disheartened by Professor Kramer's complete omission of Paul in his reflection of the Republican primaries. He mentions voters' interest in hearing more about fixing the economy and less about social interests, and he's got that right. But Kramer's statement that "[voters are] not really finding someone who totally fits that bill" is very disappointing. Ron Paul has been talking about the economy — and acting on that talk — for the last 30 years, from preventive measures to present-day repairs. He champions the Constitution and the government's place (or lack there of) in deciding how people can live lives.
Ron Paul is the candidate the voters are looking for. The reason so many cannot find him is because of media omissions such as these!
Elizabeth Maki
junior
Pangborn Hall
Jan. 26
