The New York Times Finally Notices Ron Paul

I just don’t know what to say to this:

IT wasn’t quite the slip-up (or slip-down, as it were) most people expect during a presidential campaign, but whatever happened to Ron Paul’s eyebrows at Tuesday night’s debate certainly caught some viewers’ attention.

For those of you not yet riveted by the Republican race, Mr. Paul, the dark-horse libertarian with equally dusky brows, was a victim of hot lights, faulty adhesive or merely a devilish optical illusion when his right eyebrow seemed to dip toward the stage at Dartmouth College.

Seen on television, Mr. Paul appeared to have a second, thinner brow under the one headed south, creating a delicate X over his right eye.

There’s a picture at the link.

So this is what it’s come to. I almost feel sorry for the New York Times. This is how they compete with the foul-mouthed bloggers now? Ron Paul, on the other hand, should be thrilled that the esteemed newspaper is finally paying attention to his campaign.

About these ads

17 Comments

Filed under 2012 presidential election, media, New York Times, Ron Paul

17 responses to “The New York Times Finally Notices Ron Paul

  1. Let us not be insensitive to the emotional pain and embarrassment of thin eyebrows especially at a time in life when the wonderfully intellectual cognoscenti always have very thick and untidy eyebrows. Think of Andy Rooney. Like two long-haired mice. Albert Einstein. Two small sparrows.

  2. and here we were talking about whether or not their religious views were relevant. what’ll be the next urgent issue be?

  3. Jeanie Graham

    Unbelievable. Is there no end to their phoniness?

  4. D.

    I thought the New York Times was the paper of substance. (Brooks, Douthat, and Dowd notwithstanding.)

  5. Weird eyebrows, phfffft. It’s what goes on inside that squash of Paul’s–not what’s on the outside–that I find troubling.

  6. Ron Paul is clearly the front-runner in the 2012 Presidental race. Here are the facts, easy for anyone to see.

    If Mitt Romney or Herman Cain are the front-runners then were are there supporters?
    If these gentlemen are clearly the front-runners then where are thier voters? Are any of them going to come out to vote for their candidates?

    Ron Paul has the most actual votes cast thus far for the nomination. These are not some 100 or so “list of privately selected” phone line polls, but actual people going down and casting a REAL vote.
    Enjoy what you are about to read… I sure enjoyed putting it together.

    Source – Wikipedia as of 10/15/2011
    h%%p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_polls_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012

    Combined Online Polls Follow:
    1st Ron Paul 49%, 2nd Herman Cain 12%,
    3rd Sarah Palin 8.7%,? Tim Pawlenty 4.4%, Other 25.8%

    Combined Straw Polls Follow:
    1st Ron Paul 36%, 2nd Herman Cain 16%,
    3rd Sarah Palin 9.2%, 4th Tim Pawlenty 8.8%, Other 30.1%

    Ron Paul continues to win, his supporters are everywhere and gainning by the day.

    Remember to participate in The Black This Out money bomb on October 19, 2011.
    Ron could break his record of 8 Mil in one day on this one…

    Thank you for reading and I wish you all the best.

    • Yes we hear this every single time he runs for president which is to say: we’ve heard this since forever.

      He will never be president, no matter how many Ron Paul for President signs you guys hammer up on light poles. Better come to terms with that now. Mitt Romney will be your candidate.

    • Don’t google “merkin” … aw heck, go ahead and google it!

      There are people with medical reasons for such a thing — alopecia patients, burn victims, people undergoing cancer treatment. I don’t know if Ron Paul has a medical issue we don’t know about?

  7. Min

    I absolutely do not support Ron Paul as a presidential candidate in any form or fashion, but even I’m starting to get just a little pissed off about the way he’s being treated.

  8. KirkBro:

    Ron Paul is a meretricious, mendacious, mercernary opportunistic piece of shit. That he manages to gull morons like you into supporting him is not an indication that he is fit to govern.

  9. Roy Dale

    Uhh…I think you may be mistaking Rep Paul’s position. While he is personally against abortion, being an OB-GYN and delivering 4000+ babies, he simply believes, and correctly so, that the Federal Gov’t has no business in or out of a woman’s uterus. This is an issue for each State to decide individually which is as it should be according to our Constitution; hint…look at the most ignored and violated ammendment, that would be numer ten. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not with the Constituion being the Supreme Law of the Land. Where individuals in the Federal Gov’t stand on this issue, is irrelevant if we were to follow the law.

    • Uh I think you’ve been hopelessly deluded by this charlatan, who recently babbled in an ad about supposedly witnessing a “live-birth abortion” where a live baby was thrown in the trash. Which is utter bullshit.

      Like every Republican, Paul is a liar and a hypocrite. He takes one side until it’s inconvenient to do so and then takes another. It’s always “let the states decide” and then it’s “let the local communities decide” until they decide something these idiots don’t like and then it’s all “let’s get in everybody’s business.”

      What the fuck business is it of Ron Paul’s what I do with my body? Let the STATES decide? Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME? Let the state decide who YOU fuck and what birth control YOU use and how many kids YOU have, how about that? The STATE is going to decide when life begins? Really? This is in the Constitution somewhere? You want the state decide this but telling corporations they can’t spew dioxin and PCBs into our drinking water is an overreach? Seriously?

      Fuck off. I really hate Libertarians. There is nothing more moronic that someone who thinks the government should be shrunk to the size where it fits in my underwear.