Paulphobia rampant in lamestream media

Konrad Yakabuski is the Globe and Mail's man in Washington. He writes reasonably perceptive columns on American politics. But he has one blind spot. He cannot bring himself to acknowledge the existence, let alone the popularity of Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul.

His column today is headed "Where's the love for Mitt Romney?", and goes on at some little length about the possibility of Mormon Mitt being the Republican version of Hellery Clinton -- "the 'inevitable' party nominee who blows it all in the end".

About two-thirds of the way through the piece, Yakabuski cites a poll just published in the Des Moines Register which "shows Mr. Gingrich surging to 25 per cent in the Hawkeye State, leaving Mr. Romney 9 percentage points lower and in third place."

So who do you suppose finished second in the Register poll? You can read to the end of Yakabuski's column -- then read it again -- and you will not find the answer. But when you look at the article in the Register, you'll find it is none other than -- gasp, shock, horror -- Ron Paul!

As you know, Walt is no believer in conspiracy theories, but really... Why is it that pundits in the lamestream media refuse to acknowledge the very existence of Mr. Paul? Are they so afraid of him, and what he represents? It seems that the media have collectively decided that the best way to nobble Mr. Paul is to refuse outright to mention him. Not even his name shall appear in papers like the New York Times or its pale northern imitation.

The liberal media should bear in mind the famous dictum of St. Ignatius Loyola: Just because you've silenced a man doesn't mean you've converted him. Let's see if they can remain silent when the results of the primaries start coming in.