NYT again ignores Ron Paul. This is journalism or feminism or what?

This is journalism?

This was another subtle anti-Ron Paul piece. The author quickly brought up Ron Paul. Yet never expounded on why the "libertarian" Paul would oppose abortion??

And then that was it. Not one more bit of analysis. Even though the word libertarian would imply the good doctor would approve of it. So, why does or doesn't he?

I think that Ron Paul is a crow bar opening up peoples heart and soul to liberty, freedom and responsibility. Ron Paul, after delivering many babies might in fact be personally "Pro" choice, but prefers to view the issue framed within the constitution. As such it would be purely a State's issue. In fact, that would allow the country to adopt something closer to their regions culture.

But know, to say this would be to endorse Ron Paul as it would in actuality do more to close the divide then any other solution. People just like to be amongst their own. Why fight it? As every pollster and MSNBCNN watcher knows, the starts are either red or blue. So.... let them. You don't like it here in this state, well you are free to move to the next.

Ron Paul is an incredibly vibrant candidate that is resonating at the right time. For some it is refreshing while for others it is a cognitive dissonant headache. He would do everything they want with actions and not hope.

Keep up the good work doctor!