I'm sure some of you watched the Republican Debates last night, and while I came into the experience already a Ron Paul supporter it was odd how very little he was mentioned by pundits. On MSNBC's poll, before the debate Paul scored a 9% positive rating. Now after the debate he's received a 43% positive rating. The highest candidate on the list. Alex Johnson has also submitted the article Republicans Walk Tightrope Over The War, claiming that there were no real distinguishing voices on Iraq. Nevermind that Paul came out with a very strong anti-war stance, stating that the war was a mistake to begin with (and having voted against it he's not just flappin), a fact mentioned in passing by Keith Olbermann. Giuliani gets press for supporting stem cell research but Paul gets no coverage for being the only anti-war Republican candidate? Even Hillary can't top Paul with the anti-war crowd, considering her own Hawkish nature from the Clinton Whitehouse and her voting to support the war. Yet nowhere do I see any mention of Ron Paul. Statements being made in the media follow the lines that nobody distinguished themselves, and that Mitt Romney "won" a "debate" where the candidates were asked what they'd think of another Clinton Whitehouse. Even on Politico's own forums the commentary on all the articles is rife with support for Ron Paul. So what's the deal? Is the media intentionally marginalising Ron Paul? He's one of the few candidates at the event that wasn't blowing smoke up the ass of the Reagan legacy. Also here's an excerpt of his interview on the Politico forums.