NY Times: "The three candidates now considered to be leading the Republican race -- Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann -- offer a contrast in styles, and their attempts to reach voters with their stump speeches will help to determine whether one of them gets the chance to face President Obama next year."

Why isn't Ron Paul in that list?

I could write a lot more about that, but everyone knows the facts. He and Bachmann were statistically tied in the Ames straw poll. If she's considered a front-runner, so must Ron Paul.

In the past they've pushed him out of the race, but why do they get so many more votes than the rest of us?

Their credibility is really taking a hit here, out in the open for all to see.

BTW, I am not a Ron Paul supporter, though sometimes in the Republican debates I think he's the only one telling the truth. I think he's naive, and hasn't thought through the implications of the policies he advocates. But I think that's far preferrable to a candidate who, as governor of Texas, let an innocent man be executed and who threatens the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and questions the President's patriotism.

If you were to take anyone out of contention, for the love of America, why not Perry. And Bachmann? Oh geez. She's just a hairdo, there's no consistency to anything she says. Same with Romney. These are coin-operated candidates. Strictly actors serving as conduits for money that turns into ads.

Maybe Ron Paul is bad for business in some way? He probably wouldn't have too much patience for the Koch Brothers.

Dear editors of the Times: How about letting the process run its course, and please -- just report the facts, and don't play kingmakers, esp so early in the race.

PS: To Krugman, who just posted an appropriately blistering takedown of Perry's comments, how about applying pressure where it can do some good instead of the usual pissing in the wind. The NYT is complicit. Do you have the guts to take on your editors?

 8/16/2011; 9:29:51 AM.   .