Rachel Maddow: 'Ron Paul Hated By Fox News' (VIDEO)

Rachel Maddow discussed what she believed was the strong impact Fox News has on Republican voters and Republican candidates during her show Tuesday night.

Maddow was referring to what she called the "Murdoch primary," which she described as Fox News ability to fall "ostentatiously in and out of love" with each non-Mitt Romney candidate that has surged in the polls. Maddow went through what she believed was the list of Fox News' previous media darlings.

According to Maddow, Fox News "loved the idea of a Donald Trump candidacy...the prospect of Texas Governor Rick Perry entering the race...and loved the idea of Herman Cain." Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, Maddow said, are less admired by the network. Maddow said that Gingrich's "wobbly" surge in the polls can be attributed to the fact that Fox News "has never seemed to like [him] much."

As for Paul, Maddow said that Fox News "really really [seems] to hate [him]." Maddow played clips of Fox News hosts Mike Huckabee, Greg Gutfield, Andrea Tantaros, and Dana Perino criticizing Paul. She added, "rightly or wrongly, Ron Paul is hated on the Fox News Channel, and if you can't win the Fox News Channel, it is hard to believe that a Republican candidate can win anything approaching the nomination. But without winning on Republican party TV, which is what Fox News is, it is very hard to sustain a lead with Republican party voters."

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Comments

[WillyHze]

01:57 PM on 01/23/2012

• Modern media has become a spin shop. They all 'comment' in lock step. We used to get DNC talking points one day, and by the next day all of the Democratic talking heads/'news' show circuit would recite the talking points. Then the RNC started doing the same thing. Now the Media gets their script. This rendition is to claim that a small government approach to foreign policy is ripe for Barry Obama, the 'peace candidate,' to pluck. The truth is, Barry's foreign policy has been more expansive, more violent and more destructive than even George W's. Ron Paul is for freedom, and the left can not wrap its tiny mind around that concept and forfiet the benefits of sucking from the power teat.

[Josh Gallaway]

02:39 PM on 01/03/2012

If Fox News doesn't like the candidate then you can't like the candidate.....isn't this classic brainwashing?

Wake up and actually do research online. Watch YouTube videos on Dr. Paul and you will see why the media hates him. It's because he will actually end the corruption in Washington. I used to be watch the media until I saw how much they lie.

Don't let the media pick your President, you should pick your President.

[CynAnne]

06:10 PM on 12/31/2011

"According to a former aide, Republican presidenti­al candidate Ron Paul has long been drawn toward conspiracy theories. Eric Dondero, who served Paul off and on from 1987 to 2003, wrote recently that the Texas Republican suspected that George W. Bush may have had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks...­" - oh, my Gawd. When we liberals dared to even think such a thing, let alone say it aloud, we were excoriated by the rightwing posters here at HP. Now that they can read Paul suspected the very same thing, WHAT are they going to say about HIM...? *gets popcorn*

[Vikingdave]

07:23 PM on 12/31/2011

I'll bring the wine
Cyn:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viamoi/4229152367/

[PoggeB]

11:03 PM on 01/01/2012

I always have believed that the 9/11 attacks were part of the intelligence "noise" that the Bush administration ignored so it isn't much of a leap to imagine these arrogant men sitting in a room deciding that a terrorist scare-maybe even a minor attack-would be just the sort of tough love the American people needed to get them off their asses and into a defensive posture that would "make us safer" while lining the pockets of Republican supporters and pols alike. Since even Bin Laden was surprised by the success of the attacks I do not believe the neocons expected anything like the World TRade Center bombing, but they certainly were ready to take full political advantage of it almost immediately. I don;t think it was a conspiracy-just a wildly improbable scenario the neocons probably played in their heads a thousand times coming true. Can't you just see them back in the nineties sitting in a good restaurant late at night discussing how sweet a political opportunity a massive attack on the US would provide, because I can.

[pastgone]

10:48 PM on 12/30/2011

Ron Paul is right somewhat more often, as a percentage, than a broken clock. But when he is wrong, he is so far dangerously off the mark as to make your head swim. He's wedded to an ideology that is impractical and has been proven wrong over and over again.

[SeniorMoment]

09:14 PM on 12/30/2011

A Romney win was almost preordained. When was the last time the GOP nominated anyone who was not the runner up in the previous Presidential nomination campaign? Richard Nixon before he was nominated was a regular runner up. Democrats are much more flexible in who they nominate. Who wins in Iowa really doesn't make a drop of difference to anyone outside of Iowa. The primary I am waiting to see is in Florida, an almost always must win state for a President's election.

[media4me2]

07:36 PM on 12/30/2011

Did anybody watch?

[333111xyz]

04:50 PM on 12/30/2011

The Republican Party is incredibly unorganized this year. No one knows who they want. Either the candiate is is too conservative to attract moderate voters (Santorum, Bachmann, Perry), too much baggage (Romney, and Big Newt), can't get two feet on the ground at the same time (Huntsman), or wants to legalize drugs and will never attract the social conservative vote (Paul).

Unless an absolute MIRACLE happens and Huntsman gets the nomination, the GOP should just close up shop and try agin in 2016.

[somearelost]

04:13 PM on 12/30/2011

This Mad-duh guys ratings are terrible. Now I see why.

[beardown]

01:56 PM on 12/30/2011

And Maddow!!!

[CynAnne]

11:54 PM on 12/30/2011

She's had both Ron and Rand Paul on her show as guests (several times, in fact)...here's an excellent interview from Jan. 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSZg9PX-liM

[Vikingdave]

12:36 AM on 12/31/2011

Wow CYN THAT WAS FASCINATING Thank you for the link, If I could ask Paul one question It would be. How do you square your claim about advocating peoples rigghts, and the current GOP effort to suppress voting rights.

[modelaford]

06:14 AM on 12/30/2011

This could be the year that RP surprises them. The primaries and caucuses are no longer majority take all. Example...in Iowa...each candidate gets a percentage of the delegates to the convention. It is mathematically possible for a candidate who comes in second or third in many states to end up with more delegates at the convention...vs someone who wins in a few states and comes in third in other states.

It 's all about the numbers ths time. Coud be an interesting convention to watch. We haven't had a deadlocked convention where they have to go to a second or third roll call in a very long time. It used to happen a lot in the 1800s. Could happen again where someone does not have enough votes on the first ballot. But then again, the ones who come in third or fourth could give their delegates to someone in exchange for a vp slot...that's what they used to do in the old days.

[pastgone]

10:45 PM on 12/30/2011

Not even close. This one's been pre-ordained for a long time. Romney wins quickly and easily. Done deal.

Wanna bet?

[celiawitter]

04:37 AM on 12/30/2011

Consistent, but racist blah blah blah. Sorry paulites..the bottom line is, that ron paul is a snivelling type of person. In America we don't accept sniveling Presidents. Woody Allen, Steve Buscemi and ron paul won't ever be President.

[AtlantaIconoclast]

10:56 AM on 12/30/2011

sniveling? huh? Obama has been a cruel hoax, and you guys belittle Dr. Paul? Truly sad.

[celiawitter]

02:25 PM on 12/30/2011

I won't disagree. President Obama's term could be summed up by "unfulfilled promises". And I agree that ron paul's ideas are unique and not compatible with republican party priorities. He should DEFINITELY mount an independent campaign. I'd contribute to that. But if you're as old as I, then you remember pat paulsson. I mistook paul for pat paulsson, when I first saw him. That ain't good.

[Felix99]

11:33 PM on 12/29/2011

Love that Rachel Maddow, she says it like it is!

[reveal7]

04:49 PM on 12/30/2011

Her numbers for last year just came out...she's in decline. She's just a basher. Gobama 2012!

[Yulissa Infante]

10:40 PM on 12/29/2011

Maddow is cool but anti war anti FED anti spending is cooler

[Jafafa Hots]

12:02 AM on 12/30/2011

don't leave anti women and anti minority off that list.

[Ashanti]

12:42 AM on 12/30/2011

Thank you! It seems that Paul's supporters are getting pretty good at picking and choosing which of his positions to flaunt, and which to ignore with the hope that everyone else will ignore them as well. I guess even they've got their priorities ...

[Yulissa Infante]

10:36 PM on 12/29/2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr0gW56tp0c
Rachael meadow Iowa wont matter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJDqneN4weE
Money bomb with ronpaul cant win

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/campaign/200707-the-establishment-vs-ron-paul
Byu article

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw
Racist explanation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg8yvjwgnDs
Blacks for ron paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g&feature=youtu.be
Who is Romney

http://www.lolastube.com/search/?kwid=12057&q=Thailand%7CThai&c=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2rMnov4Ae8
China explaining our downfall

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEov7B5ewdk&feature=related
Ron Paul animated commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=kRO8m7iUlTY
Ron Paul Rocks to commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K3N0s_Ibau4
For the record Israel Ron Paul

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4&feature=player_embedded
Compassion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY
Imagine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npK5NlXXdEo&feature=related
Grassroots masses showing support

[PatrickforO]

09:48 PM on 12/29/2011

I wouldn't particularly phrase this the way Dodger does below, but I was amazed to see that of the top 30 cable shows, all the top ones, maybe 10, are Fox News shows. Rachel comes in about eleventh or so with just under a million viewers, and is followed by most of the MSNBC guys. Then you have the CNN folk, which is interesting. All of these stations offer crappy news coverage at best, but the ones slanted right or left get the highest ratings. Maybe Americans don't really want the actual news; maybe they would just rather be told how to think by a talking head they trust. You think this has anything to do with the complete ineffectiveness of our government and its nearly total takeover by what is now called the 1%?

[Ashanti]

12:56 AM on 12/30/2011

The explanation you've suggested is exactly why Fox News remains #1. The Fox fans, who are glued to the Foxtube 24/7, aren't really interested in the actual news, but want to be told how to think by a talking head they trust. This is also why the Fox audience has been shown to be the least informed. They simply feed off Fox fodder, and then regurgitate it back to us when they're challenged with trying to formulate a cogent argument to make a point.

The cable news networks in general - Fox, MSNBC, CNN - are nothing more than opinion mills, and I've stopped watching all of them (and am happier for it :), but MSNBC - in my opinion - at least offers informed opinions, as opposed to the sheer propaganda of Fox. And CNN ... well, it just kind of goes along to get along!

Ultimately, we've become a society of non-thinkers; we're just labels (Democrat or Republican or Libertarian, liberal or conservative or Independent, etc.), and we've lost all sense of who we are as individuals. And I do think that this has everything to do with the complete ineffectiveness of our government and its nearly total takeover by what is now called the 1%.

[RobH413]

03:13 AM on 12/30/2011

Good post. I would describe it a little differently. I don't think cable viewers are looking for a talking head to tell them what to think as much as they are looking for a talking head to validate what they ALREADY think. We're in an age of pick-and-choose-your-News, and it's quite striking to see not only the different ways that MSNBC and FOX cover the news, but also to see what stories and issues they choose to IDENTIFY as news.

I also think that there are different degrees of partisanship from the different commentators on both channels. Ed Schultz on the left and Sean Hannity on the right are both just jingoistic, partisan, blowhard simpletons. O'Reilly is more a right-leaning populist who occasionally has moments of sense. Maddow, though certainly left, is at least courteous, thoughtful and rational.

A good portion of the population, though, has lost its ability to think independently. Our judgment as to whether an idea is good or bad depends increasingly on the party label of the idea's origin than it does on the merits of the idea.