My view of the Washington political scene is that it is like a pan of muddy water. If you just let it sit, the mud will all settle to the bottom. To the casual observer, the water will look fresh and clean. It's only when you stir it up that the truth is obvious. The water is stagnant, and good for neither man nor beast.

The Washington establishment doesn't like to have things stirred up. The political leaders prefer to make the important decisions behind closed doors. It's a way of avoiding all that messy compromising, and allows them to make the 'best' decision. They, after all, know what is 'best for us. Don't they. I, on the other hand, would prefer dirty water not try to decieve me. I want to know where mud is, so that no one is confused.

It is for this reason that I first tentatively supported Ron Paul. He's not an insider, in that he flat-out says what he believes and votes that way. He doesn't mince words, and is willing to call it as he sees it. With him sitting as President of the United States, the mud would get stirred up. Congress would stop "doing the peoples business", which, loosely translated means meddling in other people's affairs while robbing them blind. Nothing would "get done" for four years. Nothing, that is, except for exposing the rotten core of Washington. That would be four years well spent, in my opinion.

But then I noticed something strange. Ron Paul carries a sizeable portion of the vote in all the polls, but the gatekeepers that control the media think he is not worthy of participating in the New Hampshire debate. What sort of silliness is that? He TRIPLES the vote of the so-called front-runner Guiliani in the Iowa Caucus, and has SEVEN times the vote of the "front-runner" Thompson in New Hampshire. He gets double the vote of either in Michigan. So far, he has far outpaced either candidate in overall voting. Yet he gets no air-play from it. The New York Times doesn't even have the decency to give him a place on there election guide page.

Fox News finally does let the man in on a debate, and instead of asking a serious policy question, they harass the man with a belittling question about his supporters. When he is asked a serious question, he is rudely interrupted and cut-off in the middle amid dismissive snickering. "No one is talking about WAR, sir." Yet, Huckabee had just said that US ships should show the Iranians in a speed boat "the gates of Hell", and Thompson wanted to make sure our warships "introduced them to those 70 virgins." If that isn't talk of war, what is?

I've never seen such open derision, and outright rudeness to a major political candidate. What is going on? Why is this candidate winning grassroots support that the other candidates can only dream of, while at the same time being blacklisted by the national news networks? Why is his campaign growing and strengthening, while the other candidates fizzle out, and yet the national news networks continue to actively ignore him?

Find out for yourself.