In this article on Chris Christie's potential entry into the presidential race, we read these rather amazing paragraphs:

A key candidate is left out, and he's running third behind Romney and Bachmann among announced candidates in Iowa. That's Ron Paul. Apparently the reporters who did this article were too lazy to look at the polling data, assembled here by RealClear Politics.

You'll note that Paul is running third behind Romney and Bachmann in the average of six polls shown. Yet the reporters choose to ignore Paul at 7.8 percent but list Cain at 6.5 percent and even the hapless Pawlenty, who barely registers in the polls.

Cain is clearly in the race for comic relief and has zero chance of winning. Pawlenty is an also-ran. Both will disappear. Paul, by comparison, has one of the best fund-raising machines in the race and also has a huge grass-roots army.

And speaking of comic relief, Gingrich has already been laughed out of this race. His campaign staff quit on him. Yet he is listed in this piece.

And Giuliani? Last time around, he spent $40 million. Know how many delegates he got? Zero. Yet even the biggest loser in GOP primary history gets listed instead of Paul.

Furthermore, anyone who was paying attention to the race would note that the rest of the field is now arguing on Paul's turf on such issues as foreign policy and the role of the Federal Reserve. You could make an argument that Paul is the story this year. The others are just repeating sound bites.

And as for the aforementioned Christie, could you imagine him debating either of those issues with the congressman? I can't, and I've seen him in action for longer than any journalist in America. He's barely getting up to speed on state issues, never mind national issues.

Various people argue Paul shouldn't be taken seriously because he couldn't beat President Barack Obama. There's a word for these people: Morons.

Check this page at RealClear. Of all the candidates listed, only Romney and Ron are within single digits against Obama. Paul performs much better than Palin, Pawlenty, Cain, Gingrich, and Huntsman.

And by the way, Romney's chances of getting the nomination are not good. He's got to defend "Obamneycare" - the term that will end up as the sole legacy of the Pawlenty campaign.

This is either dreadful, lazy reporting or simple bias against the one candidate who upsets the establishment. You decide.

ALSO: Two dullards debate. Bachmann brawls with Pawlenty over who's the real conservative. Hint: Neither of these neocons.