McVay: Ron Paul's presidential run isn't the usual GOP politics

Athens Banner-Herald ^ | September 13, 2007 | Richard McVay

[George W. Bush]

McVay: Ron Paul's presidential run isn't the usual GOP politics

By Richard McVay   |   Columnist   |   Story updated at 8:37 PM on Thursday, September 13, 2007

Why are the media so scared of one little man? At last week's Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire, held by Fox News, one man stood apart from the crowd: the party's only anti-war candidate, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.

He expressed his astute understanding of traditional Republican and conservative ideals in a demeanor befitting a true statesman, and despite near-childish antics by other candidates - and even the moderators - to marginalize him, he connected with the American people, winning Fox News' viewer poll with nearly 33 percent of the text-message votes.

And Paul's victory, despite apologetics from the Fox News staff, wasn't an easy one.

Fox White House correspondent Wendell Goler asked Paul the first of several biased questions from a misquoted statement the politician made in a previous debate, a half-hour into the debate and after several repeat questions to other candidates.

"You have said that the 9/11 attackers might have had second thoughts if they'd felt that some of the passengers aboard the airplanes might have been armed," Goler said.

What Paul actually said was that had the airlines had the burden of responsibility for the safety of their passengers rather than having to depend on the government for security, pilots could have been armed to prevent such hijackings.

The simple misquoting, which seemed intentional, elevated into one particular question no self-respecting journalist ever would have asked. This time, it was Chris Wallace who, upon Paul's statement that the U.S. should leave Iraq immediately, asked, "What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry?"

That question reminds me of one of the first lessons in a freshman-level newswriting or reporting class. The example my professor always used was the question, "Senator, when did you stop beating your wife?" Such questions are traps - overt partiality and railroading that journalists should never practice. What is a journalist doing in positing there will be a bloodbath if we leave Iraq?

Paul managed to wiggle out of that trap without a misplaced hair, retorting that those who predict a bloodbath are the same people who said the war would be "a cake walk, a slam dunk."

And it wasn't just the questions. When Paul was answering a question about eliminating federal government departments, laughter was audible from one of the microphones. Just who was laughing wasn't certain, but blogosphere speculation ranked former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani as the most likely culprit. In fact, Fox displayed a split screen during Paul's comments in which a smirking Giuliani was juxtaposed with the focused Paul.

Whoever was the chuckler, his disrespectful behavior is far from what I expect from a potential leader of this country, and Fox's failure to cut the mic showed its true colors.

After the debate, Fox commentator Sean Hannity begrudgingly announced Paul the winner of the viewer poll, promptly excusing the results as more of the supposed spamming by Paul supporters.

"They're redialing by the second," Hannity said, failing to report that voters were able to vote only once in the poll.

What all this unprofessional, malicious moderating made me wonder is, if Ron Paul is the disconnected loony portrayed by the mainstream media, why the need for sabotage? If there's one good way to minimize the impact of a truly crazy person, it's to let him speak. If he's that deranged, he'll set up his own demise.

So, obviously, the gatekeepers at Fox News are threatened by Ron Paul. There are two reasons: The most obvious - Paul is a principled man with emphatic, growing support who threatens to upset the status quo among neoconservatives. He wants to get the GOP back to its roots, and neocon media-mongers and their supporters stand to lose a lot of money if a minimalist government is installed. Fewer federal agencies means fewer government contracts.

Secondly, if Ron Paul continues his snowballing success, Fox News can't take credit for it. Paul's support is grassroots, making efficient use of the Internet. A successful run by Paul would all but eliminate the conglomerate media's stranglehold in directing national politics, as free speech requiring neither a license from the FCC nor millions of dollars in advertising allows a wider variety of viewpoints to be absorbed by the masses.

Paul's candidacy will be captivating to watch, if only for its emerging use of the Web to mobilize voters, notably the younger generation traditionally seen as politically apathetic. It's a notable shift in American political history.

• Richard McVay is a copy editor at the Athens Banner-Herald. Send e-mail to richard.mcvay@onlineathens.com.

Published in the Athens Banner-Herald on 091407

[George W. Bush]

Interesting comments about some ulterior motives by Fox News opposition to Ron Paul, how it goes beyond opposition to his positions and the threat to their own desired role as a kingmaker in GOP politics.

[George W. Bush]

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

Interesting insights on the strange enmity of Fox News and their motives in attacking Ron Paul.

[383rr]

“A successful run by Paul would all but eliminate the conglomerate media’s stranglehold in directing national politics, as free speech requiring neither a license from the FCC nor millions of dollars in advertising allows a wider variety of viewpoints to be absorbed by the masses.”

That’s a GOOD thing, regardless of who your preferred candidate is.

[Dog Gone]

This article might make sense if Ron Paul was actually a threat to win a single primary.

But he won’t, and it doesn’t.

[George W. Bush]

Exactly. War issues aside, it's surprising how liberal Fox News is on any given day. And as John Lott's investigation showed, Fox News employees political donations were skewed toward Democrats by 80%, just like the other libmedia outlets. And FNC's owner is bankrolling Hitlery on a huge scale, apparently trying to outbid Soros himself.

No wonder they're out to assassinate Ron Paul politically and make it so viciously personal.

[George W. Bush]

This article might make sense if Ron Paul was actually a threat to win a single primary.

If you're right, then FNC's repeated hitjobs on Ron Paul make even less sense.

You can't have it both ways. Either he is a threat or he's not. If not, why the savaging and vicious attacks by FNC?

[Clint N. Suhks]

MR. WALLACE: So, Congressman Paul, and I’d like you to take 30 seconds to answer this, you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (Laughter.)

REP. PAUL: No! (Cheers, applause.) I’m saying -- (laughter) -- I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war -- (cheers, applause) -- we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law. That’s where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (Cheers, boos.)

It appears he's a little conflicted. Not a good attribute for a potential leader of the free world.

[Clint N. Suhks]

FNC's repeated hitjobs on Ron Paul i>

Last time I heard you didn't get cable or satellite, has that changed? If not, how can you make that accusation having never watched FNC?

[Dog Gone]

You can't have it both ways. Either he is a threat or he's not. If not, why the savaging and vicious attacks by FNC?

Where is it written that you can only attack threats? What's wrong with attacking kooks? Especially if they manage to get onstage?

[George W. Bush]

Given that they were trying to brand him as a traitor or dupe of the enemy on national TV, I thought Ron Paul did well. And I think the audience grasped his point quite well.

Your problem is all the coverage from Peggy Noonan and others commenting on how striking it was that Ron Paul, the lone antiwar candidate, was getting cheered by half the audience in NH. It indicates a much greater level of support for his positions than anyone wants to admit.

[George W. Bush]

Last time I heard you didn't get cable or satellite, has that changed? If not, how can you make that accusation having never watched FNC?

I used to watch it. About 24 hours a day back in its early years.

Then I shut off TV for a few years as mostly a waste of time.

Then I got satellite again and found it had turned liberal.

Now I don't watch it much except for these debates or on certain topics that I'm interested in.

For daily news, I time-shift Tucker Carlson. But then, he's an RP supporter so that's a no-brainer. He was telling Willie Geist yesterday that even his kids have maxed out their donations to Ron Paul. His preschooler says "I just like his policies". LOL.

[George W. Bush]

Where is it written that you can only attack threats? What's wrong with attacking kooks? Especially if they manage to get onstage?

Then why don't these so-called conservatives ever attack the leftwing mayor? It's because they're not actually conservative to begin with and have no principles.

I'd hate to even think what might happen if they were left alone in a men's room with the transsexual mayor.

[Clint N. Suhks]

It indicates a much greater level of support for his positions than anyone wants to admit.

Doesn't quite address my point does it? Why would you support someone with an apparent schizophrenic philosophy?

Is he going to take his marching orders from the Constitution or International Law?

[George W. Bush]

I suggest you go listen to his actual foreign policy remarks at his 9/11 speech to the John Hopkins Nitze School, a prestigious foreign policy body.

Here's a thread with a link to the audio.

Ron Paul Speaks at SAIS

Is he going to take his marching orders from the Constitution or International Law?

The Constitution. Unlike you, the audience clearly grasped the context of his remarks.

[Clint N. Suhks]

For daily news, I time-shift Tucker Carlson.

You won't watch FNC because it's "turned liberal", but you will watch Tucker? George, you're scaring me. Tucker is a Conservative as much as MSLSD is a conservative network.

[Clint N. Suhks]

The Constitution. Unlike you, the audience clearly grasped the context of his remarks.

I clearly heard him cite both. Will he follow International Law only when it's convenient? If so it seams silly to cite it at all don't you think? That's not clear headed thinking is it?

[George W. Bush]

You won't watch FNC because it's "turned liberal", but you will watch Tucker? George, you're scaring me. Tucker is a Conservative as much as MSLSD is a conservative network.

Tucker is a libertarian Republican. He does acknowledge he voted for Ron Paul for president in 1988.

Perhaps you prefer to listen to FNC as they pave the path for the leftwing mayor as the GOP nominee against the Soros/Murdoch backed of Hitlery.

If you listen, Tucker Carlson launches far more attacks on Dims and Dim candidates than FNC does on the opposing Hume show. I never liked Tucker during his time at CNN but his current show is far more conservative and interesting than his previous job.

[mysterio]

Hannity and Fox "news" are firmly behind the Giuliani campaign.

Fox has become unwatchable.

[George W. Bush]

Will he follow International Law only when it's convenient?

Why don't you apply that same standard to our current president? Or maybe adhering to such a standard would be unfair if it isn't applied to only Ron Paul. As for me, I have no problem grasping RP's fundamental point, buttressed by his other remarks in this debate and in earlier debates and in many speeches made over the years. IOW, I'm not buying your little game of 'gotcha' on a single sound bite and using standards you only wish to apply to one candidate, not all of them or the current administration.

I do have to laugh. FreeRepublic might actually have some influence in the upcoming elections if they focused even a fraction of the hatred they have for Ron Paul on the real enemy: the two likely Dim nominees.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Tucker Carlson launches far more attacks on Dims and Dim candidates than FNC does on the opposing Hume show.

Again you can't make that accusation if you don't watch it. Special Report is extremely right, I suggest you give it a listen if you want the real Conservative news.

The rest of FNC isn't worth shiite.