Posted on 09/14/2007 8:00:37 AM PDT by George W. Bush
McVay: Ron Paul's presidential run isn't the usual GOP politics
| |
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
"The Constitution. Unlike you, the audience clearly grasped the context of his remarks."
I listened, and it was clear to me that Ron Paul indicated it is the Constitution which defines his marching orders.
First of all please don't project my support for the administration of your own name sake, they have made plenty of blunders mixed in with some successes. W is and will always be better than the alternative.
Secondly, I am using RP's own words to discredit him, that's not a matter of gotcha, it's an insight to his credibility and integrity. You really should take pause and reflect upon his instability.
Thirdly, we are long time FRiends, let's keep our discutions more FRiendly please?
The Republican Party of Iowa announced today that it will host a debate featuring major Republican candidates for President of the United States. The event, to be held on December 4, will be the first debate in Iowa to be televised by FOX News Channel this election season, as well as the first debate sponsored by the Republican Party of Iowa, announced Ray Hoffmann, Chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa.
Let's get the troops up for this!
That's absurd and proves you don't watch. If anything Special Report highlights Roody Doody's stupidity than it supports any candidate yet, which they don't. Perhaps if you did watch you would understand.
You Paul bashers are getting slow.
Come on George, I accused RP of that, not you. I guess we shouldn't post to each other if you're going to accuse me of things I've not said. Good luck my FRiend, see ya later.
Thanks, I'm using Firefox and will do just that.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/drpix/*This will keep down the number of blocking rules in your list and is more efficient for your browser and computer resources. If he adds Flickr accounts or more Photobucket accounts and such, there are ways to block those as well.
... but I only learned after posting them that unlike FR supporters of other politicians, they don’t roll with the graphics. Instead they become sanctimoniously offended and swarm to defend their Deity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.