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

[US at Risk]

Thanks for the Peter Pan pic. Cracks me up.

[US at Risk]

Oops, didn’t mean to add fuel to the fire. Crazy excessive spam bugs me, too, but some is actually funny, in the best tradition of American political humor.

[lormand]

[US at Risk]

While the crickets were chirping, I looked up Letters of Marque in the Free archives and came up with this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1153347/posts

Very interesting, and I can see the potential for modern-day application. Issue the letter, obtain necessary permissions from necessary parties through diplomacy, then blammo. Harboring would be right out in the sunlight for all to see. RP hit this one out of the park, IMO.

Didn't mean to jump into the middle of your argument! I responded to the cartoon when I saw it, unaware of the later discussion.

[SandwicheGuy]

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

Interesting comspiracy theory, it could be right. I don't know, it is above my reasoning ability.

I do have a question though, why do the same people show up on every Ron Paul thread with the same talking points and their poorly worded and seeming irrational hatred of the man? Why don't they just skip the thread on move on to the ones about Hillary? Now that is a conspiracy... They must have the same ping list.

But why the hatred? And why so public about it? This I don't understand - you make your point, you move on. They made their points, some good ones too, but they won't let it alone. It is almost like they fear the ideas of this man. They denigrate him as a man, make fun of his appearance, call him names... Not like men at all, but more like Nancy-boys.

If they thought about it, all they are doing is bring more attentions to Ron Paul's ideas; And, in may case, bringing to mind the old Chinese saying that my enemies friends..., my friends' enemies, you know that old saying. That may be the conspiracy, some Ron Paul supporters posting frothing hatred under alias, engendering sympathy and some understanding of Ron Paul among a much larger audience. Because their blind antipathy does the opposite of what is intended and interests people in why there is so much commotion about a mere Congresssman from Texas.

[cva66snipe]

Ron Paul won the poll fair and square. FAUX NEWS's so called Fair and Balanced is a bunch of NEOCON apologist Spinbots who are there simply to uphold the NEOCON agenda and destroy the Conservative one or limit it's exposure. The time alotments to certain persons during that debate prove as much.

The behavior of Hannity post debate was unprofessional as well. He bends over backwards to kiss up to his hero Rudy NYC King Liberal former mayor but wasn't even civil to Ron Paul. Sean Hannity's GOP does not represent me nor will I watch FAUX NEWS until it stops the attacks on Conservatives.

[logician2u]

. . a bunch of NEOCON apologist Spinbots . .

Uh-oh, you used the N word. SJackson and his pals will be coming after you soon, I'd bet.

[logician2u]

Sean Hannity's GOP does not represent me nor will I watch FAUX NEWS until it stops the attacks on Conservatives.

What took you so long?

I stopped watching it around December, 2001. I was in the dentist's chair watching on his overhead teevee set while getting my teeth cleaned. I about gagged when I saw the crawl (Fox always runs a crawl, even when nothing important is happening) asking viewers to vote on their daily poll.

The question: Should the US attack Iraq now or wait until later?

No question as to where their bias is.

[cva66snipe]

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

You mean this man and his look alike?

Scarey isn't it.? They could pass for twins. Politically on most issues these two likely could. But are Liberals.

[cva66snipe]

Ah good the pictures came out perfect LOL. Now we can all see McRudy in a much better light :>}

[cva66snipe]

What took you so long?

LOL My TV and I don't watch much usually stays on Boomerang. Seriously I stopped watching FAUX completely when the management changes began. FAUX only has a few things going for it. John Gibson who is the only one who seems to be his own man these days and their field reporters are good. The rest is garbage. When the best a supposedly serious news network can do is saturating it's network with Rivera at least four nights per week usually more, well that pretty much tells me how desperate they really are.

I get about 5-15 TV news per day. I think that is a healthy enough dosage unless true breaking news is occurring. My idea of what constitutes a News Alert and FAUX News are miles apart. That News Alert is done I think to trigger addictive chemical responses in the brain of it's viewers. IOW to have your brain release Fight/Flight responses. Like I said it's just not healthy but many people don't realize it. It would be an interesting study IMO.

[cva66snipe]

Oh well :>} Been there done that. Mostly I believe in the same things I did when I came here. A few changes along the way but core beliefs remain intact.

[cva66snipe]

My TV and I don't watch much usually stays on Boomerang.

Corrected to say: I don't watch much TV and it usually stays on Boomerang.

[George W. Bush]

While the crickets were chirping,...

Not to worry. You're free to laugh at them. I've found some of them funny before back before the RP threads became nothing but a spamfest with the trolls reposting their earlier posts from other threads repeatedly and now resorting to such vast amounts of image spam that their intent is obviously to disrupt any discussion whatsoever.

Very interesting, and I can see the potential for modern-day application. Issue the letter, obtain necessary permissions from necessary parties through diplomacy, then blammo. Harboring would be right out in the sunlight for all to see. RP hit this one out of the park, IMO.

Precisely. With Blackwater recruiting so many talented special forces vets for big pay, why not use our most fundamental laws to authorize them to hunt down Osama and his henchmen? We already offered a $25 million reward for his capture to the public and recently increased it to $50 million. Why not offer the authorization of a letter of marque and reprisal to such an operation carried out by American mercenary forces since we already are using them so extensively in our war effort?

[cva66snipe]

Why not offer the authorization of a letter of marque and reprisal to such an operation carried out by American mercenary forces since we already are using them so extensively in our war effort?

Actually that is how he will likely be caught. The GOP under a Jerry Ford E.O. abandoned this policy actually. As a result state sponsored terrorism was born. The very same wing of the party who pushed for the undeclared war in Iraq to be precise on the matter.

I get kind of angry when I hear people say Ron Paul will do nothing about the likes of such. His methods would likely produce a much higher success rate with minimal damage to us diplomatically in the eyes of other nations. There is no reason for any POTUS to strut around the Oval Office or on TV saying were coming to get you. Since when did we ever owe terrorist dictators any warning?

Saddam knew months in advance we were coming for him as did Bin Laden. And yet nobody can understand why it takes so long? Well Duh! A wiser POTUS and a tight lipped need to know members of congress could have saved our nation billions and their deaths {Saddam and Bin Laden} would have been back page news events.

[George W. Bush]

I do have a question though, why do the same people show up on every Ron Paul thread with the same talking points and their poorly worded and seeming irrational hatred of the man? Why don't they just skip the thread on move on to the ones about Hillary? Now that is a conspiracy... They must have the same ping list.

Some of them support the leftwing mayor but won't admit it. Others recognize how liberal the Bush era policies have been but seem to believe that we must embrace those policies or the entire GOP house of cards will tumble. A few just love to find someone to hate and operate that way here at FR; you find them talking about sitting at the "cool table" back in high school and other juvenile rot, obviously a precious memory to them. Completely unprincipled. At best, they're partisan hacks. And if a Dim president is elected, they'll quickly flip all their positions 100% and continue on as partisan hacks. The real problem is that without principles, you cannot have a meaningful ideology to communicate to the masses against the flack of libmedia.

Liberals can afford to be unprincipled, given that libmedia will always cover for them. We conservatives cannot.

But why the hatred? And why so public about it? This I don't understand - you make your point, you move on. They made their points, some good ones too, but they won't let it alone. It is almost like they fear the ideas of this man. They denigrate him as a man, make fun of his appearance, call him names... Not like men at all, but more like Nancy-boys.

Part of it is just to ensure that these threads are so trashed that no one wants to come on them. Another reason is to intimidate anyone from posting in a positive way about Ron Paul. We do have many more Ron Paul supporters here than post on these threads or who are on our Ron Paul pinglist. And they will support him but not expose themselves to the abuse here.

As for 2008, some of the Paul-haters come right out and say they would vote for Hillary if Ron Paul were our nominee. Now that is some pretty sick stuff. But at least they're honest about it. I may, for instance, say I'd never vote for that horrible leftwing mayor. But I would never vote for Hitlery. If Satan were the GOP nominee, I wouldn't vote for Hitlery.

FR is a far more liberal site now than it was originally. And I'm not blaming JimRob. He can't change who comes here or who buys into this liberal bilge floated by the GOP about as much as the Dims these days. I know from years of reading his posts that his instincts are just pretty darned conservative. But there's a limit to what a site owner can do to influence his membership.

[cva66snipe]

An answer you have not considered about Letters of Marque in post #55. It would have most likely worked.

[George W. Bush]

Actually that is how he will likely be caught. The GOP under a Jerry Ford E.O. abandoned this policy actually. As a result state sponsored terrorism was born. The very same wing of the party who pushed for the undeclared war in Iraq to be precise on the matter.

It was no coincidence, was it?

I get kind of angry when I hear people say Ron Paul will do nothing about the likes of such. His methods would likely produce a much higher success rate with minimal damage to us diplomatically in the eyes of other nations. There is no reason for any POTUS to strut around the Oval Office or on TV saying were coming to get you. Since when did we ever owe terrorist dictators any warning?

Well, terrorists deserve no quarter. Dictators, as in the Mideast, often do actually represent the will of their backward subjects. So a dictator is not automatically a target for elimination. We are, in fact, allied with some truly horrible dictators at present with terrible human rights records. But I would not say we should depose them or assassinate them.

Sovereign countries are different than terrorists. Or the global elimination of the anarchists a century ago.

[cva66snipe]

We are, in fact, allied with some truly horrible dictators at present with terrible human rights records. But I would not say we should depose them or assassinate them.

Agreed. Tito's Yugoslavia was a good example of just that. We remained on friendly enough terms our Navy made Port of Calls there in the late 1970's. I know that for an absolute fact. It all has to do with "in our best national interest." IF someone is a threat to us take them out. I see a South American/Central American situation developing right now which would likely fall under such conditions. When seen as a threat take care of it early on.

[lormand]

"The GOP under a Jerry Ford E.O. abandoned this policy actually. As a result state sponsored terrorism was born."

You Paulistinians smoke some pretty strong stuff.

Always blaming American policy for Terrorism.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.