Skip navigation

Tag Archives: mainstream media

Imagine for a moment that you are someone who has not paid attention to the 2008 presidential campaign at all. You have no idea who the three leading candidates are. You also have no knowledge of the candidates who were in the race. You never tuned in for any of the televised debates. You never read any of the magazine articles. You never read any newspapers. Now imagine that the first time you see any of the 2008 presidential candidates, it is when you tune in to Glenn Beck’s television program on April 1, 2008. On this program he has a guest named Ron Paul, who he introduces as a Republican candidate for president. Mr. Beck asks Paul about the big profits for big oil, the plan to give the Federal Reserve much greater power over the economy, and the general problems relating to the Fed’s ability to secretly control- along with private banks- all of the finances of the United States. It’s a well done interview. You would probably come away from it thinking that this Ron Paul guy has some interesting points. Even if you didn’t agree with him, you would probably conclude that he at least deserves some respect. Why?

Well, quite simply, it’s all in the way Beck treated Ron Paul. He was fair. He allowed Paul to finish his sentences. He gave the viewer the impression that Ron Paul actually knows what he’s talking about when it comes to economic matters. Of course, anyone who knows Glenn Beck also knows that he is vehemently opposed to Ron Paul’s foreign policy of nonintervention. However, unlike Bill O’Reilly, who had Ron Paul on his program just to yell at him, and give the viewer the impression that he is crazy, Beck spoke with Ron Paul in a civilized manner concerning a topic on which he and Paul agree.

In January of this year, Glenn Beck interviewed Ron Paul on his radio show. Once again, it was very well conducted and even ended with Beck paying Dr. Paul this compliment:

“I mean, you know, we just — I just happen to disagree with you, but I respect you, sir, for your opinion. I have said this, you know, behind your back. So let me say it to your face. I think you are the closest we have running to a founding father. You seem to be the only guy who has actually read the federalist papers. So I appreciate your efforts, sir.”

Furthermore, back in December, 2007, Mr. Beck interviewed and debated Ron Paul on television for the entire length of his (Beck’s) program!

How about that!? Where was Fox News for that kind of “fair and balanced” coverage? This is precisely the kind of debate we should be having in this great “democratic” country of ours. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone’s positions on war, the economy, or anything. There is something wrong, however, with eschewing real debate in favor of flinging epithets at each other as if the discussion was between 9 year olds in a grade school playground.

To be fair, from a left wing perspective I have to compliment Bill Maher for his treatment of Ron Paul as well. After the Republican debate in which Rudy Giuliani and Dr. Paul had this memorable confrontation, Paul appeared as a studio guest on Maher’s television program. Maher even referred to Ron Paul as his “new hero.”

Just imagine what might have happened over this past year if more people in the mainstream media would have given Ron Paul fair coverage. Just imagine what might have happened if the mainstream media actually encouraged real debates on the issues, instead of having their microphones and cameras ready only for political pablum and jingoistic slogans.

Finally, just as Glenn Beck and Bill Maher disagree with Ron Paul on many issues, I disagree with Beck and Maher on many issues. However, I appreciate the fact that both of them treated Ron Paul with respect, and allowed him plenty of time to state his case.

That’s more than I can say for most of the other political commentators.

Advertisements

“So, if you don’t receive the Republican nomination for President, would you consider running as a third party or independent candidate?”

Here’s a daunting task. Determine how many times during the past year Ron Paul has been asked that question. I certainly do not know the answer, but this you tube video serves as an excellent example of just how doggedly determined the mainstream media has been in trying to drag the answer they want out of Dr. Paul. Of course they want him to say he will run. Just imagine the controversy an announcement like that would create. It would send shivers through the establishment faster than you can say Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. Ron Paul represents the greatest nightmare as far as members of the established order are concerned. He would actually “steal” votes from both major party candidates.

And that word “steal” is most significant. When a third party or independent candidate runs for president it is usually said that he is “stealing” or “taking votes away” from a major party candidate. That whole notion is inconsistent with most voters’ cherished concept of “democracy.” Person A can only “steal” something from Person B if that something is already owned by person B. To say that a third party or independent candidate is “stealing” votes suggests that the major party candidate is already the owner of those votes. Maybe I’m mistaken but, I thought the whole strategy in political elections was for every candidate to try to convince voters that they should vote for him, instead of the other candidates. I didn’t realize that certain establishment approved candidates are actually considered to be the owners of the peoples’ votes before the election ever takes place. Silly me!

Anyway, yesterday I received a letter from the Libertarian National Committee. In the envelope was a petition, on which I was encouraged to sign. With my signature I would be urging Ron Paul to seek the Libertarian nomination for President. I am not going to sign that petition. I certainly am a libertarian, but I’m no longer a member of the Libertarian Party. Over the past twelve months Dr. Paul has proven that spreading a libertarian message through a Republican campaign is far superior to laboring away with a third party. Believe me, I don’t like to admit this, but it is true.

It is truly a shame that in our great “democracy” we are forced to choose between candidates from only two parties. As Dr. Paul has said, a third party candidate spends most of his time and money just trying to get on ballots. And forget about getting into the debates. Yes, as much as it pains me to say it, third parties are really just wasting their time and money. They will not be allowed to win. They will continue to be portrayed by the mainstream media as gatherings of weirdo fringe people who should not be taken seriously. They will also continue to be criticized as vote “thieves.” And no one likes a thief, right? That is precisely why Ron Paul should not run as a third party candidate. And being an independent is no better. Instead of being criticized for being part of a group of weirdos, he would be criticized for being an independent weirdo.

This is why the mainstream media is desperate for Ron Paul to launch an independent or third party run for President. For then they would have another party crasher to ridicule. They could also say things like “Why is he running? He’s not going to win. All he’s doing is stealing votes away from a candidate who really can win.” So in the minds of the sheep out there in TV land, Ron Paul’s name will be forever tarnished. He will be cited as the reason why the loser lost. “If that darn Ron Paul wouldn’t have stolen all of those votes…”

Considering all of this, I believe that a third party or independent run by Ron Paul would produce absolutely no positives. It would, however, make possible a lot of negatives. The best thing that can be done at this point is to try to populate various governments with as many Ron Paul Republicans as possible. One attempt is currently under way in New Jersey, where Murray Sabrin is running for the U.S. Senate. He has already been formally endorsed by Dr. Paul. Now this is what we need. We need people to be elected to office, not to waste all of their time fighting for ballot access.

I have changed my voter’s registration to Republican because of Ron Paul. Initially I did it simply so I could vote for him in the Pennsylvania primary. But, I’ve decided to stay registered as a Republican. I’m a “Ron Paul” Republican. And I like the sound of that!