Another reason the media hate Ron Paul, but did him a big favor at the South Carolina debate

By now, after nearly a dozen GOP primary presidential debates, every American has seen how the Mainstream Media hate Rep. Ron Paul because he is an uncompromising champion of liberty, sound money, free enterprise and a noninterventionist policy.   In each debate, the moderators usually have asked Rep. Paul the least amount of questions, even though his ideas are resonating with more Americans, especially young voters, who have become his core supporters.

However, another more despicable un-pc reason the media dislike Ron Paul is that he is 76 years old and does not look, at least to them, “presidential.”  Thus, if the moderators gave Ron Paul more time at the debates they would be conceding 1) his pro liberty ideas should get a fair hearing at the debates, and 2) the “old guy” knows more about the issues than the warmongers on the stage with the congressman from Texas.

Moreover, the last thing the debate moderators want to do is allow the old guy to show up who they think will become the GOP presidential nominee.  The media shills do not want to piss off the GOP establishment insiders and their corporate bosses by allowing Ron to point out that the other seven GOP candidates all support the welfare-warfare state.

I am convinced that there has been an unspoken agreement among the media personalities since Ron Paul announced his presidential candidacy, namely, they will give very little airtime during the debates to the “kooky” libertarian from Texas otherwise the media corporate bigwigs will have them doing weather reports from Peoria or some other obscure town.

In addition, there is no way to prove this thesis, namely, the media’s ideological and age bias are working against Ron Paul, but what would be happening during the debates if Senator Rand Paul, who has virtually the same ideas as his father, was in the race instead of Ron Paul?  We can speculate all day, but my guess is that Rand Paul would be getting much more time at the debates than Ron has been getting.

The only way we can test this hypothesis right now is for Rand to replace Ron in the presidential campaign and see how the media treat the Kentucky senator.  Of course, I am not advocating that Ron drop out of the race and Rand step in, but this has been on my mind from early on in the campaign, namely, how would Rand be doing if were running instead of Ron?

Anecdotally, from personal conversations and from what I have heard from others who have discussed the presidential campaign with friends, family and colleagues, there is some sentiment in America  that Ron is “too old” to run for president.  Some of this is coming from the “greatest generation” who apparently do not care that their children and grandchildren will see their living standards decline because of the unsustainable welfare-warfare state that Romney, Gingrich, Cain and the others support as well as Obama.

Although I did not watch the latest warmongering forum in South Carolina, there is evidence that there was a substantial pro Ron Paul contingent in the audience.   The so-called debate on national security issues allowed Ron Paul to show why the other candidates are unfit to be president of the United States, because they want to continue a policy of intervention that undermines our national security.

As we head into the holiday season, Christians, Jews, and nonbelievers as well will have to decide in the upcoming primaries which GOP presidential candidate puts morality, the rule of law, and peace at the forefront of his governing philosophy. The answer is clear because the moderators at the South Carolina debate by giving Ron Paul only 89 seconds of speaking time during the first hour did him a big favor; they allowed the other candidates to show their unequivocal   support for undeclared wars, torture and other unconstitutional and illegal acts in the name of national security.

America cannot afford a warfare state that all the GOP presidential candidates, except Ron Paul, voiced support for on the stage in South Carolina.  The choice is clear for the GOP presidential nomination as well as the presidency next November.

Ron Paul is the candidate who echoes the words of two-time Congressional Medal of Honor winner, General Smedley Butler, “There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.”


 

This entry was posted in Federal Government, Presidential campaign, The Warfare State. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Another reason the media hate Ron Paul, but did him a big favor at the South Carolina debate

  1. Flame says:

    The article is accurate. I normally do not watch these dog-and-pony shows that masquerade as debates, but I recorded this one. While I did not time the minutes allowed Dr. Paul, he did get less time than other candidates. The writer is also correct that there was a large and vocal (but polite) pro-Ron Paul contingent in the audience that cheered his comments loudly.

    Scott Pelley’s substantial disdain for Ron Paul was very obvious in his facial expressions, which were almost sneering, and in the abrupt way he cut Dr. Paul off (altho, to be fair, he did the same to a couple of others, notably Michelle Bachmann). I was so disgusted with Pelley that today I altered my DVR schedule to change to another news channel than CBS–just as I did years ago when Dan Blather was caught in scandal and when CBS then turned the news over to Ms. Cute-n-Perky Couric, who also disgusted me.

    It has been my honor and privilege to meet Dr. Paul in a one-on-one situation for a brief chat. What I perceived as the worst exchange (and this one seriously diminished my prior opinion of Bachmann) came in the question about assassinating American citizens. Bachmann asked for extra time, which Pelley granted, in which she lashed out at Dr. Paul, pointing out how beneficial it was that we killed Osama Bin Laden (questionable, if one report I read is true—but that’s for another day). What went totally over Bachmann’s head is that OBL was NEVER an American citizen. What Dr. Paul opposes–and I must agree with him–is that 3 of those killed by US drones (or other means) hold/held US citizenship, giving them the benefits of our 5th Amendment!

    In a previous campaign. Dr. Paul was all for letters of marque and reprisal (clearly stated in the Constitution) to be employed to fight terrorism instead of deploying 1000s of our best and brightest all over the world to be killed.

    These debates are a biased sham, and a whole new set of rules is needed so that ALL candidates have an equal shot at stating their messages!