3 ms·

The censorship of Ron Paul really is pretty incredible. The Daily Show clip was already mentioned in this thread - here's another example I noticed the other da

The censorship of Ron Paul really is pretty incredible. The Daily Show clip was already mentioned in this thread - here's another example I noticed the other day in the Chicago Tribune: I just pulled out three random stories: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-iowa-nbcpolltre7bt0mr-20111230,0,6277647.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-io... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politicsnow/la-pn-iowa-rick-santorum-rips-ron-paul-20111229,0,3492896.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politicsnow/la-pn-iowa-ri... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-pn-romney-prospects-iowa-win-20111227,0,6546759.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-pn-romney-... Notice how every candidate name mentioned in the article (for the first time) is also a hyperlink, except Ron Paul.

chernevik 15y ago
CNBC had an interview where they basically let him talk for almost half an hour. He was great for five minutes, okay through to ten, and then the wheels just came off. He couldn't answer obvious follow-up questions (some with obvious Ron Paul answers). He was bamboozled by questions on the gold standard from people who actually speak monetary policy. Toward the end he was hardly coherent. I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there. I suspect reporters who have seen the guy up close see this and don't bother with him. I think they're too invested in their self-image as news filters to provide deep, even-handed coverage and let their audience decide. EDITED TO ADD: As noted below, I can't find a link to the interview I had in mind. So I'll walk back what I've said here a step or two: That's my impression of how the guy seems after extended scrutiny. But I can't now point to a document that would support that impression as well as I'd like.
- padobson 15y ago
  "I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there." This does little to differentiate him from any other politician.
- jamesbritt 15y ago
  I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there. That describes nearly every single politician. Bill Clinton comes to mind as an exception, and no doubt there are a few others, but not among the anointed GOP candidates. This lack of depth and intellectual rigor does nothing to dissuade major news outlets from sticking a mic in front of nearly anyone or discussing them as serious contenders. Reporters have decided that Paul is never going to get the nomination so they don't bother. Anyway I'd love to see that Paul interview if anyone has a link. I'm curious about "bamboozled by questions on the gold standard" and "hardly coherent".
  - chernevik 15y ago
    Can't find it. I can find a number of ten minute interviews with him -- this one has him discussing the Fed with an expert, and I don't think he showed well. http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1359402302 http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1359402302 This is 15 December 2009, and it isn't "almost half an hour", and I don't recall the details so much as my impression of the guy's thinking. They've had a number of long interviews with him. 17 May 2010 -- http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1496298429 http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1496298429 27 April 2011 -- http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000018858 http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000018858 31 May 2011 -- http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000024836 http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000024836
    - jamesbritt 15y ago
      Cool, thanks for this.
- nickpinkston 15y ago
  (Full disclosure, I was an activist for Paul during 2008) I agree that Paul seems to have too narrow of a focus in his talk - he answers healthcare or fuel price questions half the time by saying these wouldn't happen with a gold standard / Fed, etc. I don't think he's thin in his views, but that (in typical libertarian fashion) he focuses just a bit too much on pure philosophy and not on pragmatism. I agree with the previous commenters with his sincerity and trustworthiness. I think "The Incorruptible" can honestly be applied to his name. Whenever he gave a speech he just got up there and said what was on his mind - it's not all good policy, but he's serious and consistent. The most likely result of a Paul presidency would probably be, not his legislative force, etc., but perhaps the waking up of America to what the establishment's power (and really the presidency itself) really is - fully controlled by interest groups. I actually think that Obama is a genuine / smart guy, but he's too afraid (seemingly) to press his views. I think Paul would be fine pressing the views, but would probably be near censured by the true political ruling class.
  - thebigshane 15y ago
    A truly frightening situation would be in the near impossible case that Ron Paul does get elected president: that he ends up looking just as paralyzed and neutered as President Obama and we find out that it isn't a matter of conviction or fearlessness but that the collective power of interest groups and the media has just gotten too powerful.
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      ...we find out that it isn't a matter of conviction or fearlessness but that the collective power of interest groups... The collective power of interest groups is indeed the key. The horror of slavery wasn't abolished by President Lincoln's stand on principle. It was an alignment of the industrial North's economic/geopolitical interests with the principled stand of abolitionists. Lincoln merely walked to the front of the parade and raised his baton. The Emancipation Proclamation was pragmatic, not principled. Even Gandhi was doing this. He was able to align the interests of the average Indian villager with the principle of Indian independence, and get the population to understand it through clear material examples. (Cloth and salt.) "The collective power of interest groups" is the reality, the landscape of politics. Those who fight battles and wage campaigns on this landscape had better be aware of its shape and implications. Wars are not won by those who "want it" bad enough. The energy of fervor needs to be directed in the most effective fashion.

chernevik 15y ago

CNBC had an interview where they basically let him talk for almost half an hour. He was great for five minutes, okay through to ten, and then the wheels just came off. He couldn't answer obvious follow-up questions (some with obvious Ron Paul answers). He was bamboozled by questions on the gold standard from people who actually speak monetary policy. Toward the end he was hardly coherent. I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there. I suspect reporters who have seen the guy up close see this and don't bother with him. I think they're too invested in their self-image as news filters to provide deep, even-handed coverage and let their audience decide. EDITED TO ADD: As noted below, I can't find a link to the interview I had in mind. So I'll walk back what I've said here a step or two: That's my impression of how the guy seems after extended scrutiny. But I can't now point to a document that would support that impression as well as I'd like.

padobson 15y ago
"I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there." This does little to differentiate him from any other politician.
jamesbritt 15y ago
I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there. That describes nearly every single politician. Bill Clinton comes to mind as an exception, and no doubt there are a few others, but not among the anointed GOP candidates. This lack of depth and intellectual rigor does nothing to dissuade major news outlets from sticking a mic in front of nearly anyone or discussing them as serious contenders. Reporters have decided that Paul is never going to get the nomination so they don't bother. Anyway I'd love to see that Paul interview if anyone has a link. I'm curious about "bamboozled by questions on the gold standard" and "hardly coherent".
- chernevik 15y ago
  Can't find it. I can find a number of ten minute interviews with him -- this one has him discussing the Fed with an expert, and I don't think he showed well. http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1359402302 http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1359402302 This is 15 December 2009, and it isn't "almost half an hour", and I don't recall the details so much as my impression of the guy's thinking. They've had a number of long interviews with him. 17 May 2010 -- http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1496298429 http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1496298429 27 April 2011 -- http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000018858 http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000018858 31 May 2011 -- http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000024836 http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000024836
  - jamesbritt 15y ago
    Cool, thanks for this.
nickpinkston 15y ago
(Full disclosure, I was an activist for Paul during 2008) I agree that Paul seems to have too narrow of a focus in his talk - he answers healthcare or fuel price questions half the time by saying these wouldn't happen with a gold standard / Fed, etc. I don't think he's thin in his views, but that (in typical libertarian fashion) he focuses just a bit too much on pure philosophy and not on pragmatism. I agree with the previous commenters with his sincerity and trustworthiness. I think "The Incorruptible" can honestly be applied to his name. Whenever he gave a speech he just got up there and said what was on his mind - it's not all good policy, but he's serious and consistent. The most likely result of a Paul presidency would probably be, not his legislative force, etc., but perhaps the waking up of America to what the establishment's power (and really the presidency itself) really is - fully controlled by interest groups. I actually think that Obama is a genuine / smart guy, but he's too afraid (seemingly) to press his views. I think Paul would be fine pressing the views, but would probably be near censured by the true political ruling class.
- thebigshane 15y ago
  A truly frightening situation would be in the near impossible case that Ron Paul does get elected president: that he ends up looking just as paralyzed and neutered as President Obama and we find out that it isn't a matter of conviction or fearlessness but that the collective power of interest groups and the media has just gotten too powerful.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    ...we find out that it isn't a matter of conviction or fearlessness but that the collective power of interest groups... The collective power of interest groups is indeed the key. The horror of slavery wasn't abolished by President Lincoln's stand on principle. It was an alignment of the industrial North's economic/geopolitical interests with the principled stand of abolitionists. Lincoln merely walked to the front of the parade and raised his baton. The Emancipation Proclamation was pragmatic, not principled. Even Gandhi was doing this. He was able to align the interests of the average Indian villager with the principle of Indian independence, and get the population to understand it through clear material examples. (Cloth and salt.) "The collective power of interest groups" is the reality, the landscape of politics. Those who fight battles and wage campaigns on this landscape had better be aware of its shape and implications. Wars are not won by those who "want it" bad enough. The energy of fervor needs to be directed in the most effective fashion.