Fox News lets Ron Paul skate on the newsletters
posted at 11:51 pm on January 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
I can’t let it pass without mention after last night’s hype. Either they made a decision not to bring it up or, worse, they simply forgot. Totally disappointing, and even embarrassing.
This is close as they got — a question he’s been asked and answered at least half a dozen times. But note this part of his answer well: “The only thing I have control over is what I believe and what I say.” It’s not that simple, though, is it?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
They absolutely dropped the balls on this.
Jay on January 10, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Yep. All those Paul people who will be sending hate mail to Brit Hume ought to be sending him flowers.
Michelle on January 10, 2008 at 11:53 PM
More proof blogstorms don’t drive MSM content.
Spirit of 1776 on January 10, 2008 at 11:54 PM
There are people at Fox who read this blog and the TNR thing made Drudge yesterday. They know about it.
Allahpundit on January 10, 2008 at 11:55 PM
You have to post the Frank Luntz’s video of the focus groups dials of Fred and Huckabee’s comments on Iran which went off the charts. Ron Paul’s dials were the lowest ever.
Complete7 on January 10, 2008 at 11:56 PM
It’s especially weird given how Wolf Blitzer treated Paul today on CNN. That interview was specifically about the newsletters, yet Blitzer barely challenged any of Paul’s absurd defenses. Straaange.
Bryan on January 10, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Maybe they feel he’s a non-entity as it is? And why make it look like Republicans are racists and bigots as it is? Asking the question would only serve to further a false stereotype.
SouthernGent on January 10, 2008 at 11:59 PM
I know people read you. You’re the man. And I know the media knows the story, I don’t doubt that at all. I’m just saying until it hits a critical mass in public awareness it’s not going to show up in a debate. I hoped it would. I wish they had. But until enough MSM pick up the story to make it known at least a little bit before the debate, it doesn’t fit as well into little debate questions. Maybe I wrong, but I don’t think so.
Spirit of 1776 on January 10, 2008 at 11:59 PM
I think they were afraid his head would explode on live TV…
d1carter on January 11, 2008 at 12:00 AM
I’m in a charitable mood tonight; the presstitutes feel that Paul has just enough rope to hang himself if he isn’t pushed.
steveegg on January 11, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Yeah but what is hilarious is that Fox News just announced how Ron Paul won their poll of who won the debate. Silly Paulbots, still spamming polls yet again. Sad though that neither Hannity or Colmes mentioned how it happened
firepilot on January 11, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Paulbots are pissed that he wasnt invited to the after debate sitdown….Skeletor just proclaimed that they DID invite him and he declined.
broker1 on January 11, 2008 at 12:01 AM
I agree completely. In fact, I was looking forward to seeing how Paul and his nutty followers in the audience would respond to this issue when it was presented. It’s true that he’s not really a viable candidate, but when you consider how obnoxiously the Paulbots have been injecting themselves into every debate, discussion, forum, etc., and the bloody tantrums they’ve thrown when he wasn’t included in the last forum, it seems obvious that he should face tough questions. It would be wonderful to see the Ronulans silenced, even for a few moments. A vain wish, I know.
CrusaderMom on January 11, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Face it, folks, Ron Paul is toast after tonight.
Burnt beyond recognition, even.
I am guessing that bringing up his news letters was probably on the agenda, but he performed so poorly that I’m guessing the moderators (Hume and Wallace-class acts both) deemed it pointless to go after him on them. It might have been viewed as “piling on.”
Paul is destined to be nothing more than a foot note in this campaign.
Nothing more.
Dave R. on January 11, 2008 at 12:03 AM
I’d go along with that.
Talon on January 11, 2008 at 12:05 AM
32% for Paul in the poll. Barf. Ron Paul spammers are like the kids who run up to arcade games, put no money in, then start bashing the buttons until their mom drags them off.
(Yes, I lamely posted this in two forums. After the third beer, I find my snark much funnier).
fiatboomer on January 11, 2008 at 12:06 AM
brioker1,
Ron Paul was also invited to be on the Neal Boortz Show, and declined that invitation as well. Hard to believe he would pass up a chance to be on the national show of a libertarian such as Neal.
Chickensh*t, he is.
Dave R. on January 11, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Anderson Cooper asked Giuliani about the security expenses scandal two hours after it broke on Politico. This is a major story about a guy with a big following, not to mention the GOP 4Q money leader. They dropped the ball, whether or not it ends up affecting Paul’s chances.
Allahpundit on January 11, 2008 at 12:07 AM
I like how Ron Paul is slowly becoming the center of attention for everyone.
When we go bankrupt from the combination of Social Security, military intervention overseas, and Medicare. People will look back and see that Paul was right.
Each American household owes $400,000 because of current entitlement programs. Our greatest enemy is our lavish spending, radical Islam while important, pales in comparison.
BlackCapitalist on January 11, 2008 at 12:12 AM
AP, I think the difference is that Giuliani is polling better than low single digits nationwide.
I think it’s a major story too, but it’s not going to have legs if Paul isn’t a popular candidate. And he isn’t.
JohnTant on January 11, 2008 at 12:12 AM
I suspect something is up here, but I can’t quite put my finger on it.
bnelson44 on January 11, 2008 at 12:14 AM
I’m sure that’s reassuring to the families of 9/11 victims.
fiatboomer on January 11, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Didn’t Giuliani say that it was all already covered some years before in NY? ie it was a known story reheated. I don’t know RG’s history that well, but I thought that was the case.
Okay, I won’t argue with you. You know more about media then I do. But I will note, I don’t really see how they could introduce the topic, explain it, and phrase a question that wouldn’t leave him wiggle room and force him to actually address the issue in the time they had without losing the listener. At least until such a time that press has covered the issue more to make it familar to the viewers.
Paul bailed on Sean and Alan, btw, so maybe he was trying to skirt the questions.
Spirit of 1776 on January 11, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Keeping him alive for a third party run to lure away disaffected small-government conservatives in the general?
joewm315 on January 11, 2008 at 12:18 AM
BlackCapitalist,
I understand your point, and yes, I do Agree with Mr. Paul on many of his points, but the only thing that is going to fix the problems you have pointed out here (and they are quite serious) will be the passage of the Fair Tax and the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
No, the Fair Tax is not perfect, but it is a damn sight beter than what is currently in place.
At least it will be a start.
Dave R. on January 11, 2008 at 12:20 AM
They probably didn’t want to attract any more attention to him if they could help it, and in that regard the decision was a good one.
Vizzini on January 11, 2008 at 12:21 AM
The crackpot got waaaaaaay too much time tonight.
Patriot33 on January 11, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Yes, and RuPaul didn’t return his Nazi group campaign donations either, and without an apology for accepting them.
MsUnderestimated on January 11, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Personally I think its absolutely hilarious that on one day, you see Ron Paul supporters bitching about “voter fraud” in new hampshire, and on the next, they’re back to flooding opt-in polls.
I mean, am I the only one to catch the irony here?
triple on January 11, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Okay, so we are some how going to kill every single radical muslim on the earth. But then we end up going bankrupt because we spend our money overseas and refused to take care of things at home?
What happened to the victims and families on 9/11 was tragic. But screwing over their future children because of our bad domestic policies is pretty awful in my opinion.
BlackCapitalist on January 11, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Ron Paul, said during the debate, that he thought it’s absurd for US warships to feel threatened by a few small speed boats (after all what could happen) and brought up the Gulf of Tonkin in some attempt to undermine the administration’s position… and when I heard him saying this crap I was screaming at the TV, The USS Cole you f*ck*n’ idiot!
Opinionnation on January 11, 2008 at 12:25 AM
It would have been an unnecessary distraction. We all read the news. I think this debate was an important one. Ron Paul is worth my keystrokes, but no need to waste precious airtime.
I think the guy has a future in entertainment. His voice is distinctive, he’s quirky and memorable.
The Race Card on January 11, 2008 at 12:33 AM
Unfortunately, it will take even more than that if we want to fix the problem. Major program cuts will have to be made. Even if we pulled a Democrat move, and took ALL of the money of the wealthiest Americans, it still would not be enough to pay for these programs.
So far our government has been much more concerned with Iraq’s budget than our own budget.
BlackCapitalist on January 11, 2008 at 12:34 AM
I’m no fan of massive entitlement spending. Ever since LBJ we’ve been digging a bigger and bigger hole and creating a monstrous federal government. But to ignore foreign policy and to stick our heads in the ground like Pat Buchanan (or Ron Paul) is to invite disaster.
fiatboomer on January 11, 2008 at 12:34 AM
This Ron Paul thing has been way overplayed on this blog if you ask me. Yes he is guilty of incompetence, or racism or both, but get over it, Our lives don’t depend on it. He is not a viable candidate in anycase
mainmann on January 11, 2008 at 12:37 AM
In a month this guy will merely be an asterisk on the campaign of 2008.
d1carter on January 11, 2008 at 12:39 AM
I don’t think it was the proper venue. It would have taken a lot of time and, frankly, there are things I am far more interested in hearing. BTW, I am no Paultard. I am a Fredtard.
Bill C on January 11, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Israel is a stepchild. Enough said.
jediwebdude on January 11, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Allah — the media is intimidated by the SA of Ron Paul. Those Ronulans are nuts. Look what they did to Hannity, Rudy, etc.
whiskey_199 on January 11, 2008 at 1:01 AM
I guess you were forced to click those links and read every word in every Ron Paul thread.
Get over yourself.
The Race Card on January 11, 2008 at 1:12 AM
Right on.
RMC1618 on January 11, 2008 at 1:16 AM
I am very surprised, buit I agree that they probably thought it was not the best time and not enough time to get into it.
And to open up the can of worms and risk the Ron Paul followers in the audience going berserk and tearing up the place afterwards like some kind of Fringe-wingnut-moonbat-Source-Awards type of scenerio.
AprilOrit on January 11, 2008 at 1:21 AM
You just won’t give up, will you.
As I wrote in the last RP smear thread:
In his most recent newsletter Dr. Paul mentions these names: Ludwig von Mises, Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, Rose Wilder Lane, John T. Flynn, Isabel Patterson, and Garret Garrett.
First, anyone taking these voices seriously is not a threat to society. Quite the opposite.
Secondly, I venture that not one of the other candidates tonight has read, and possibly has ever heard of, any of these thinkers.
And third (because the accusation of antisemitism is frequent here against Paul) , Mises was Jewish, Hayek was Jewish, and Rothbard was Jewish and a friend of Dr. Paul’s.
Fourth, all of these thinkers were intellectual staples at National Review during its founding. Not all the editors at NR agreed with them, but all respected them and were expected to understand and seriously consider the arguments.
The editors of HotAir should be ashamed of themselves for slamming and insulting Ron Paul at every turn in his candidacy. You, my friends, are no conservatives.
Drum on January 11, 2008 at 1:23 AM
menoname on January 11, 2008 at 1:26 AM
Ron Paul broke the record in Thursday’s South Carolina Republican Debate.
It was the first time ever that a candidate from either party scored such low favorability numbers with focus group listeners in any debate that FOX News has hosted.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/worst-ever-ron-paul-talks-tonken-tanks.html
bnelson44 on January 11, 2008 at 1:31 AM
Well, it should have been no big deal for him to give back Don Black’s money then.
see-dubya on January 11, 2008 at 1:32 AM
Not only that, Walter Williams, and African American economist has been cited by Paul as a possible running mate.
Source.
A white supremacist probably wouldn’t want a black man as his vice president you think?
BlackCapitalist on January 11, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Did Frank have Chuck there again.
menoname on January 11, 2008 at 1:34 AM
And Hot Air, you cannot ignore what I posted. Because the company Ron Paul keeps is so important to you guys, right?
BlackCapitalist on January 11, 2008 at 1:35 AM
Paul was almost laughed off the stage a few times. He is an absolute joke. giant fhe-yay-yay.
ColdBore76 on January 11, 2008 at 1:35 AM
I believe that everything the mass media does is deliberate. I believe they made a deliberate decision to not address the issue. Why? I don’t know. But I don’t buy the theory that they ‘forgot’ or did not have enough time. It was a deliberate decision on their part.
Michael in MI on January 11, 2008 at 1:36 AM
Was it just me or did McCain have something in his mouth all the time? Grenade pins maybe.
menoname on January 11, 2008 at 1:47 AM
Keep mashing those buttons, dude. If you hit the machine just a little harder you might get Ryu to stop saying “Ha-DOU-ken!!”
fiatboomer on January 11, 2008 at 1:57 AM
How so?
Paul’s newsletters have no bearing on any other candidate. If it was an issue that involved other candidates as well, then maybe it would be worthwhile to bring it up for the purpose of having multiple candidates chime in.
As it is, the Q&A Allahpundit pines for would have roughly consisted of:
Q–Hey Paul, what about those racist Newsletters bearing your letterhead?
A–I knew nothing about them.
Not a very scintillating exchange, and meaningless to the larger debate. Fox made the right decision to devote their time to policy questions meaningful to all the candidates.
clark smith on January 11, 2008 at 1:57 AM
Wow, outside of David Neiwert’s blog Orcinus, this blog probably has the harshest criticism I’ve read on Ron Paul. Politics makes for some strange bedfellows.
DMeNTe on January 11, 2008 at 2:05 AM
Spoken like someone who’s never worked for the mass media!!
But seriously, folks, a couple points:
First of all, AP et. al, I wouldn’t sweat Brit & co. not bringing up the newsletters: I think Paul did a good enough job making himself look foolish all on his own, as he always manages to do.
Secondly, though I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the situation, I tend to agree with something “Spirit of 1776″ said in an earlier comment: that questioning Paul about the newsletters wouldn’t have fit into the debate. I think it’s the kind of thing that would be better addressed – and pace the Paul apologists who turn up here, SHOULD be addressed – in a one-on-one interview. (With an interviewer who won’t let RP weasel out, of course.)
Y’know, I’d like to think that more than people of any other political persuasion, libertarians should understand the danger posed by a cult of personality. But sadly, the stridency, shrillness, and refusal of too many Paul supporters to recognize even the possibility that their savior ain’t perfect proves otherwise. Maybe they’re all closet Objectivists pining for St. Ayn or something. Well, if it’s “next stop: libertarian purges,” then I’ll see you up against the wall, AP!!
Levy on January 11, 2008 at 2:06 AM
Mind you, the Hadouken strategy often worked for me growing up. Most people don’t know how to block them.
BlackCapitalist on January 11, 2008 at 2:17 AM
At least we can ALL AGREE that Ron Paul is NUTS!
Chakra Hammer on January 11, 2008 at 2:19 AM
Although, his House Seat would still be better in his hands that A Democrat..
Chakra Hammer on January 11, 2008 at 2:22 AM
…do you mean not being conservative like these Conservatives doing this kind of craziness…
AprilOrit on January 11, 2008 at 2:38 AM
What is dumb is that they asked him an antagonistic question about something else far less damning, and far less newsworthy – the Troofer question.
Ron Paul is now the Al Sharpton of the Republican party; the only reason he is in it is to gain free publicity for a third-party run. When does the GOP take a strong stand on his neo-Nazi newsletter, call off this little charade, and declare RP persona non grata, as the Democrats should have done with Sharpton four years ago?
LagunaDave on January 11, 2008 at 3:47 AM
At least I’ve got an ally in Drum.
I’m a lifelong Republican. I voted for Bush in ‘04. I would never vote for a Democrat (which rules out Huckabee). I believe 19 Islamic extremists carried out the attacks on 9/11. I like John Brown and despise David Duke.
It seems that many on Hot Air agree with Paul’s domestic policy. When it comes to foreign policy, their comments are so absurd it’s barely worth responding too.
What got Paul in trouble with this blog is saying that “they attack us because we’ve been over there.”
It’s one thing to disagree with him. But to call him a kook, a crank, or crazy is absurd, disingenuous and out of line.
Considering that the nation’s leading expert on Al Qaeda, Michael Scheuer, held a press conference with Paul in the days after that debate… declaring that Ron Paul got it exactly right… it seems that the accusers of insanity against Paul are indeed the guilty party of insanity.
Again, agree or disagree with Paul’s stance on what causes terrorism… When Michael Scheuer backs up everything he says, it’s irresponsible to call Paul a crank.
Jimmy Liberty on January 11, 2008 at 3:58 AM
Testing, testing. Seems like my last attempt to leave a comment failed.
DMeNTe on January 11, 2008 at 4:31 AM
Clearly Ron Paul won the debate… based on Fox News text voting.
Exit question: How’d that happen?
Christoph on January 11, 2008 at 5:58 AM
ron paul is an agent of homeland security who’s mission is to flush out and list the remaining anti-U.S. government “patriot movement” who until the PATRIOT act were gaining momentum at a rapid rate due to ruby ridge,waco,the irs,ad infinitum.
so all you Paul supporters should quit sending him money to avoid being put on the list of possible “troublemakers”
:)
equanimous on January 11, 2008 at 7:05 AM
OT and sorry but Hucklebee just blasted Fred on Fox and Friends. He’s just doing his usual crap again, but man it gets so old. And people keep buying it. It’s so frustrating.
PowWow on January 11, 2008 at 7:23 AM
Oh, here’s a funny comment from a Ron Paul Forum senior member about how he’s happy the Fox News debate text message voting wasn’t rigged. You can’t make this up:
Christoph on January 11, 2008 at 7:33 AM
Considering that the nation’s leading expert on Al Qaeda, Michael Scheuer.
An honest question,
How is Michael Scheuer more of an expert than an American who actually was a member of Al Qaeda?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Scheuer was never able to get that close in all of his super-duper years of Qaeda sleuthing, n’est-ce pas?
Gerard on January 11, 2008 at 7:39 AM
Fox did a subtle job on Paul. Whenever he was making his points, they would show a split screen of one of the other candidates looking bemused, annoyed or bewildered, clearly casting the mad tin foil hatter in a bad light. They didn’t do that to any other speaker.
davecatbone on January 11, 2008 at 8:09 AM
Scheuer lost any remaining credibility he had with me on Real Time with Bill Maher. he even confused Maher. The money quote about Israel comes about 4 minutes in. I can see where the Paulnuts connection comes in. I’m not good with putting links in, sorry. After almost a year, you’d think I could do this by now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ohz0omUjIE
PowWow on January 11, 2008 at 8:23 AM
This guy’s voice makes me think of Rabbit from Winnie the Pooh.
Or maybe it’s Piglet. Either way…
Eclectic on January 11, 2008 at 8:26 AM
AP, look out for bunnies cooking on the stove…
Jim Treacher on January 11, 2008 at 8:47 AM
Paul endorses himself as the candidate with no ability to control anything, promising to be the worst president imaginable.
maverick muse on January 11, 2008 at 8:53 AM
I don’t have a problem with Fox not pushing the newsletters during the debate. It wouldn’t have fit, never had any opening to broach the subject and it would have cheapened the debate.
I do however think that a number of views expressed in those newsletters should be of extreme importance to the people who support Ron Paul. If he is in the habit of publishing stuff that he never has read then he’s way too sloppy to preside over a nation and if he’s lying about not knowing what his people were writing then he’s a liar and unfit to preside. IMHO of course.
The biggest problem I see with Paul is that while he seems to understand the problems we’re facing very well his answers seem more destructive than the problems. Well that and the fact that even if elected he couldn’t accomplish the changes that he promises. The President simply doesn’t have the power to do what he says he would do.
I see Ron Paul as the person who is reminding all of us that we must change directions this nation is heading but maybe not as much as he would change them if he could.
Buzzy on January 11, 2008 at 9:00 AM
It even seems like he can’t control what comes out of his mouth sometimes. Just the look he gets on his face. His eyes, did I just say that? Ya know? And the lemmings will follow until the end. Then what? What’s the next project lined up?
PowWow on January 11, 2008 at 9:02 AM
there are likely more smoking guns out there on paul, someone somewhere is bound to have the goods on him and waiting for the right price.
jp on January 11, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Paul is using the GOP to launch a 3rd party run as Constitutionalist. We can’t just let low poll support be the reason for not exposing him. With the current mood with GOP voters and Independents, there likely are many that would considera protest vote to paul. Worse, there really are a significant amount of evangelical’s that like paul, this isnt a group you want to lose.
jp on January 11, 2008 at 9:12 AM
instead of the Truther question, why not something as easy as:
“Congressman Paul, a recent TNR report uncovered some old newsletters put out under your name over a span of over 10 years. With out getting into the specific contents, which much of it is written in the first person with personal details, can you claim responsibility for them. If not, how did the contents of these go out over such a long period under your name with you not knowing the contents of the newsletters”
jp on January 11, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Why they got scared by GOP state parties bailing on them and tossed Ronny back into the mix I’ll never know.
NeoconNews.com on January 11, 2008 at 9:21 AM
And yet he hasn’t placed third in one actual primary yet. And he’s been beaten by Ron Paul.
You sound so disappointed.
fossten on January 11, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Huck’s attack on Paul over Israel hinted at it, but he didn’t seem to have the balls to address it directly.
JamesP on January 11, 2008 at 9:45 AM
And your point is….? That the polls are wrong?
Giuliani didn’t campaign in Iowa and he abandoned NH (where, incidentally, he beat out Paul, who had not abandoned the state.). It’s no secret that Giuliani is pushing for big states, Florida being one (where, he’s polling quite well, and it’s WTA.) and not small early states. But keep onto the hope, man!
I’m actually quite happy Paul is seen by the electorate as the crank he is. Last night was just gravy. But when it comes to wondering why major media isn’t paying attention to a 4% candidate, well…it’s because he’s a 4% candidate.
JohnTant on January 11, 2008 at 11:04 AM
That was because Boy Clinton, Fatty Berger, and Dick Clarke, refused to kill him when opportunities struck.
Don’t blame Scheuer.
Drum on January 11, 2008 at 11:55 AM
That was a brilliant interview! And Maher was only briefly taken aback by the Israel bit, but agreed with the other 90% of what Scheuer (and Ron Paul) says.
Drum on January 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM
That was a striking example of cognitive dissonance. He agrees with Ron Paul’s isolationism so he shouldn’t have been surprised about Michael Scheur’s disdain for Israel.
mram on January 11, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Don’t blame Scheuer.
I’m not blaming him. I’m simply calling in to question his “expertise,” re: Al Qaeda.
Five wannabe jihadi wanksters from Lackawanna get close enough to UBL to stick a shiv in his jugular-if they had been so inclined. I don’t know, but to me it sounds like they might have a little bit more insight into how the big dog operates than someone whose agency found penetrating Al Qaeda to be a more elusive quest than searching for the Holy Grail.
Gerard on January 11, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Lost credibility with you… why? Because you didn’t agree with him? Kind of arrogant.
Jimmy Liberty on January 11, 2008 at 1:35 PM
O’Reilly had Scheuer on his show to talk about Al Qaeda (alongside a Stratfor guy) and said these were the two best people you could talk to on the subject.
Jimmy Liberty on January 11, 2008 at 3:17 PM
It was because of the way he said it. Not arrognance on my part. Arrognace on his.
O’Reilly is not the guy to be bringing up for this topic. I don’t look to him for my news.
PowWow on January 12, 2008 at 5:27 AM
Comment pages: