RON PAUL AND DENNIS KUCINICH SINGLED OUT FOR THE MEDIA'S COLD
SHOULDER. DOES THE MEDIA MANIPULATE ELECTIONS?
PETER'S NEW YORK, October 13, 2007---It is becoming
apparent that we are having a replay of the George W. Bush elections in
which the media highlight the few candidates that have been more or
less pre-approved by the "establishment," and refuse to provide
publicity to those it wishes to exclude from the electoral process.
This is why we do not have free elections in this country. We have much
the same system as Iran, except the American equivalent of the Iranian
board of Mullahs, or whoever they are, are kept secret from the rest of
us. We have this kind of mitigated and modified "democracy," where we
only get to choose from a few candidates with ideas that go along with
some preset agenda.
I have already written about this. We know that Alan Keyes, after
having won post-debate straw polls during the 2000 race, was
marginalized, and the networks virtually ordered to stop publicizing
Keyes' popularity after strenuous objections from the Bush team. Now
the Left would not want Keyes' popularity publicized, because he was a
Republican. But what the Left does not realize is that the country
ended up getting a worse choice than Keyes because the country ended up
with Bush, who was backed by the "Big Boys."
Therefore, it is concomitent upon even the Left to make sure the
electoral process functions even for the Republicans, because in the
eventuality that a Republican is indeed elected, at least they will
have the candidate that best suits them.
At any rate, the present election campaign season has shown that
the media is repeating their own screening of candidates. Ron Paul, who
in the last fundraising quarter raised $5 million, has been excluded
from publicity, or, where he surfaces, made to look like some kind of
"kook." Paul is one of the few Republicans who voted against
intervention in Iraq, and is continually campaigning against
intervention in Iran. He has been outspoken in his views, which he has
not had to change for his election campaign.
The other candidates, with the important exception of Dennis Kucinich
on the Democratic side, are consistently war-mongers. Hillary was
unapologetic about her stand on the invasion of Iraq. Barak Obama
appeared from out of nowhere, with lots of money and publicity,
and is now talking (very predictably, of course) about aggressive
military intervention in the Middle East.
On the other side, the main contenders, Rudolph Giuliani and, I guess,
John McCain, are very much the same as Obama and Clinton in terms of
their stance toward the Middle East. In the meantime, polls
consistently show popular and widespread dissatisfaction with America's
interventionist policy in Iraq. This dissatisfaction is not allowed to
have an outlet among the current crop of so-called "front runners," who
are obviously created with the direct assistance of the media. If my
reader cannot seee something amiss with the fact that Obama came out of
nowhere and became an instant media darling with tons of money behind
him, really, they don't need to read further. Obama is a "put up" man,
his views having little to do with himself, and much to do with those
who are sponsoring him. Likewise, George W. Bush was surely a "put up"
man, and if you look back at the goings on during the 2000 elections,
you will see that the team that fronted him from the beginning was only
interested in a fall guy through whom they could superimpose their
views. This is how it works in today's pseudo-democracy.
Now if I've lost you already, my apologies. Let me just continue a
little on the theme of the media coverage of Ron Paul, whose platform
is definitely gaining support, while the dearth of coverage in the
media shows how much the powers that be are attempting to squlch dialog
and diversity in the current election campaign.
The New York Times will not come out editorially against Paul or other
second or third tier candidates, so what they have done is to get a
fall-girl to do their dirty work. But before I go into that, let me
just mention how the media pared down the team they sought to cover.
They used the fundraising prowress of Obama and Clinton, and
fundraising in general, as an excuse to cover the predetermined team
they have selected for the current elections. Obama and Clinton were
continually trumped before the cameras on the grounds that they had
raised a phenomenal amount of cash for their respective campaigns. They
were preselected ages ago.
Now, troublesome Paul has managed to come up with an amount of cash for
his campaign that many call "respectable." The New York Times
recognized at least this fact in a small-type article fit neatly into
the corner of a page devoted to electoral politics, but one that rarely
mentions Paul. The article recognized that Paul had garnered an amount
of funding that deserves respect, what the unnamed author of the
article referred to as "surprising."
"The support has allowed the Paul camaign to expand both in reach and
in size, and it has planned a second round of television spots...",
says the anonymous author.
We then turn to the editorial page.Here we find Gail Collins
(10/4/2007) writing a rather confused piece about the elections. She
writes: "The second tier hascome to resemble a middle-aged singing
group." Is this age discrimination on her part? She herself is "middle
aged," and I wonder if I could classify most of the Times columnists in
the same category as she has thrown all the so-called second tier
She calls Duncan Hunter, who even I have never heard of, "the one who
looks like the sheriff in a 1950s B-movie," and then goes on to lump
Paul in with him. "Paul," she says, "who looks like a cranky rancher in
the same movie, is the libertarian congressman who usually performs the
useful function of complaining about the war in Iraq, so everybody else
can leap in and defend it." I wonder if that is also the "useful"
function of the New York Times editorial page, which has carried one
memo after another decrying the terrible state of the war.
She goes on: "We certainly don't want to disrespect the hopeless
candidates who have been responsible for so many good times over the
long, long presidential campaigns of yore." In other words, of course
she wants to "disrespect" them. Collins's point appears to be that
diversity of opinion and candidacy is merely functions as an
entertainment outlet. I wonder which candidate the Times will finally
come to support, seeing that only Kucinich and Paul are as against the
war as it appears to be in its editorial stance.
To show just how delusionary Collins can be, she finally writes, "John
McCain, the maverick reformer, is now the Superhawk friend of Falwell
who thinks Christianity is in the Constitution." Well, I hope one of
Collins's friends tells her that Falwell has passed on. I know she may
have a hard time remembering that little fact. I hope this little lapse
is not a sign of substance abuse, but if it were, I'm sure Collins's
condition would not stand out starkly among her media colleagues, who
have a reputation for hitting the bottle or snorting the snort a bit
more than the general populace.
I met Collins once at a press conference. She used to be a business
writer for United Press International. She was competent at the time,
and seemed to be a nice, congenial person. She went on to become a New
York Times columnist, and then editorial page editor-- one of the hefty
positions in today's society. Now she is an "independent" columnist,
but one can expect that she is pressing all the buttons that she did
when she was editorial page editor.
Recently, she was shoved out of her editorial page editor's slot, I'd
say in the last year or two, and her column in last week's Times was
the first time I had seen any evidence of her resurfacing.
I interviewed Ron Paul for an article once, maybe 20 years ago. At that
time, his main issue, which is resurfacing more vigorously in his
statements during the debates of late, is the monetary system upon
which this nation is currently functioning, or disfunctioning. Paul is
certainly for a return to the gold standard, and one might argue that
gold and silver are the only constitutionally mandated legal tender
currencies. But he has sought, at least until lately, to soft-peddle
the monetary issue, and concentrate on the war in Iraq, and the
possible expansion of that conflict into Iran.
Ron recently won the straw poll following the Republican candidate
debate in Michigan, I believe on October 9. One pundit from CNN, Glenn
Peck, a vidoe of whose show I managed to catch on U-Tube, agreed with
most of Paul's stands on various issues, but then went out of his way
to belittle Paul as an unlikely torch-bearer for the cause. [Watch it
yourself at http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/10/cnn-ridicules-ron-paul-and-his.html.]
This fellow went out of his way to play looney-sounding music while
quoting and picturing Paul on the TV screen. It was one of those ad
hominem diatribes, so much like Collins's. Do these people carry the
same play-book? What's the deal?
In summary, Paul and Kucinich are the only fellows that catch my
attention due to their anti-war stance. They are both wise to have run
as candidates in the primaries of their respective parties, since that
has garnered them significant publicity, in spite of the media blackout
against them. It would be wise for them to join together to form an
independent ticket. I'm sure they could make significant inroads into
the consituencies of the respective parties they currently
represent. It is up to us to fund them to the extent that makes
them a viable option against the evil characters that populate our
currently pre-conceived election choices.
Paul just completed an interview with Judy Woodruff of PBS, which may
be found at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/paul_10-12.html.
BACK TO HOME PAGE