If Ron Paul is to connect with the average voter he is going to need to figure out how to answer the Main Stream Media’s (MSM) questions in the time allotted without compromising his integrity. Since Ron Paul’s answers have underpinnings that do not rely on the assumptions often relied upon in the MSM, he must deconstruct many layers of common misconceptions before he is able to answer the question and have any hope that the average viewer will understand his reasoning. It definitely will be a tough battle to fight but it can be done. Preferably he will do this one question at a time.

For instance when answering questions posed about the war in Iraq, Ron Paul is operating under a completely different set of assumptions than the journalists asking the questions and in most cases the audience listening to his response.

The argument in the MSM concerning the Iraq war is essentially debating how well the war is going for the United States military. The measure of success used by the MSM in gauging the US military’s success is to estimate how close the United States forces are to completely controlling the country of Iraq, security wise as well as politically.

In contrast to the MSM and the GOP’s establishments arguments, the argument that Ron Paul is making against the war is based on his belief that the United States had no authority to invade Iraq unless their was clear evidence that the United States homeland was in imminent danger.

The path I need to go down in order to make this point is a long and winding road but it is the reality that Ron Paul faces every time he appears on a pundit show. And he is usually given only the 8 minutes or less that exist between commercial breaks to navigate this complex landscape.

So for example, when Ron Paul says he wants to pull the troops out of Iraq immediately, the average American who gets their news from the MSM assumes that Paul wants to get out because the war is not going well, so then the journalist’s follow-up question, following this logic is, “But the surge is going so well why not stay the course?” Ron Paul can then answer this question by stating that the United States should have never sent troops into Iraq in the first place. Then most likely the reporter will assume that he opposed the initial invasion because of the lack of evidence of WMDs. Then Paul has to explain that he is against acts of aggression as intervention, that even if they had the weapons it is not really our problem, if for no other reason than we cannot afford war. The MSM reporter is usually disgusted by this response and asks if Ron Paul is for military action in any situation, implying that because he is against preemptive war he is a border line pacifist. Ron Paul then has to explain that he is willing to protect our homeland under the threat of an eminent attack and even then war has to be declared by Congress. Usually by this time in the interview there is just enough time left for the reporter to inform Ron Paul that he has no chance of winning, to which Paul replies that he disagrees because of the fund raising numbers and then the reporter laughs, thanks Dr. Paul and goes to commercial, and Ron Paul had barely scratched the surface. He didn’t get a chance to point out that the war on terror is simply a fabrication of the administration as a pretext for their agenda in the Middle East. He doesn’t mention this because it is so far out of the established debate going on in the MSM that it would take him a full hour to justify making such an accusation even though he does have the evidence at his disposal.

So in this way Ron Paul has a much more difficult time clearly expressing his views in the context of the established debate in the MSM. While on the other hand, establishment candidates such as Hilary Clinton have a much easier time because they have agreed with the logic and assumptions of the MSM on the Iraq war. All of the mainstream candidates weigh in on the Iraq war within the predetermined confines of the MSM’s debate.

Somewhere along the line our democracy became defined by shouting on cable television shows. And I really would like to believe that Ron Paul’s integrity could transcend this political environment. I firmly believe that he could do this by sticking to one issue for every commercial sandwiched appearance. Hour long sit downs and debates are obviously a different issue. He simply cannot afford to let his answers go unexplained, there is just too much at stake in this battle he is fighting.

He is also facing a formidable foe in the MSM, who are not as naive as they appear to be. They know exactly what they are doing by forcing Ron Paul to play within the confines of the predetermined game. They know that he will have to spend all of the time he is given explaining his answer, so as not to look as though his arguments have no basis in reality. And thus far they are doing a decent job of this. Stephen Colbert has summed up this tactic so often used by the MSM against those who speak the truth with this question, “George W. Bush, great President or the greatest President.” Hopefully Ron Paul is learning to laugh at the ridiculousness of the question and proceed to give them an eight minute education.

Shaun Booth

Be sure to check out our latest sponsor NetToMe! No cost to join, no data mining, no worries!

Popularity: 1% [?]