GOP Debates Show Some Surprising Wit and Intellect--Media Ignores It

When I navigated to the CNN stories about the debates this mornings I was not surprised to find that the major topics of conversation were 1) Giuliani's interruption by lightning; 2) Tancredo's rejection of Bush ever playing a role in his (unlikely) administration ; 3) McCain's rather impassioned defense of his immigration bill; and 4) Mitt Romney's hair. This is pretty much business as usual. Major media outlets have already cast their lots with the candidates, made their predictions, and now must do all they can to reinforce the notion that they can "pick 'em" by maneuvering conversation, debate, and attention toward those few candidates (same with the Democrats by the way). Candidates like McCain and Giuliani started out with lots of name recognition and deep pockets, so they were early front runners and grabbed the spotlight. Romney, slick and conservative, has been the religious voters choice it seems and so he has successfully improved his standing despite the table scraps the media fed him initially. At this point he is almost a viable candidate in the eyes of pundits , media analysts, and "journalists." But what of the other candidates? Almost totally ignored.

And here is the rub: In last night's debate Ron Paul, the (way) outsider candidate among Republicans showed wit and intellect, expressed knowledge and comprehension of the issues, and articulated clear and informed policy prescriptions based on a coherent platform of open market ideology and deference to the constitution--he is a stalwart libertarian. I very much disagree with Paul a number of issues, not least of which is the supposed benevolence and benefits of unrestricted capitalism, but I do respect many of his positions. Chief among these was his position on preemptive war. I must say I was very impressed with his response to the question "What is America's most pressing moral issue?" While the other candidates were falling all over each other to talk about abortion, Paul flatly stated that the doctrine of preemptive war adopted by the current administration was the most pressing issue because of the damage it has done to US standing in the world, our alliances, our security, and to innocent people overseas. He may have even mentioned international law, but I can't exactly recall.

While I disagree with him on lots of issues--but let's face it, I don't support anybody who was up there--I thought that his performance was head an shoulders above the rest. CNN, however, as well as almost all other major US media outlets and their pundits, failed to give any notable mention to Paul. Rather, they gorged themselves on the inane rhetoric of the rest of the pack. This would seem to put CNN and the others out of touch with viewers and voters, though, as respondents to the (non-scientific) CNN.com poll showed a clear victory for Paul. As of 8 am 54% of voters (out of 10,500) on the site chose Paul as the clear victor. Moreover, he received the most votes in 4 other categories.

The point is, if candidates like Paul can generate support among voters, and if viewers respond so favorably to them in debates, why do media outlets tend to ignore them? Why have CNN, MSNBC, and FOX virtually edited Paul out of their coverage of not only the debate, but the campaign in general. Does he even show up on most polls? At least the BBC noticed...sort of (thanks Pope): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6725393.stm