Scam and Sham

Scam and Sham
How the Media do that voodoo that's doo-doo
by Brian Wilson

Center stage for the "news media's" regularly scheduled kabuki: The Presidential Debates. These 60-90 minutes of low-grade drama and high-grade farce would have the viewer believe serious inquisition is going on here. In fact, all but the script is laid out in advance. Even the candidate placement is calculated to foment drama and entertainment, not a substantive "debate". The entire format is designed to embarrass, confuse, distract and entertain rather than provide honest, insightful answers to serious questions about governance and a vision for America's future. While serious formal debating always has a "timed" component, it is generally ample to allow serious presentation of position or fact. Not so much with these laughable Network Events. The "rules" require the candidates to force 10 lbs of You Know into a 5 lbs bag. Despite politicians' congenital desire to filibuster, it is ludicrous to expect conscientious voters to reach a well-founded decision on whom to support based on a 2 minute sound-bite response to dramatic, rhetorical, loaded "gotcha" questions, cleverly crafted to hog-tie the respondent. That's not an excuse for any candidate who steps in it with a poorly presented answer, but a level of awareness must prevail considering who asked what question of whom and how and what's heard in response.

Many have appropriately objected that Ron Paul is not asked substantive questions; that he is ignored in favor of anyone else on those rare occasions when serious issues are introduced. A large part of the explanation lies in the self-fulfilling fairy tale the MSM tells you: Polls show Romney, Perry and Bachman are the front-runners; voters, therefore, want to hear from them more than the Also-Rans. They conveniently leave out the part that those polls are of their own making. They pick and pay the polling company, pre-determine the response, dictate the questions, and see to it the methodology secures the desired results. They can then tell you with straight face: "This is what our polling data shows; this is why we ask more questions of the Front Runners."

The truth is Ron Paul's answers do not fit the Party Line. Every Paul position contains a reference to the United States Constitution, Constitutional authority, Constitutional principles. The unanswered question remains: what is so wrong with a Constitutionally obedient government that gives the other candidates hives? Put another way: what stands in place of a Constitutionally obedient government? The answer can be read in everyday's headlines. And, as noted in previous LRC scribbling, the Shooting Stars in the News Media Firmament can't handle such answers because they thoroughly debunk the currently approved and accepted narrative. They can't be trumped or demagogued without insulting the Rule of Law (which fortunately still has a serious fan base across the country). During the 2008 cycle of these "Presidential debates", Ron Paul was actively mocked and marginalized. This time, the media is pushing its patented "Ignore Button". To paraphrase the song lyric, "Ask him no questions/he'll just tell you truth". And we can't have truth and the Constitution mucking up a good ole media kabuki.

So the recent candidate staging of Romney-next-to-Perry wasn't for show and drama? Nooooo – it was just a natural consequence of independent polling (that we paid for). That they were also tossed the most contentious, red-meat questions was also justified by the polling (and we wanted some serious drama and smack-down action).

But wait! There's More Of The Same in the debates to come, regardless of the network sponsor.

Too often this skullduggery leads interested listeners and viewers to the unfortunate "Rejection! Candidate Not Perfect!" reaction. This seems curiously more prevalent in its application only to Ron Paul. Those familiar with Paul know the context of his references is consistently Constitutional. Due to the pervasive epidemic of Aggressive Ignorance coupled with the "debate's" limitations, it is difficult for a principled candidate to provide comprehensive answers. Yes it is easier for others because the narrative, composed of vacuous and glittering generalities, has been repeated so often, everyone knows it by heart; it is the anticipated response. When the sound bite contradicts it, the listener defaults back to the mythology of the narrative and leaps to a distorted, incorrect conclusion, rejecting the candidate on the basis of mis- and dis- information. The fatal result is the sacrifice of the Good for the Perfect. Since the Perfect doesn't exist, the voter clings to the familiar and ends up supporting precisely what he doesn't want simply because it's comfortable, easy and familiar. For the agenda-driven MSM: Mission Accomplished.

A listener wrote "After watching the debate, I have concluded Ron Paul, while perfect in the content of his answers, his manner keeps him from being taken seriously despite his superior knowledge of history, government and banking." With 14 months until November, it remains to be seen whether it "keeps him from being taken seriously" by the people who count: the voters. Meanwhile, look at the other candidates. If they are to be measured by the same standard, they all have serious baggage that should elimnate them from consideration immediately. Look at their records of Statism, pork and policy failures. Why aren't they summarily dismissed by an electorate demanding an end to "Washington's same old ways"? In part, because they don't have a Constitutional foundation that stymies "the Machine", so they are given the proverbial "pass". Every other candidate has skeletons, issues, other priorities. No other candidate has Ron Paul's spotless record and unrivaled fealty to the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land and cornerstone of our Republic. What more could a voter want – especially at this time in our history?

To the Media, Paul and the Constitution are the Anti-Christ. Combined, they contradict everything the Media-Government complex stands, works and speaks for. Look for them to work their hardest to destroy his candidacy because even with the limited exposure Paul gets, the more the essence of his message is heard by those looking for the only way to save the Republic and preserve Freedom.

Ron Paul may not be an easy sell – but then, Liberty never is.

http://lewrockwell.com/wilson-brian/wilson-brian28.1.html