11 Jan 2012

Bashing Dana

Conspiracy, Ron Paul 12 Comments

OK watch the beginning of this video clip:

Now people on Facebook were going nuts when this first came out, because the correspondent seems to be openly admitting on national TV that she is worried about Ron Paul doing well.

But something about it didn’t sit right with me. Don’t get me wrong, I full well believe that the people at CNN (and Fox) are terrified at the momentum of Dr. Paul.

What I mean is, it just didn’t sound right to me. She was saying it too matter-of-factly and there was no hesitation afterward. It didn’t look at all like she let something slip out.

I have honestly played this thing once a day since it happened, because I couldn’t put my finger on what was bothering me about the conspiratorial explanation. I couldn’t deny the words that came out of her mouth, but like I said, it just didn’t seem like her tone made sense. In other words, if she had accidentally let it out that she was worried about Ron Paul doing well, I didn’t think it would be with the tone she was using here.

Today it finally clicked with me. Here are her exact words:

Tomorrow, I still, I’m hearing from Republicans, John, who are affiliated with other campaigns, who say they are amazed frankly at how wonderful the Ron Paul organization is, we’ll see if that actually bears out tomorrow. Uh, but in terms of the long term, there’s no question, I’m sure you talk to Republicans, who are worried as well, just like I am, uh that Ron Paul will continue on, long into the spring and summer, and move further, even if he runs as a Republican or an independent…

I put the relevant part in bold. I don’t think she was saying, “I’m sure you talk to Republicans, who are worried just like I am worried.”

Rather, I think she was saying, “I’m sure you talk to Republicans who are worried, just like I am talking to Republicans who are worried.”

To repeat, I’m not denying there is media bias etc. So don’t go ballistic on me in the comments. I’m just saying, this particular clip didn’t make sense to me; the “CNN slips up!!” explanation didn’t sound right.

* * *

In contrast, on Fox tonight it was crystal clear what Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol were trying to do. Krauthammer was talking about the impact of Ron Paul, and said something like (I’m paraphrasing): “Well he’s obviously not going to be the next president–even Ron Paul admits he’s not actually vying for the White House–but Mitt Romney, if he is indeed the nominee, will have to do something to cater to the libertarian wing of the party. Now it won’t be on foreign policy, of course, but he could do something on the margin, like getting rid of a department or something like that.”

That’s just classic. After telling people for so long that RP isn’t even worth paying attention to, now they can’t go that route because it would be too ridiculous. But they’re still saying it’s “obvious” he won’t be the nominee, and even trying to make it sound as if Ron Paul himself isn’t in it to win it.

12 Responses to “Bashing Dana”

  1. Caleb says:

    This seems like a plausible explanation. There are far more egregious examples of the media snubbing Paul. (Succinctly summarized in a Jon Stewart bit.) Fox is just as guilty as the rest.

  2. Joseph Fetz says:

    I agree with your analysis. She had a brain fart and it came out wrong. I still think that the question she asked Paul this past week was pretty stupid.

    Krauthammer, on the other hand, has been pretty open about his distaste of RP. I don’t watch TV very often, but I will sometimes put it on before going to sleep. On Sundays the show Inside Washington will be on and any time Paul is mentioned, Krauthammer doesn’t hesitate to talk badly of him.

    • geoih says:

      Krauthammer is stuck in his Beltway paradigm. Last night he said Ron Paul was the big story out of New Hampshire, but then said that Paul isn’t actually interested in being president, but only wants more power in the Party. Krauthammer thinks Paul is after a prime time convention speech and adding libertarian planks to the Republican Party Platform.

      Krauthammer is deluding himselft. A speech and the platform? His intelligence won’t let him ignore the facts that Paul is a real factor, but his statist faith won’t let him recognise the true nature of what is happening. So first he dismisses it, then he marginalizes it and tries to explain it away. Eventually, he will have to attack it.

  3. bill woolsey says:

    I just think that “worried” was the wrong word. She thinks is is likely that Paul will keep on running all the way until June. She thinks that he might run as an independent. I don’t think she sees those as bad things.

    (I suppose she might be thinking that damn, she is stuck on the Paul beat for six to nine months, when she would rather be covering Romney or Obama. But I don’t believe she is worried as in concerned that Ron Paul running on through the convention or else running as a third party candidate would be bad for the country.)

    Do we really have a reason to believe that she would not be personally delighted to have Paul run as a third party and help Obama win as some polls suggest? I would expect all those Fox “reporters” to be worried about this. But I would think that CNN would be out there promoting it. (I thought NPR’s coverage was very positive for Paul….it begins to become clear.)

    By the way, I saw Gingrich say some really ugly stuff about Ron Paul’s supporters. I think lots of Republicans “leaders” reacted to that. Why go out of the way to insult Paul and is supporters? Is Gingrich trying to get Paul to run third party? And even if Paul doesn’t run third party, is Gingrich trying to get his followers to stay home?

    (Hey, mayber Gingrich is trying to help Obama beat Romney. He can run in 2016, with on “open seat” and maybe everyone else will be to scared to run against him.)

    Of course, I look at polls that show that 2/3 of Republicans want to stay in Afghanistan. Crazy. It is going to make it hard for Paul to win. I think Paul knows this as well as I do. And I think the reporters covering him take this into account as well. And so, interpreting her statement as being worries that Paul is going to win are implausible. And then, what is the reason to “worry” about him carrying on through the convention? Who cares? And why do we believe she is a Republican partisan who is worried about Paul spoiling the election for Romney?

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Bill Woolsey: Right, that’s partly why I didn’t think she meant what it sounded like she was saying. I think the “liberals” *want* Paul to do well, so that Obama gets reelected, and also so that Obama would have to cater to the antiwar, civil liberties Democrats. I.e. I would think Ron Paul on the Republican ticket would be just what liberals would want.

  4. Major_Freedom says:

    “I’m sure you talk to Republicans, who are worried as well, just like I am, uh that Ron Paul will continue on”

    I think it can be taken either way. Both are grammatically correct.

    They way I see it, the charitable interpretation, the one you think is the right one, sounds a little strange to me.

    Why would she add the “who are worried as well” in between the “I’m sure you talk to Republicans” and “just like I am”?

    If the charitable version is right, why, it must be asked, didn’t she say “I’m sure you talk to Republicans just like I am, who are worried that Ron Paul will continue on”?

    The fact that she DIDN’T flinch the way she said it, tells me she accidentally on purpose connected the “who are worried as well” with “just like I am.” It just sounds awkward, to me, if she meant to connect the “just like I am” to the “I’m sure you talk to Republicans” rather than what was stated just prior.

    Then there is the fact she constantly attacks Paul in interviews.

    She also probably hates and fears Paul’s “No foreign aid to Israel and no bombing Muslim countries without a war declaration” policy, and so I don’t think it is a stretch if she did say she is worried about Paul going on, changing hearts and minds and threatening Bash’s worldview.

    That’s my two cents. But yeah, both interpretations are grammatically correct.

    So when can we expect to see you on CNN? hehe

  5. Joel Poindexter says:

    The funny thing is, the neocons are trying to convince everyone that Ron Paul can’t win and that he’s irrelevant to the GOP, while at the same time acknowledging that in order to secure enough votes they’ll have to cater to him in some way. Krauthammer’s quip about eliminating a department or the idea about Romney choosing Rand Paul for VP both come to mind. If he were irrelevant they shouldn’t have any problem ignoring him altogether.

  6. Bharat says:

    This explanation makes quite a bit of sense, but let’s make sure it doesn’t get anywhere near Dana Bash just in case she meant it like most of us thought she did. Nice pun by the way.

  7. Matthew Murphy says:

    Very convincing argument, Bob. You converted me.

  8. Bala says:

    “Rather, I think she was saying, “I’m sure you talk to Republicans who are worried, just like I am talking to Republicans who are worried.”

    Sounds more like a grammatical error committed while speaking rapidly on television. Had she said “Just like I do” rather than “just like I am”, people would have connected it to “I’m sure you talk to Republicans” rather than to “who are worried just as well”. The use of “am” in place of “do” does make it confusing.

  9. Gene Callahan says:

    “Ron Paul himself isn’t in it to win it.”

    Come on, Bob, Paul knows he’s not going to win. He wants to influence the platform.

Leave a Reply