Tag: Ron Paul

Categories
insider corruption national politics & policies

A Newt Public-​Private Partnership

For nine years, from 1999 until 2008, Newt Gingrich worked helping Freddie Mac, the government – created, bubble-​creating housing corporation. Newt’s outfit, The Gingrich Group, knocked down more than $1.6 million dollars in consulting fees during that time.

Newt says he warned the government-​sponsored giant that the bubble it was busy blowing up would burst badly.

For all those years? He was either mind-​numbingly repetitive or must have really drawn out his words. He is from Georgia, but still.

Folks at Freddie tell a different story. They say former Speaker Gingrich helped “build bridges” to Republicans on Capitol Hill, hoping to prevent congressional efforts to rein in the mortgage giant. Those efforts proved successful — there was no powering down of the Frankenstein mortgage monster. The Gingrich Group’s contract wasn’t canceled until the 2008 crash, when the U.S. Treasury took control of Freddie Mac and his sister housing financier, Fannie Mae.

In last weekend’s GOP presidential debate, Congressman Ron Paul argued that Newt Gingrich’s position with Freddie Mac is “something people ought to know about.”

“While he was earning a lot of money from Freddie Mac,” explained Rep. Paul, “I was fighting, over a decade, to try to explain to people where the housing bubble was coming from.”

Newt responded that, like Dr. Paul, he wanted to audit the Fed. As for his Freddie role, “I offered strategic advice,” claimed Newt, adding, “I was in the private sector.”

Laughter erupted throughout the hall. Even Mr. Gingrich couldn’t keep a straight face.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
media and media people political challengers

The Donkey in the Room

One hates to beat a dead horse. Or a living one. But by coming back to media bias in the coverage of the Republican presidential campaign I’m not so much whipping a recalcitrant equine as stabling a kicking, braying ass.

The most recent debate was hosted by CBS and the National Journal, and took place in South Carolina. The demonstrated bias? Ron Paul got only 90 seconds of coverage.

Yup: ninety seconds out of the hour. CBS summarized Rep. Paul’s short contribution by calling him a “serious longshot,” judging the congressman’s minute-​and-​a-​half as “an unqualified success.”

Yes, CBS’s post-​debate coverage was mostly spin — over its own criteria. Of Rick Santorum, the network calmly stated that the also-​ran “didn’t get as many questions as the more popular candidates in the polls, but when he did get a chance to talk, his remarks sounded thoughtful and measured.”

Yeah. CBS was in control of the questions and time allotments, but its prose coverage neatly states it as reportage, covering up its own very active role.

A more honest account? “Barring a bomb in the Green Room taking out most if not all of the other candidates, Rick Santorum doesn’t have a chance at the nomination. Thankfully, it’s up to us to divvy up coverage. Tough luck, Rick.”

And: “Despite your amazing ten-​percent-​plus support, Dr. Paul, we don’t want you saying too much. If we allowed it, you might get more popular.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture media and media people political challengers

The Interposeurs

Media people interpose themselves between current events and the news audience. They consider it their job to sort out “the issues” before news consumers even start thinking.

This is the source of media power.

Recent investigations into current media coverage of the GOP presidential race shows that the basic media bias may not be pro-​liberal/​anti-​conservative, but, more generally, anti-​libertarian. Ron Paul’s candidacy, though receiving an amazing amount of support from enthusiastic fans and generous donors (Rep. Paul has quite a kitty going into the campaign), has garnered (according to a recent Pew Research Center study) little news coverage to match his popular success: Less, even, than Santorum.

But is ideological bias at the root of the problem? After all, each candidate has a personality, and personality is obviously a big factor in show biz success. And politics, it has been said, is show biz for homely people. No wonder political coverage looks more like junior high and high school tribalism than a truly mature enterprise.

According to the irreverent H.L. Mencken, journalists like to play messiah. Thinking they can “save the day” every day, they tend to favor those politicians who treat the eternal rescue mission of government policy with a cheaply salable scenario. Paul, in identifying government more often as a problem than a solution, horns in on the public rescue biz.

Maybe this helps explain why “Ron Paul did markedly better in the blogosphere than in the press.” And why journalistic coverage swings more extremely than does blogosphere coverage.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture initiative, referendum, and recall media and media people

What the Media Misses

The big news story last week became the media’s non-​coverage of the Ron Paul campaign. After Jon Stewart of The Daily Show successfully brought out the full nature of the media prejudice, it became the story.

That’s how bias backfires. Trying to keep Ron Paul out of the headlines led to putting Ron Paul in the headlines.

How easily a conspiracy of silence turns into a deafening noise.

Media bigots think they are doing a public service when they pick winners and throw out losers before almost anyone has even heard from the challengers. They consider it their job.

Undoubtedly they look at Ron Paul’s platform and say to themselves “This guy doesn’t fit into the normal left-​right spectrum, or even neatly into his own party. That makes him unelectable. So we won’t talk about him.” This points to media’s true power: establishing what’s worth talking about.

Trouble is, by rushing to judgment against Paul, they miss the day’s major story: Paul’s appeal transcends usual party lines. It’s not just a tiny cadre of libertarians on his side, it’s conservatives and liberals and exes of both persuasions; it’s centrists who’ve never heard anyone talk about the Federal Reserve before; it’s peaceniks who are serious about ending America’s wars.

It might even be that strong core of American society that still respects honesty and consistency.

The media has missed this elsewhere, too: In repeated recalls and initiatives around the country.

Cover the big story, folks. Not just your own spin.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
media and media people political challengers

The Ron Paul Problem

Prior to the Iowa Straw Poll, its credibility and repute were proclaimed throughout the land. The Washington Post characterized it as “arguably the first major vote of the 2012 presidential contest.”

Then came Saturday’s results in Ames: Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul finished first and second, respectively, with Paul only 152 votes and less than a percentage point behind Bachmann, no other candidate coming anywhere close.

So, mainstream analysts now call it a three-​way race — with Mr. Paul not one of the three!

A story in USA Today postponed mere mention of Congressman Paul till the 13th paragraph: “Candidates Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain are also seeking the Republican presidential nomination.”

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” GOP strategist Mike Murphy laments that “If 75 people had changed their minds, [Ron Paul] would have won the Iowa straw poll, which would have kind of shaken up the race and it would have put the straw poll out of business forever.”

Out of business? Forever? What sort of electoral contest should or would be abolished if a certain candidate wins?

Murphy’s statement generated neither rebuttal nor even any notice from the folks on the program.

“One reason the bipartisan establishment finds Paul so obnoxious is how much the past four years have proven him correct — on the housing bubble, on the economy, on our foreign misadventures, and on our national debt,” wrote Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney.

In other words, time to ignore him.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies porkbarrel politics

Good and Bad in the 112th

The 112th Congress is beginning to take shape, and, well, we have good news and bad news.

Good news first: Ron Paul has been slated to chair the Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee.

The Texas congressman has been toiling away at the margins of power on Capitol Hill for years. A proponent of a gold standard and a free-​marketer of the “Austrian” School, he has been a voice crying in the wilderness. One of the few people in Congress who did not treat Alan Greenspan as a divine oracle, he is now one of Ben Bernanke’s harshest critics. 

Of course, after recent events and bailouts and all, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke has lots of critics.

As chair of the subcommittee that watches over the Fed, Ron Paul has finally attained a position to accomplish something. This is a major reversal in the power structure. We can’t expect miracles (Ron Paul being but one man), but do expect fireworks.

Now, the bad news. 

It’s been less than a month since Republicans in the House voted on a moratorium on earmarks. And already they are, reportedly, beginning to feel queasy. Perhaps as a sign of a general turncoatish nature, the next chair of the House Appropriations Committee is set to be Rep. Hal Rogers.

Sixteen-​term congressman Rogers has earned a reputation for pushing pork. His hometown has received so much federal largesse it’s called “Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood.”

Still, he says he’ll enforce the pork moratorium. We’ll see.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.