Fox Noise Channel perpetrated yet another huge cluster of fraud against their audience: the January 10, GOP debate in South Carolina.
While it was nothing new under the Sun for the propaganda mill that is Fox, the frauds were kicked-up a notch or two in intensity and connivance. It even had an extra tension factor, what with Ron Paul being snubbed from the last Faux News discussion, and all. So something or someone was bound to give.
This write-up breaks down some of the major offenses and expands on the anti-climactic conclusion: Fox Noise Channel is as big a fraud as ever, and Ron Paul still strikes more fear into them and other corporate media, than any fantastic "Al-Qaeda"/nuclear concoction will ever pretend to.
As Fox-prop protocol would have it, trusty pollster, Frank Luntz, popped in at intervals throughout the post-debate affair to reveal to us the sentiments of his focus group of 28 "undecided" likely Republican voters from South Carolina.
Luntz, true to his often-exposed, shape-shifter-for-hire style, showed his skills in manipulative group-think propaganda, with the group tally reflecting 1) that Fred Thompson was the "clear winner," and 2) that Ron Paul was the "clear loser." (Franky-boy did a great job of asking them very good questions to get the right answer. Kudos, Franky-boy.) Luntz then led the "undecided’s" on a Thompson discussion for several minutes.
All that, despite Paul’s first-place lead over Thompson in the text-voting after the first tally (35-18), and at the finish (32-22). All that, despite Paul receiving more applause and sympathy from the audience than all the other candidates. All that, even though Luntz’s public opinion masquerade takes place while FOX viewers are voting in the text-message poll; so in essence, Frank is purposefully swaying the viewers to vote for Thompson and against Paul, thus skewing the results.
Which, again, is nothing new — just more blatant and pointed.
During Luntz’s final two-minutes-hate session, he polled the group on whether Ron Paul deserved to be at the debate at all. (In other words: "F— you, Ron Paul!") Most of them raised their hands, but of course no discussion followed this time around. But if those "undecided" voters truly knew Frank Luntz, and cared, they’d join countless others in shouting: "F— you, Frank!"
And then there was Carl Cameron, with the smart-ass remark of the night:
"Congressman Paul, yet another question about electability. Uhhhhh, do you have any, sir? [LAUGHTER/BOOS]
"There’s always the question as to whether or not you are, in fact, viable. Your differences . . . with the rest of the Republicans on this stage has raised questions about whether or not you can actually win the Republican nomination, sir."
Poor little Carly-boy. He then proceeded to endure a butt-whippin’ he won’t soon forget, as Paul brought the hickory:
"Well, we’ve only had two little primaries so far. So it’s pretty premature to decide which one is going to be the candidate.
"But, you know, when you think about it, if you measured everything I’ve ever said, every vote I’ve ever taken, against the Constitution, you know, I’m a strict constitutionalist. Are you suggesting the Republicans should write me off because I’m a strict constitutionalist? I’m the most conservative member here. I have voted, you know, against more spending and waste in government than anybody else. [APPLAUSE]
"So you’re suggesting that I’m not electable and the Republicans don’t want me because I’m a strict fiscal conservative, because I believe in civil liberties? . . . Mr. Republican Robert Taft didn’t even want us to be in NATO, and you’re saying now that we have to continue to borrow money from China to finance this empire that we can’t afford?
"Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. And then we go to war, we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what’s going on here? [APPLAUSE]
"And you’re saying that [my platform] isn’t appealing to Republicans? Where did this come about? . . . [The Republican platform] used to say we’d [abolish] the Department of Education. . . . We, as Republicans, went and doubled the size of the Department of Education, so where have we gone? . . . And then the insinuation that I am less Republican because of that?"
BONUS STAT: The fraudsters at FOX were so humiliated by that indomitable response by Paul; they edited the entire exchange out of the re-run footage!
That’s how thoroughly Fox Noise Channel and the Republifrauds were destroyed by themselves and by the Ron Paul R3VOLUTION.
But in perhaps the most conniving stunt of the night, the coach of Fox’s "all-stars" — Brit Hume — posed a question about the alleged exhibit of aggressive behavior toward US naval battle group, by a few Iranian speedboats, near the Straight of Hormuz.
To Huckabee, he asked (stress mine):
"Governor Huckabee, did the American commander in the Strait of Hormuz the other day make the right decision by responding passively when approached aggressively by Iranian fast boats believed to be from the Revolutionary Guards? He also received, as you know, a warning that said that the American ships might be about to blow up. Did he make the correct call, sir?"
But Huckabee failed to answer the question, by mistaking the US commander for President Bush…
"I’m going to trust that the president, with the information that he had and that those commanders had, made the right decision."
… and continued in his usual, off-tangent, warmongering terms, implying that he would’ve acted more threateningly or violently:
"[I]f you think you’re going to engage the United States military, be prepared not simply to have a battle. Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next things you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that."
But that’s some of the weakest warmongering the FOX cartel has ever seen, according to Brit Hume:
"But, sir . . . the American warships were approached in a way that the commander said that he found provocative, indeed, aggressive. They also received a warning that suggested that the American ships might be blown up and things were thrown into the water. . . . They did nothing.
"Now, are you prepared to say . . . that that was the right call?"
Yet, even with that cordial nudge, Huckabee dodges the original question again…
"I support [the commanders] having that capacity."
… then, implies that the commanders made the wrong decision by not acting more aggressively:
"[T]hey have lives of Americans at stake on those boats. And they ultimately have our lives at stake if they take the wrong decision and give the Iranians or anybody the idea that America is a nation that you can kick sand in our eyes."
Thompson agreed (with Huckabee, that is), but added what Huckabee left out: the Muslim-bashing, "72 virgins" hoax:
"Yes, I think so. I think I agree with the governor on that. You can’t take the judgment like that out of the hands of the officers on the ground there. I think one more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins that they’re looking forward to seeing."
And like Huckabee, Thompson didn’t answer Hume’s question according to how it was phrased.
Next, it was Giuliani’s turn. Like the previous two respondents, Rudy chose to go off on tangents of incoherent warmongering, instead of answering the question posed. He plugged the neocon agit-prop rant against the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) on Iran, for the duration of his overly-allotted time, yet was neither interjected nor re-upped by Hume.
McCain was the only one of the four others to respond pertinently, but only after being cordially re-upped by Hume — and only amidst his typical spiel of impertinent and false war history and further propaganda against the NIE (in agreement with fellow warmongering psycho-babbler, Giuliani, of course).
McCain’s best line was when, in true Orwellian-Machiavellian-Straussian-neocon fashion, he equated the United States’ illicit, mafia shakedown in the Persian Gulf, and elsewhere, with American principles:
"And I believe the president of the United States made the right statement. He told them that we will preserve the fundamental principle of freedom of the sea, and he will do what’s necessary in order to preserve it. . . . The Iranians better understand that the United States will stick to its many years-long tradition of preserving the fundamental principle of freedom of the seas."
In fact, many a noble lie were told on that night, by many an aspiring unitary executive.
That is, until Ron Paul spoke.
As is typically the case in Ron Paul vs. [insert fraud here], Paul’s mere presence on the floor defeated his antagonists. The responses he gave only dominated the den further, thus requiring his defeated opponents to resort to unorthodox tactics, to say the least.
When Hume got around to Paul, he didn’t ask him the same question he asked the others; instead it was:
"Congressman Paul, what if this happens again?"
Note that the subject was switched from: a) the decision already made by the US commander to: b) a less-specific, future scenario.
So, in being mindful of the aim of the question, Paul’s response remained on-point and on-tangent:
"I would certainly urge a lot more caution than I’m hearing here tonight."
He then continued with deeper common sense and truth contrary to the neocon propaganda he was hearing (again, as per the acceptable debate protocol thus far):
"[L]et’s put it in perspective. We have five small speedboats attacking the U.S. Navy with a Destroyer? They could take care of those speedboats in about five seconds. And here we’re ready to start World War III over this?
"And now, guess what, today, the Navy commander of the Fifth Fleet was on ABC and announced that, you know, that voice might not have come from those vessels. So what does that mean? . . . I just don’t see this rush to judgment."
There you have it. Ron Paul answered the question as it was asked, and proceeded to support his argument in a way not out-of-line with the style of the correspondences thus far.
What happened next is what makes the "FOX all-stars" outshine their ideological forefathers and heroes — the gulag gangsters, Goebbelsians, and furnace-operators of the late-19th and early-20th centuries? — when it comes to rigging the apparatus.
Brit Hume employed rhetorical shape-shifting and utter falsehood to deceive the audience into believing that Ron Paul lacked comprehension or went astray, when in fact Paul’s responses were more on-point, more timely, more coherent, and more adherent to the subject, than any of the others’ responses could ever be coaxed into being.
With obviously faked anger, a rock’s sense of irony, and d-movie actor’s ability to appear shocked, Hume slurs:
"Well, wait a minute. All of these people I’ve asked this question to so far have said they supported the decision to be passive. What are you responding to?"
But Hume did not ask that question to the others. And not all the others said they support being passive; arguably, none of them did.
In a complete inversion of reality, Hume asks Ron Paul what he is responding to.
But Paul is responding 1) precisely to the question Hume asked him, and 2) in a manner supportive of his argument: the very two things practically none of the others did.
And that’s exactly why, when it was Romney’s turn to crack that whip and read his script, he got his Paul-bashing slime out of the way first…
"I think Congressman Paul should not be reading as many of Ahmadinejad’s press releases." [LAUGHTER/BOOS]
… and then, eased his way into the customary drum-beating for more war and intervention based on pure conjecture…
"I do not believe this action was taken by rogue elements within the Iranian forces. I believe it was calculated. . . . I believe, as well, that it was a diversionary tactic for them to consider other actions in other places."
… and wrapped it up like an opportunistic teacher’s pet feigning extra effort by appearing to go above-and-beyond by actually answering a question — not the question directed at him, but the one directed to all the others except himself and his competition (Paul):
"And I believe . . . you want to get the rest of the answer . . . of course, this commander did exactly the right thing."
That was, in fact, the original set-up question. But tell me: Who got knocked down?
Better yet, who didn’t fall?
In case you can’t decide, here’s a video of the Hume/speedboat set-up fraud, nicely edited for extra
While you watch that, you might recall how the candidates responded, and how they were treated by the questioner:
— Brit Hume phrased the question slightly differently from one candidate to the next, but was asking the same thing: whether the US commander made the right decision. He then asked Paul and Romney a different question, but held only Paul to the task of answering the very first question.
— Only two of the candidates — John McCain and Mitt Romney — responded definitely and pertinently in saying that they agreed with the commander’s decision. For McCain it came amidst his off-tangent agit-prop pitch, and only after a cordial coaxing by Hume to get back to the subject. And as with Romney, the huge balance of his spiel betrayed his brief response to the actual questions. Romney came clean like any shrewd politician would after having the benefit of keeping score all that time.
— Each respondent was allowed to comment on previous respondents’ responses, and was allowed to go wildly off-tangent, without harsh recourse from Hume. The same was not afforded to Paul, by any stretch of the imagination. (Imagine that.)
— Personal and political marginalization via offensive or otherwise divisive questioning, uniquely at the person of Ron Paul or his support base.
When Carl Cameron asked, "are you tonight prepared to either embrace [9/11 truth] rhetoric or ask those supporters to abandon it, or divorce themselves from your candidacy," Paul replied, "I can’t tell people what to do . . . I don’t believe that, and that’s the only thing that is important. And so I don’t endorse anything they say. But I would like to take an opportunity to talk about the issue that we’ve been debating here for the last 20 minutes." [APPLAUSE]
— Double standard/omission, a.k.a., "emergency legislation."
At one point, Chris Wallace assured one of the candidates that participants are allowed to respond whenever their name is brought up by an fellow participant. Yet, at several points, Ron Paul got called out, in abrasively at-the-person ways, but got to respond only one of them; while, on at least one occasion, Paul finished a full exchange with a great rejoinder, then McCain, e.g., got an extra response. (And I mean, seriously, McCain’s last response — which he fumbled badly — was a snake oil fallacy in the form of a permanent-occupation sales pitch, divining priority between 1) US troops dying and killing overseas and 2) the time they spend overseas getting killed and killing people.)
Fox & Co. break the rules habitually for that.
— A/V fraud?
I don’t know if the debate participants wear earpieces or if they have audio monitors at all; but at several points, it appeared as though Ron Paul wasn’t receiving audio.
During the Hume/speedboat set-up, while Hume was fraudulently interrogating him, Paul motioned to his ear, then said that he didn’t hear what Hume was saying.
Did Fox actually engineer that cruel and cowardly fraud?
Would you be surprised if they did?
It’s the usual shakedown, only slightly more potent (and impotent, for that matter).
As should have been expected, tact was not the order of the day. The Fox frauds and the other political hacks in suits protested way too much and way too obviously. Everyone had their free shots at Ron Paul, even if they had to concoct mini-frauds or speak out-of-turn to do so.
Still, Paul won each argument from the start, by, among other things, answering the questions pertinently and mindfully, and by taking the informed and ethical — that is, the constitutional — approach. He was also the only stark contrast next to the statist-corporatist-approved candidates — a contrast that leaves them cast in very dim and dubious shades.
Therefore, you see, Ron Paul had to be punished for being himself, even if they had to attack him in a blatantly contrived manner; which they did. But in so doing, the frauds exposed themselves as the self-contradicting, shape-shifting, political and economic cluster-fraud they form.
Once again, the underhanded tactics of corporate media have backfired to the point of utter self-defeat. And once again, the hacks of Fox were also defeated by the mere presence of Ron Paul, who — with his humble message of freedom, prosperity, and peace — further exposed the other candidates for their lack of moral and legal ethics, historical and contemporary knowledge, restraint, humility, sanity, and all other traits indicative of the most highly-qualified and "electable" of presidential candidates.