Why We Don't Care About Ron Paul
So some Ron Paul operatives dropped by the Scene the other day to leave some material, which our administrative assistant dutifully passed on to the edit department. But then, they came back—two of them. As Jeff Woods and I were in my office talking about upcoming stories, our colleague Brian appeared in my doorway to say they were waiting to talk with one of us. What ensued went something like this:
Me: (rolling eyes) What do they want?
Brian: I don’t know. To talk to you.
Woods: Tell them I got their shit.
Brian: But they want to see you.
Me: Brian, look, I’ll talk about coverage with pretty much anyone who shows up, but Ron Paul isn’t a Nashville story. Can you get rid of them?
Brian: I can try.
Woods: Hell, I’ll go talk to them.
Woods does and—I can attest because I was getting my mail and overheard it—was uncharacteristically cordial, friendly, attentive. When after a few minutes he said he was busy with some work and needed to get back to it, they ignored his attempt at a gracious exit and continued their strident advocacy. He said, “Thanks for coming by” or some such, but they wouldn’t take the hint. Finally, he asked them if they were "a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses or something." In the end, he simply had to turn his back as they continued to peddle a libertarian masquerading as a legitimate GOP candidate—someone who has prolifically published all manner of racist, homophobic material (which he now claims no responsibility for).
Here’s the deal. We at the Scene don’t care about Ron Paul. He’s a single-digit wonder who doesn’t care about the environment ("Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the West, they're much more poorly treated than those that are privately owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor's private property— water, air, or land. It is very strict."), has no chance of success and is irrelevant to the Tennessee primary process.
But as much we may loathe what he represents, this isn’t a political consideration. It’s a practical one. You never saw us writing about Dennis Kucinich either. Save your tracts and your time and leave us alone, Paulites.
Comments
This ought to be good...
Posted 01/30/2008 at 01:37:04 PM3,2,1...Cue the Paulites.
Posted 01/30/2008 at 01:45:08 PMHare Ron...Hare Ron....
Posted 01/30/2008 at 02:14:49 PMI would like to state, for the record, that I do not resemble Opus the cartoon penguin.
Posted 01/30/2008 at 02:16:03 PMYou didn't give Harry Browne any press when he ran either. And he's from Franklin.
Posted 01/30/2008 at 02:27:18 PMReally? No coverage of Harry Browne? Why, what's this?
Posted 01/30/2008 at 03:05:01 PMWhat about 2000?
Posted 01/30/2008 at 03:08:35 PM...a libertarian masquerading as a legitimate GOP candidate
Ron Paul is an anti-choice OB/GYN, so he's actually masquerading as a libertarian.
Posted 01/30/2008 at 03:19:55 PMI would have paid good money to see Woodsy be "uncharacteristically cordial." Is that your way of saying that he didn't accuse them of flagrant adultery with their own parents and neighborhood strays as he guided them toward the door?
Seriously, Woods (who really IS a good guy) is the sort of person we all should have to get rid of folks like that. They'll leave with their ears blown back like the guy in the Maxell tape ad.
Posted 01/30/2008 at 03:48:46 PMYou have finally made it big. You have propelled The Nashville Scene to the status of CNN, MSNBC, and FOX news. You have shut out a serious presidential candidate because you do believe he is a credible candidate. Out of eleven original republican candidates he is one of the finale four. I would say that makes Ron Paul a serious contender for the republican nomination. What the hell can a president do to save the environment. Can he create a miracle fuel to stop pollution? Can he force the nations electric power suppliers to not provide power at the cheapest rate possible. Personally, I could care less about global warming when people are being senselessly sent to die for oil and a third of the money I make is being used to pay for them to be killed. If you are under some illusion that the democrats or the republicans are different political parties you watch too much TV. I agree that Ron Paul will probably not be the republican nominee but the reason he won't be is because news organizations like yourself did not do your job which is to present each presidential candidate to your readers so that they may make an informed decision when they vote. Thank You for choosing our future for us.
Posted 01/30/2008 at 10:00:22 PMLast I checked, legitimate, respectable journalism was marked by objectivity and not prone to personal tirades. Your attack on Ron Paul and his supporters was unprofessional and unfounded.
To call him a "single-digit wonder who...has no chance of success and is irrelevant to the Tennessee primary process" displays either your ignorance or inability to see beyond your personal bias.
Considering Ron Paul defeated, in all but one primary contest, one-time media darling, Rudy Giuliani, who, during his concession speech today admitted that Paul won every debate to date; and considering that Paul has outlasted 7 of 11 initial candidates, including Tennessee golden boy, Fred Thompson, the only thing "irrelevant" is your commentary.
Posted 01/30/2008 at 11:47:15 PMMike and Josh, my point exactly. That's why I called Liz out for not writing an article in 2000 when the candidate was from Franklin! That's just inexcusable. The Scene is dodging the Ron Paul issue by saying they only report local news, but in 2000 they refused to run ANYTHING on Harry Browne which WAS local. That is just totally biased and poor form.
Posted 01/31/2008 at 08:37:12 AMLiz must love war and taxes.
Posted 01/31/2008 at 10:30:31 AMJust how exactly has Ron Paul responded to charges of racism? He says he didn't know what was in his own newsletter. How could anyone buy that? And his point that the free market itself discourages polluters is so ridiculous it makes me question his sanity. Has there ever been a factory by a river that hasn't dumped toxic chemicals into the water? Ever. And what invisible hand in the private sector prevented GM from dumping PCBs into the Hudson River for more than a generation?
I think Ron Paul makes a ton of good points, but its hard to take him seriously for so many other reasons.
Posted 01/31/2008 at 10:58:35 AMMatt, I didn't vote for Ron Paul for a multitude of reasons. My point is that credible media shouldn't be biased.
Posted 01/31/2008 at 11:27:24 AMBe fair, there was a slightly more relevant Nashville story in 2000.
Posted 01/31/2008 at 12:57:42 PMso who should we all vote for, since you have such an obvious preference? or is it just that there are certain people that we shouldn't vote for and the rest are all the same? what kind of journalists are you? lobbyist funded? disgustingly unamerican. you are lucky your paper is free.
Posted 02/02/2008 at 01:10:05 PMComment removed.
Posted 02/10/2008 at 09:04:15 AM