How Dare Charlie Gibson Allow Ron Paul To Speak says NY Times

[angrydragon]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018305.html

Posted by Lew Rockwell

The role of a debate moderator, explains the New York Times, is to protect the people's ears from dangerous ideas. Charlie Gibson, running the ABC debate last night, did not do his job. Or as the Times puts it, "by not intervening more forcefully early on in the Republican debate, he allowed much of their discussion to remain staid and uninformative — Representative Ron Paul, of all candidates, dominated the foreign policy debate." And not just on foreign policy: Ron dominated on energy, health care, economics, and all areas.

What happened was this: Ron Paul pointed out that the neocon emperor has no clothes. He has always done that, but the past debates were organized and moderated to marginalize him and silence him. Last night, he was in the thick of things, and therefore he showed up his opponents as scared and hollow men.

The regime is based on lies; it can't stand the truth, so last night was an historic moment; the regime began to crumple. (Thanks to John Pankratz for the URL.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/us/politics/06watch.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Thank Charlie for a fair debate?

charles.gibson@abc.com

[Big Lou]

The Times article is wrong to marginalize Paul, but generally right about Gibson's moderation. Especially where it talks about the Bush question. None of the other candidates answered the question, they just gave little self-promo speaches. Of course, Ron wiped the floor with them all when he said that they only paid lip service to the Constitution. Great moment.

[literatim]

http://politics.reddit.com/info/64ot4/comments/

[FSP-Rebel]

It's about freaking time that we were given our op to shine at the expense of other candidates.

[cswake]

"I'm pleased, but surprised"... seems McCain is listening so much to Paul's interviews that he is picking up his <word?>.

[stefans]

The Times article is wrong to marginalize Paul, but generally right about Gibson's moderation. Especially where it talks about the Bush question. None of the other candidates answered the question, they just gave little self-promo speaches. Of course, Ron wiped the floor with them all when he said that they only paid lip service to the Constitution. Great moment.


there were some cases he intervened too late.
but it was still the best debate so far.
no childish seconds-counting, but everybody got a fair share of time, no show of hands, sometimes even real discussions on the issues.

that the times basically says he should have shut up ron paul is ridiculous.
what else does that mean, why should 4 guys who agree on everything dominate a debate on foreign policy?

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

Gibson was great, and this was the best debate by far, just as Ron said.