Summary: "Every generation has a champion, someone who will pick up the gauntlet and do battle with the Federal Reserve. From 1976 to the present, that man has been the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul."~ Mike Maloney Eagerly anticipating the clash I expected between Rep. Ron Paul's anti-interventionist views and the rest of that warmongering crowd – but I didn't count on the filtering tactics of CBS News. The televised debate went on for an hour, but Ron only got 89 seconds to make the case for peace. Paul's supporters have consistently claimed the Texas congressman is being deliberately ignored by the ?mainstream? media, and the amount of noise they've generated about this has been the subject of more than a few self-justifying media self-analyses, which usually conclude that, no, he's getting what he deserves. Okay, fine, that's debatable, although I have my own opinion on the subject: what isn't debatable, however, is Paul's rising level of support. The shortchanging of Paul at the debate is inexplicable, in another sense, because giving him his due would have made for some good television. The contrast between Paul's views and the rest of the pack would have provided more than a few dramatic examples of pandering, demagoguery, and exhibitionist blood lust in response to Paul's provocative peace-mongering. The media hates Ron Paul for the same reason they hate the idea of losing their monopoly on determining the boundaries of political discourse in this country: ? by Justin Raimondo
