Let me lay out a scenario. A candidate running for president holds federal elective office, has run for president before, is thoughtful and thinks outside the box on a number of issues, has the capacity to raise a ton of grassroots dollars, finished strong in the Iowa straw vote this summer, is currently running in the top three in nearly every national poll, and is polling second in both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. Hmmm, seems like a fact set where you would be taken seriously. But not if you are Ron Paul.
At the recent National Journal/CBS debate held in South Carolina, this could not have been clearer. The controversy over CBS Political Director John Dickerson's inadvertent e-mail to a spokeswoman for Michele Bachmann, and the explanation afterward, revealed that the question and time allotment strategy was determined by the candidates' standing in the polls. It is my understanding debate organizers based their decisions on a CBS News poll released several days before the debate. Herman Cain led the field at 18 percent, followed closely by Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, each of whom had 15 percent. Paul placed fifth with 5 percent of the vote, behind Rick Perry, who had 8 percent. ele Bachmann had 4 percent, Rick Santorum 2 percent, and Jon Huntsman 1 percent.
Some of you may question this as a method for organizing a debate, but it does have some logic and reasonableness about it. Based on this apparent strategy, Ron Paul should definitely have had plenty of time to articulate his positions on foreign policy issues.
Did the 11-term Texas congressman get the second- or even third-most allotted time -- which is what you would guess based on an effort to call on candidates in order of their standing in the polls? Hardly. In the hour of the debate aired nationally, Paul got the least amount of time of any of the eight candidates. That's right: He finished eighth out of eight. If you assume each candidate was going to get at least one question in the first hour of the debate and subtract that 60 seconds from each candidate's total, the results are even more telling: Romney got roughly 12 times as much time as Paul, Perry 10 times, Santorum eight times, Cain seven times, Gingrich six times, Huntsman and Bachmann each more than 4 times. Deducting the one-question allotment, the actual time each candidate spoke in the first (nationally telecast) hour of the debate went roughly: Romney six minutes-plus, Perry five minutes-plus, Santorum four minutes, Cain nearly four minutes, Gingrich three minutes, Huntsman more than two minutes, Bachmann two minutes, and Paul 30 seconds. Yes, you read that right.
Santorum, Huntsman, and Bachmann, who are in the cellar in nearly every poll, each had at least quadruple the air time as Paul did at the last debate. People make the argument that Paul has no real shot to win the nomination, and that is why he should not be called on as frequently. But if that were the criterion then at this point Perry, Santorum, Huntsman, Bachmann, and even Cain should be treated the same or worse.
I am a columnist for the National Journal, which cosponsored the debate, but I've got to question the allotment. More questions should have gone to Paul if only for the sake of good television, since his positions contrast sharply with those of the rest of the GOP field, especially on foreign policy and national security. He wants to end all the wars immediately, is pretty much an isolationist, is morally opposed to torture, and constantly raises concerns about the United States becoming a police state and invading our privacy based on terrorism concerns. And even with -- or because of -- these stands, he is performing very well in all the polls. Seems like must-see TV to me with all the candidates enjoying a passionate discussion.
And so like many moments in politics, this raises another concern: the media's systematic exclusion from the debates of candidates who may actually have become competitive in this very fluid environment if given a nationally televised forum to reach to voters. A good example is former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer. Here is someone who served in both the Congress and as governor, who has a very consistent message about corruption in Washington, who is very good on the stump, and who is the only Republican savvy enough to adopt some of the Occupy Wall Street messaging and run a more populist campaign.
Given a spotlight, that's a combination that might have ignited voters this year. But alas, we will never know. Why not exclude a couple of the other candidates who are polling at 1 or 2 percent, sub in Roemer for one debate and see what happens?
The good news in all of this is that debates matter. Voters are hungry for the type of exchange and openness and authentic performance that they provide. Debates matter much more than paid advertising, which is wonderful news. The bad news is that many media outlets are still trying to force the process through an outdated political model by either limiting time for candidates they don't deem worthy or completely excluding others. And that does a disservice not only to the voting process but also to the bottom line: the media's viewership.
This post originally appeared at National Journal.
Bob Burnett: Politics 2012: They've Gone Too Far
Dan Bimrose: Rick Perry Busy Grasping at Straws
Andy Ostroy: Is Gingrich Lying Over Freddie Mac Involvement?
What action steps can you take to get someone like Buddy Roemer on a debate?
What actions can we take to get him on a debate?
It is virtually impossible to start and maintain a viable third party, thus maintaining the status quo in which the two major parties have tag-teamed America into the dirt.
Time to ditch D.C., a monster that is eating us alive and can only be put out to pasture, not reformed.
50 State Secession
Freedom
A NEW Unitied States of America with a NEW government and a NEW Union
There won't be.
Ron Paul gets things done by reaching across the aisle to find common ground. He will work relentlessly to move our system onto a better path; you need to spend more time looking at what he's been doing for the last thirty years.
You don't turn a ship around on a dime...it happens more gradually than that, and Ron Paul is EDUCATING Washington on the proper course we need to take at this time. Have more faith...
If we can't put faith into this correction, we have no hope... Right? That is, unless you think we should be living under a regime, and that's where we're headed if we don't stand up to it NOW.
"Damage" is an interesting choice of words.. I see an extremely spoiled child (America) raised by irresponsible parents (US government) who don't have a clue about reality and think problems go away by bribing the kids with cookies to maintain control. If the Nanny or Ron Paul (like the one on TV) steps in to set the family straight, is that "damage"?? No, that's SMART...
Ron Paul 2012...
The debates, in particular, are an opportunity for the candidates and the voting public to develop their thinking on the issues, get exposed to new ideas and see the falacies in their existing ideas.
The freezing out of Paul freezes out a stimulating voice that could affect the dialogue and possibly the thinking and possibly the stands and maybe even the election... without him getting the nomination. Ross Perot's participation in the Clinton/Bush/Perot debates did all of that.
The pure essence of a Debate is to show the contrast between two sides of an issue.
But the visual media interprets Debate as a nine (using Cain's numeric perception of government control) headed tape recorder (everyone mouthing the Republican Platform).
This obvious difference should alert the audience that a serious examination of an issue has been replaced by the drama of a cast of "characters" (pun intended).
The aftermath is that the news networks have become a Drama Queen whose only interest is advertizing income which pays for promised viewers.
As Mr. Dowd spotlights the air-time manipulation, a higher mischief is the infrastructure for the time alloted to the speakers.
Speakers are given time to create a national awareness of only one slant of the truth. So the sequence of only selected speakers is a live (while you are watching) editing of what the viewers should grasp.
This, in other words, is the media pretending to offer its restricted version of facts as the full truth while really exercising censorship in the 21 Century style of soundbites. Upon realizing this visual & audible smoke-and-mirrors, the viewer will begin to grasp that the Media is a second head which belongs to Big Brother.
Now that is enough dramatic truth for any viewer to consume in a one hour debate.
There is a finite amount of time for televised debates. We have already had 11 debates. Ron Paul has run 3 times now. If the candidates can't get traction after 11 debates, it's not the fault of the media at the debates. There are plenty of media for him and the others to access.
If someone can't build momentum after 11 of these debates (12 if you count the odd Gingrich/Cain pairing), then perhaps it's time to give up.
Now they're going to be at a "Thanksgiving Family Forum" tomorrow night to talk about their conservative family values, etc., being hosted by the First Federal Church, sponsored by The Family Leader. They will be tripping all over each other in their attempts to prove they each have the highest morals and strictest family values. We'll hear about Newtie's conversion and Michele's "family" of 28 kids, and I for one don't give a rat's patootie other than the fact that whoever is elected will try to force their values onto the rest of the country.
Anyhoo, Ron Paul and the others have actually had ample time through the debates and over the years to voice their stance on issues. Stop blaming the media.
If they're going to hang
The media does not have a right to be kingmaker. Checking the candidates is fine; they absolutely should do that. But steering the race reeks of cronyism and bias.
Ron Paul is also reaching for the purse strings, in order to pull it shut to prevent our Money Pit from turning in the Nightmare on Wall St.
Lobbyist-run Washington, Wall St. and the FED love playing Monopoly while the population is forced to play the game of Life. This Oligarchy will go bye bye under guys like Ron Paul. The Milton Bradley scenario is being manipulated by the same corporations which own the media and pay those lobbyists in order to keep the global money and human labor game going the way they like it to operate.
No more kingmakers... Ron Paul 2012 Cleanse the media in the process!!
Matthew Dowd, the author of this criticism of his own organization along with the rest of the national media, commits the same error in excluding Gary Johnson from even a mention in his own critical piece.
* The fact is, the giant greasy powers that buy our government do not want R Paul anywhere near the presidency. His honest approach to government would not protect their 'special' place in running the country since Paul would lead a government that is also fair to citizens. Media just isn't interested in that sort of government, no matter how much it pretends to be. Just the same I've decided to support him as are many independents, and can only hope that citizens/reps votes will still matter.
Some of his views are too extreme, agreed. They'd be tempered by checks & balances, but nobody really wants that to have to come into play.