MSNBC Distorts Ron Paul’s Position
October 3rd, 2007 by Steve
The Ron Paul campaign just pulled off another unexpected fundraising success, but MSNBC took some jabs at him (some absolutely untruthful) in their coverage of his recent five million dollar third-quarter haul. Here’s a sample:
Norah O’Donnell: “He is an isolationist.”
Norah O’Donnell: “Ron Paul, of course, is an isolationist…”
Norah O’Donnell: “This is significant for a man that many people sort of consider a gadfly.”
“Gadfly” may be subject to the interpretation, but seems a unsuitable way for a supposedly neutral anchor to use to describe a ten-term congressman. However, the word “isolationist” has a distinct meaning and it clearly doesn’t apply to Dr. Paul.
There is a distinct difference between non-interventionism and isolationism. Hopefully Ms. O’Donnell will someday learn the meaning of the words she utters. From Wikipedia:
…is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:
- Non-interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
- Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
Not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries.
…or Non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. A similar phrase is “strategic independence”.[1]
Isolationism is nonintervention combined with economic nationalism (protectionism). Most non-interventionists are not isolationists. Most, like Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul in the United States, favor nonintervention combined with free trade and free cultural exchange.
In the interview, Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter understood the significance of Ron Paul’s fundraising success.
Jonathan Alter: “Ron Paul is going to be in this thing for the duration.”
Jonathan Alter: “Ron Paul will be in all those debates and he’ll be a presence all the way though as the other lesser candidates drop out.”
There are but two possible reasons why Paul’s position was distorted: ignorance or intent. If it was ignorance, one might ask why O’Donnell is employed by a major television network. If O’Donnell intended the slight, the same question still needs to be asked.
Here’s the video from MSNBC.
10 Responses to “MSNBC Distorts Ron Paul’s Position”
Leave a Reply
About
Bloggers with whom I'd like to hang out
Bloggers with whom I've hung out
- Ana Marie and Alex
- Angela
- Baylen
- Blue
- Bob
- Brad
- Bruce
- Chris
- Chris
- Dan
- David, Charles, Anthony and Roderick
- Dick
- Elizabeth
- Eric
- Fred
- Isis
- James
- Jason
- Jason
- Jason
- Jesse
- Jim
- John
- Jonah
- Julian
- Kevin, Paul, Robert and Norm
- Kyle
- Lew, Norm and Anthony
- Loretta
- Mark
- Matthew
- Megan
- Michelle
- Michelle, Paulie and Chris
- Mike
- Nick
- Nick, Jesse, Brian, Radley, Kerry, David, Julian, Katherine, Ronald and various interns
- Paulie
- Philip
- R. Lee, Mike and Sean
- Rachel
- Radley
- Richard
- Robert Stacy
- Roderick
- Scott
- Shana
- Stephen
- Thomas
- Tom and Kris
- Will
Other places I blog
Archives
Categories
- Alabama Politics (136)
- Articles (12)
- Bad Democrats (40)
- Bad Media (24)
- Bad Republicans (120)
- Bob Barr (13)
- Civil Liberties (68)
- Culture (40)
- Economic Policy (8)
- Election Reform (10)
- Fiscal Responsibility (23)
- Foreign Policy (21)
- Graphics (1)
- Health Care (17)
- History (3)
- Housekeeping (12)
- In the News (13)
- It's a Southern Thang (51)
- Judicial Issues (1)
- Just for Fun (34)
- Libertarian Movement (205)
- Libertarian Party (79)
- National Politics (276)
- Prohibition Mentality (6)
- Regulatory Burden (3)
- Ron Paul (186)
- Satire (24)
- Sex and Politics (15)
- Supreme Court (2)
- Taxes (18)
- Tech (9)
- Travel (6)
- Wasteful Spending (19)
- Zero Tolerance (6)
Meta
Joel wrote on 10/3/07 at 4:02 pm :
Well, to an extent on immigration he is protectionist, favoring strict barriers, which would seem to put Dr. Paul closer to being isolationist. It is a distortion, but not a massive one. I think I’m more offended by the reference to him being a gadfly. I guess it’s easier to make him out as a nut than to deal with the legitimate issues he raises.
Tex MacRae wrote on 10/3/07 at 4:05 pm :
There’s a good reason they call her “Noron”
Steve wrote on 10/3/07 at 4:07 pm :
Tex, that’s funny. Wish I had thought of it.
Steve wrote on 10/3/07 at 4:09 pm :
Joel,
Wiki doesn’t directly include immigration in the picture. However, Paul clearly encourages free trade and voluntary cultural exchange — which are outlined as the two key components in drawing a distinction between the two terms.
David M wrote on 10/3/07 at 4:16 pm :
Strange that the same people who had nothing but criticism for Clinton’s nation-building escapades in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo now consider that anything short of similar escapades in the Middle East is “isolationism”.
Paging Ms. O’Donnell…it’s called DEFENSE.
Tex MacRae wrote on 10/3/07 at 4:20 pm :
Actually, I think Atrios came up with it. Here’s the video if anyone wants to watch.
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&fg=rss&vid=911a8242-d311-42e5-88ad-f54093eec58a&from=34
Tex MacRae wrote on 10/3/07 at 4:21 pm :
Oh, woops. I missed it in your post, Steve. Sorry.
Jerret wrote on 10/3/07 at 5:28 pm :
Funny, I thought the same thing and sent them this message:
To those who care about fair and honest journalism-
I’m sending this letter to voice my concern about the suggestive fear-mongering by Nora O’Donnell during a recent MSNBC video clip. I expect this type of behavior from Fox News, not from MSNBC. Whether Nora is simply uneducated about the person at hand or simply is trying to discredit him, I do not know.
The subject I am referring to is Nora’s report on Ron Paul’s fundraising results for the third quarter. In particular here are the items that I found particularly disturbing:
1) Referring to Ron Paul as an isolationist multiple times. This association has been rejected by the congressman on many occasions. Confusing an isolationist with someone who supports a non-intervention foreign policy is a big mistake. Please read the following for clarification if there is still confusion on this point: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm
2) Suggesting Ron Paul wants to simply “get rid of taxes”. This is absurd; Ron Paul understands that there are responsibilities of a federal government and it takes tax dollars to fulfill those responsibilities. Ron Paul simply disagrees on how much of those responsibilities belong to the federal government versus the state government versus the citizen.
3) Referring to Ron Paul as “someone like a congressman from Texas named Ron Paul” and stating that some people call him a “gadfly”. Ron Paul is a ten-term congressman, he has been involved in politics for many many years. He has earned his degree in medicine from Duke university and has delivered more than 4,000 babies. I find these attempts to belittle his character very disrespectful for someone as qualified as Ron Paul.
Sincerely,
Jerret ….
GordonUnleashed » Blog Archive » Wolf Blitzer Interviews Ron Paul wrote on 10/4/07 at 8:30 pm :
[…] My rant from yesterday: the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism […]
GordonUnleashed » Blog Archive » Today's Blog Posting Brought to You by the Letter "I" wrote on 10/25/07 at 4:30 pm :
[…] I’ve explained it before, but I suppose it’s time to repeat the lesson for the folks at RedState. Isolationism… …is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following: […]