I just saw Bill O'Reilly walk all over Ron Paul on Fox News. O'Reilly did this in his customary way - talking over his guest, not letting Ron Paul finish his answers, using his guest as a platform to pound out the views that O'Reilly had before the interview even began.
I've been a guest on O'Reilly's Factor three times, and it's not easy. You have to wait for your moment, get your own lines in, be willing to talk over O'Reilly yourself - in other words, not be bound by the usual rules of courteous discourse, because O'Reilly isn't.
What Ron Paul should have said is the war is unconstitutional, and does O'Reilly want America to be violating its own Constitution by continuing to fight a war we did not even declare. That's the essence of Ron Paul's position.
I'd like to see O'Reilly go head-to-head with someone who will make this point. I'm volunteering my services, and am e-mailing this blog post to O'Reilly's producer.
I'll keep you posted, but don't hold your breath.
9 comments:
I won't hold my breath because I know O'Rielly is a coward and a debate cheat. He is not about to let anyone onto his show on their terms. Ron Paul is not a match for him because honest people cannot defeat cheats by playing by the rules. O'Rielly has control of the microphones - both of them. He wouldn't last 2 minutes in an honest technical debate where he had to wait his turn. The war machine doesn't just mass murder thousands in foreign countries. It murders honest debate here. O'Rielly is one of their whores.
I just watched the interview 2 times and I think Dr. Paul did a good job! He got a lot of good points in and held his own quite well. I am sure it was no cake walk for Dr. Paul and I sure apreciate what he does for us!
I don't think O'Reilly would concede that the war is unconstitutional, he would simply say that's "nonsense".
I think the interview went as well as one would expect. O'Reilly admitted he had no need for a history lesson which seems to be apparently untrue. Paul was able to layout a factual basis for his position in the time he had.
Osama Bin Laden's widely publicized video address to the American people has a peculiarity that casts serious doubt on its authenticity: the video freezes at about 1 minute and 58 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30. The video then freezes again at 14:02 remains frozen until the end. All references to current events, such as the 62nd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan, and Sarkozy and Brown being the leaders of France and the UK, respectively, occur when the video is frozen! The words spoken when the video is in motion contain no references to contemporary events and could have been (and likely were) made before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Yeah Bill trounced him -- not Congressman Paul's fault. When Bill has his mind set on what he wants to accomplish which in this case was making Paul look like a foolish old man, he executes his plan.
If Bill actually wanted to understand what Paul had to say, it would have been an entirely different conversation.
From the start of the tape, it was a classic Bill O'Reilly hit piece. I feel silly for having an inkling of hope he'd be objective for once.
Are you seriously suggesting Dr. Levinson, that a significant number of people care about constitutional arguments re: Iraq?
What concerns people about Iraq is the resultant quagmire, and the complete failure of developing a political solution to extricate the US.
Perhaps Bush should have declared war, but a majority of Americans supported the invasion when it occurred. So this is largely a moot point.
I think Paul understands this, and is trying to frame his argument in a way that will appeal to voters. A dry argument about Constitutional process will please the law professors, but nobody else.
I love this clip about O'Reilly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02lsfH8
what a joke on the American people.
Please boycot Fox.
Roddy - you're missing the point: the American people _should_ care about the Constitutional issue. It's the one way in which this war is clearly criminal and in violation of our own laws. Just being against the war won't be the decisive issue in this election, since many of the Democrats are now against the war, too. What makes Ron Paul's position unique is his clarity that the war violates our own laws.
By the way, Presidents can't declare war - only the Congress can do that.
Dr. Levinson, thanks for once again standing up for the rule of law. It's of the utmost importance that people not merely understand that this war is wrong, but more importantly why.
Ron Paul's showing was less than I hoped for, but about as good as I expected. From what I've seen of him, he's traditional polite, and so waits to answer, and won't attempt to shout down others. In the forum of a true debate, I see this as an asset, but in a format fully controlled by your opponent (as this was not an interview, but a hit piece), it is detrimental to communicating your message.
From the comments he made here, Bill O'Reilly apparently believes that both history (addressed directly) and logic ("mutually assured destruction" not being applicable to Iran in the even less attractive form of "assured destruction") have no bearing on foreign policy; and don't even bring up legality. I only hope some of the viewers who were unfamiliar with Ron Paul noticed this, and went on to research his positions. It seems to me that is the only way that his constitutional reasons for opposition are likely to be spread as a result of this interview.
Post a Comment