Friday, 27 February 2009

CNBC Anchors Upset at Ron Paul

Take a look at this longer clip of Ron's opening statement, at about 2:23. The CNBC anchors are so upset that, unlike in their schedule, Ron had the initial Republican statement. These shills for the Fed, the Treasury, and Wall Street are spitting mad that the truth was by mistake broadcast by CNBC.


[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, February 27th, 2009.]


steven andresen said...


my reading of what they said was not seemingly reflective of their view of Paul, as much as they only wanted to hear Bernanke, and no preliminaroies from anyone else.

The other question was about just what Paul said were they supposed to be upset about? They have a 6 or 7 second delay on everything. If they were so concerned they could have silenced the tape.

Have you ever seen Rep. paul explain what he would do for those people who would be left out on a limb if anyone actually cut back government as much as he recommends? Does he say that he would be concerned for their survival, but as a rep of government, it would not be his problem?

When he was making interviews and speeches last year and his candidacy was more of an issue, he explained that he recognized that you could not just cut people off. The changes would have to come gradually.

This lead me to wonder about this situation. I know he would think it is not governments job to be people's nanny, but...he can't just take people off the teat and let them fend for themselves in this environment where, I think he would admit, there are no jobs, there is no industry, the economy is tanked, and so forth.

He may very well be correct about the size or scope of government needing to be reduced. But, how do you get there from here?

Another question, in the stories I've seen, the repubs are looking around for new leaders. They point to Palin, Jubin/ jabal/...jenkins...the louiseanny guv, and Romney. I would have thought that Paul would have been in that group.

Do you see any discussion of that?

SpookyPunkos said...

I agree. I think the NBC anchor's views were not particularly anti-Paul. The title for the post was taken from the original source.

Having said that I don't think they really wanted to have Paul's views headline the hearing. As for silencing the man, it wasn't Fox News, and these days the mainstream is more accepting of Paul since has got a lot of things right in terms of the economic debt situation. He's not seen as such a crackpot anymore.

The point Paul raises about the fact that the bailout throws more fuel on the fire could be seen as undermining the bailout agenda, and also Bernake's address.

Yes, it's a bit of reach to say that the hosts were "so upset" as described in the intro I pasted. One thing tho, it is worth hearing Paul's opinion here considering what is going on.

And there's no way the Republican's would ever pick Ron Paul. He's too honest for them. He'd undermine the cronyism, practically destroy the established system with his adherence to Constitutional principles.

He'd recall the army from the Middle East for starters, and there's too many bought politicians that would be arm twisted into keeping the troops there to "fight terrorism" and, more so, to protect Israel.

The Repulblican leadership will only put in Candidates that don't rock the boat too much. Fake Republican conservatives to go against fake Democrat progressives. Of course they will all be pro-corporate elites doing the bidding of a select few.

At present Obama is going to help out as much as he can. It's his role as a Democrat. However, he won't go so far as to seriously undermine any Washington powerbases to any real extent.

I think Paul will be left to his own devices for the most part - kept as a "fringe" voice rather than put forward as a new leader.