Treated Like a Democrat
GOP candidate Ron Paul's "unorthodox" 9/11 theory

With the public still many months away from choosing presidential candidates from either major party, the media have fallen into a familiar pattern of trying to "weed out" candidates that do not meet the press corps' ideological standards (Extra!, 9-10/03). This tendency usually applies more to Democrats than Republicans?but Rep. Ron Paul (R. Texas) has demonstrated that conservative libertarians as well can be deemed too far out for the establishment media.

As FAIR pointed out recently (Media Advisory, 5/8/07), media reactions to early candidates' debates often provided a vivid contrast. The more progressive Democrats? especially former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh.)?were treated as a diversion from the "real" debate between media-favored candidates. As CNN host Howard Kurtz said of Gravel (4/29/07), "Why should a network allow somebody with, say, zero chance of becoming president into these debates?"

By contrast, the inclusion of Republican candidates polling near the bottom in the debates was mostly cheered; a Los Angeles Times editorial (5/4/07) called the presence of such candidates "a sign of intellectual ferment." When three of the GOP contenders signaled their doubts about evolution, the Washington Post helpfully noted (5/6/07) that "a look at public polling on the issue reveals that the three men aren't far from the mainstream in that belief."

But the second Republican debate (5/15/07) flipped this media script, when Republican candidate Ron Paul dared to raise a taboo subject: Al-Qaeda's statements about the September 11 attacks. "They attack us because we've been over there, we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Paul said. "We've been in the Middle East.... Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us?"

GOP front-runner Rudy Giuliani responded by saying he'd never heard such an "absurd explanation" for the September 11 attacks, "that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq?" A response that got sustained applause from the audience, and much the same from the press corps.

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball (5/16/07), Washington Post editorial board member Jonathan Capehart called it "a big moment, a home run for Rudy.... I knew that what Rudy was saying was heartfelt, and he meant it, because, when you look at his eyes, you have never seen him more serious, more focused." Capehart added that Giuliani "was upset. He was angry. And I think he tapped into not only the mood of the crowd, but also the mood of the country, in a sense."

The media reacted strongly in support of Giuliani. Fox News Channel's John Gibson scored a twofer (5/17/07) by mangling Paul's words ("Paul suggested that the U.S. actually had a hand in the terrorist attacks") and then linking him to the Democratic Party, citing a poll that claims many Democrats "think President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand.... It wouldn't have stunned me had it come up in the Democratic debate, but it's a jaw-dropper to see it in the Republican debate." Time magazine's Joe Klein declared it to be Paul's "singular moment of weirdness," and that Giuliani "reduced Paul to history."

Lost amidst the media excitement over Giuliani's response was whether or not Paul was correct. The Nation's John Nichols wrote a column (5/16/07) pointing out that Paul's argument more or less echoed the findings of the 9/11 Commission, which noted that Osama bin Laden had called in 1996 for Muslims to drive U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia? whose mission there was largely to support air patrols over Iraq? and that subsequent statements rallied followers to oppose U.S. policy in Israel-Palestine and Iraq. Such discussions are common in academic and policy circles, but not so in the mainstream media.

Such evidence was rarely even considered. MSNBC host Chris Matthews declared (5/16/07), "Ron Paul has a big problem, by the way." While Matthews granted that it was important for Americans to "understand the simmering hatred and the hostility, the sea of hostility, over there," Paul's comments were unacceptable on factual grounds: "You can't say it's because we put troops in Iraq, over the no-fly zone, because they tried to blow up that same building back in '93, before all these skirmishes over the no-fly zone. You can't say that particular argument."

Paul actually made no reference to the no-fly zones in his debate remarks. But if that's what Matthews thought Paul was referring to, the cable news host should be aware that the no-fly policy was first declared in 1991, and that there was an extensive series of air raids in support of the no-fly zones in January 1993?a month before the 1993 attack.

When Paul convened a press conference on May 24 at the National Press Club featuring former CIA terrorism expert Michael Scheurer, the press ignored the event, although reporters have interviewed Scheurer regularly for several years. The fact that Scheurer essentially agrees with Paul's premise, as he explained to AntiWar radio (5/18/07), might explain the media's ambivalence.

CNN host Howard Kurtz (5/20/07) slammed Paul's "unorthodox theory" about the 9/11 attacks, declaring that "news organizations are allowing ego-driven fringe candidates to muck up debates among those with an actual shot at the White House." The real problem isn't that Ron Paul can't win the White House, or that he might "muck up" a debate; if anything, he started a debate the media don't want to have.

Dear Friends,

Today we are releasing a dramatically expanded and improved version of our popular cosmetics and personal care products database, Skin Deep. The site has been redesigned top to bottom, and we've added ratings for nearly 10,000 more products.

Now in its fourth year and third major update, our Skin Deep product safety database provides safety ratings for nearly 25,000 personal care products - almost a quarter of all products on the market - and the 7,000 ingredients they contain. Due to gaping loopholes in federal law, companies can put virtually any ingredient into personal care products. Even worse, the government does not require pre-market safety tests for any of them. Our aim is to fill in where companies and the government left off.

Skin Deep is the only tool available to consumers to assess and compare the safety of personal care products.

Looking for safer sunscreen to protect the kids this summer? Or shampoos without dangerous preservatives? Skin Deep helps you learn what not to buy, and helps you find safer options for you and your family.

And along with adding thousands of products and a dozen new toxicity databases, we have also overhauled the look and feel of Skin Deep. You'll find it easier to search for products and find answers about how chemicals affect our health.

While we believe that making informed shopping decisions matters, the lack of safety testing reveals major gaps in our system of public health protections. So how can you make a difference?

• First, please visit Skin Deep and sign the EWG Action Fund petition to Congress demanding that manufacturers prove the safety of their products before they are allowed to sell them.

• Second, make a donation to support our work. We rely on individuals to provide us with the funds to update the database and make a difference in Congress.

At about one million page views per month and growing, Skin Deep is the world's most popular online product safety guide. Many thanks for your support. Enjoy the new and improved Skin Deep.

Jane Houlihan
VP for Research

Environmental Working Group

here are a few interesting pieces i picked up around the interwebs today... one. two. three. four. five. six.

This USA Today article rules!  I just found a flight in October from Toronto to London round trip for $339 USD taxes IN.  unbelievable. 

 

As smoking goes; the pickings are slimmer and slimmer.  More and more smokers give up every day, and it seems that the only place you can still smoke indoors is Virginia.  Walking out of my house, therefore, has not been as thoughtless an activity as it once was.  Upon seeing the blossoming trees and bushes, urban (re)construction underway, congestion on the roads, and hipsters, yuppies and crackheads milling about the streets my hands always reach to my pockets, in whatever their unique configuration, for matches or a lighter.  Originally, leaving these items behind was no matter – smokers were everywhere; enjoying their pleasure on corners, stoops, and car seats.  When forgetting today, a smoker is almost destined to be unlit until a retail outlet of appropriate stature is passed.  Eyes dart from city character to character; hoping one reaches for his or her lips; did he just? Or, was it merely a nose scratch? Some constituencies can still be vulnerable to the now-taboo unsolicited request for fire: construction workers, sex workers, and angry-looking teenagers.  But without these folks, a smoker without a light is like any other non smoker.  

 

 

 

I know I have been AWOL lately; but seriously, I’m back.  Here is an interesting piece from FAIR on the presidentials…

Democratic Excess
Media find too many candidates—at only one debate

5/8/07

In the wake of the first candidates' debate among the Democratic contenders for the White House (4/26/07), many media outlets and commentators seemed annoyed that the so-called "second-tier" candidates are even bothering to run. Oddly, similar complaints about a surplus of GOP contenders in the first Republican debate (5/3/07) were hard to find in the corporate media.

As FAIR noted recently (4/26/07), early election polls are a terrible way to predict the likely nominee. So using them to determine which candidates are viable and which campaigns are merely a nuisance is unwise. What's more, because the electoral process is about more than who takes office, but is also a chance to debate national priorities and policies, it's healthy to allow as many legitimate candidates as possible a chance to make their case directly to the voters.

That's not the way it's seen by many Washington pundits, though—at least when it comes to Democrats. The Washington Post's David Broder declared (4/27/07) that "six of the eight declared candidates" at the Democrats' debate in South Carolina "showed themselves to be both substantive and direct in their responses." That left two—former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio—who did not measure up to Broder's standards, as they "provided a counterpoint of left-wing ideas that drew rebukes for a lack of seriousness from [Delaware Sen. Joe] Biden and [Illinois Sen. Barack] Obama."

"Left wing" ideas such as Kucinich and Gravel's opposition to the Iraq War are shared by a majority of the U.S. population; it's telling that this is insufficient to make them "serious" for Broder. By contrast, after the Republican debate, the Post reported (5/4/07) that "the three candidates who top most national polls—Giuliani, McCain and Romney—made forceful presentations, but those struggling for attention also generally acquitted themselves well." In response to three of the candidates expressing support for creationism, the Post noted their public support (5/6/07): "But a look at public polling on the issue reveals that the three men aren't far from the mainstream in that belief."

Describing the Democratic debate, the Los Angeles Times argued (4/27/07) that the wide debate format "allowed each candidate a total of 11 minutes to talk—giving Kucinich and Gravel, both of whom have a negligible showing in polls, equal time with the front-runners, which they used to take aggressive hits at [New York Sen. Hillary] Clinton and Obama." At this point, more than half a year before the first actual voters have a chance to weigh in, poll numbers should not be the prime determiner of who gets to participate in a debate; even so, Kucinich and Gravel are in what amounts to a statistical dead heat in many polls with candidates treated more seriously by the corporate media, like Biden and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

While Kucinich and Gravel were asked only eight questions in the April 26 debate, Biden received 11 and Richardson 10—nearly as many as the 12 each answered by "front-runners" Clinton, Obama and former vice presidential candidate John Edwards. This despite the fact Kucinich was tied with Richardson and Biden in the latest Pew poll (4/18-22/07) and actually beat Biden in the latest Fox poll (4/17-18/07).

After the GOP debate, the Los Angeles Times editorialized in favor of the wide debate (5/4/07): "The breadth of small-fries in the field makes it hard to define a coherent Republican message, but that's a sign of intellectual ferment in the troubled GOP. The silver lining for a party on the verge of the wilderness is the need to go 'off message' and entertain a variety of ideas."

CNN's Larry King blurted out (4/26/07) to his panel of political journalists discussing the Democrats: "We were talking around in agreement. I mean, a lot of people were saying, 'Boy, if Dennis Kucinich were 6'2.'" It's unlikely that the media would give Kucinich different treatment if he would only manage to grow a few inches; the disdainful treatment of Kucinich and Gravel seems motivated by their politics.

As CBS Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer complained (4/29/07): "Is it fair to have all these people out there? I mean, it is a free country. Everybody wants to run for president should have that opportunity and does. But clearly, somebody like senator—former Sen. Mike Gravel is not going to be a serious candidate, and yet he gets equal time, and... I would just say it honestly: In my view, it just wastes time."

ABC host George Stephanopoulos sounded a similar note (4/29/07): "Setting aside Mike Gravel, who provided the comic relief, everyone else seemed credible, seemed intelligent, seemed like they knew what they were talking about. That has to bring the front-runners down a bit." CNN's Howard Kurtz seemed annoyed (4/29/07) that Gravel was being paid any attention at all by the media: "He was sort of a bomb thrower on that stage. Why should a network allow somebody with, say, zero chance of becoming president into these debates?"

Expressing precisely the sort of cynicism that turns millions of Americans off the electoral process, Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza responded to Kurtz that money, not popular support, ought to be all that mattered: "The reality is...two candidates raise about $25 million, one candidate raises $100,000 or less. At some point you need to say, this is not us making a subjective decision. This is an objective analysis of what it takes to win a campaign." (NY1, Time Warner's local cable news channel, actually instituted such a debate policy, refusing to hold a debate for the New York Democratic Senate primary because Hillary Clinton's opponent Jonathan Tasini, who had reached 13 percent in the polls, hadn't raised enough money—FAIR Action Alert, 8/4/06.)

Time magazine's Karen Tumulty, though, dissented: "Could I argue that...that same criterion would be used to eliminate Dennis Kucinich, who on the other hand does in fact have a coherent worldview that represents a significant segment of the Democratic party base and, therefore, he should be on the [stage]."

Some pundits made the political argument more explicit. After the debate, MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod (4/26/07): "Do you think that [Obama] was hampered by the fact that you had a radical critique going on of all mainstream Democrats and elected officials by Mike Gravel, and to some extent, by the congressman from Cleveland, that it made your guy seem more like he was part of the establishment than he would like to have seemed?"

Matthews' comment is, in a sense, remarkably honest. Often reporters and pundits act, when they're trying to winnow the field, as if they're only aiming to improve the democratic process (Extra!, 9-10/03). But Matthews' observation makes clear that he is aware that there is a sizeable segment of the population whose opinions are hardly included at all in the national political debate. Whether the subject is withdrawal from Iraq, impeaching Republican officials, or single-payer healthcare, journalists seem to bristle at the thought of having to listen to such talk from the more progressive candidates. It stands as a reminder of how little time such ideas are given in the national media.

By contrast, MSNBC viewers tuning in before the GOP debate could hear network analyst Pat Buchanan declare his fondness for the lesser-known GOP candidates—precisely because they are closer to representing "classic conservatism" than the front-runners. Buchanan singled out representatives Ron Paul (R-Texas), Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.).

And in an online column, Newsweek's Howard Fineman declared (5/3/07), "Let's hear it for the 'second-' and 'third-' tier presidential candidates.... But if you know, as I do, some of the other, putatively lesser, GOP contenders, you have to be impressed with the depth of their political passion, their knowledge, and even their track records. They represent, in undiluted form, the vivid primary colors of the conservative movement."

The disparity is striking: The lesser-known (and generally more conservative) Republican candidates are cheered for participating in the process, and a cable commentator like Buchanan can use his perch in the media to support those candidates. Progressive voices have no similar presence in the media debate—and the Democratic candidates that most represent progressive ideals are derided for taking up the time of other, more worthy candidates.