Below The Beltway

I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in.

Bill O’Reilly vs. Ron Paul

by @ 10:51 pm on September 10, 2007. Filed under 2008 Election, Politics, Ron Paul

Bill O’Reilly is a blowhard and an idiot, so I’m not quite sure why Ron Paul decided to appear on his show this evening. He wasn’t going to get a fair chance to discuss his ideas. And, as I anticipated, Bill basically used him as a pro-war punching bag……which I’m sure caused O’Reilly’s regular viewers to yell “Hell, yeah” as they drank another cold one.

More importantly, though, this interview just seems to reinforce the image of Ron Paul as the single issue anti-war Republican candidate. Yes, I know that may get him alot of press attention. But there’s alot more to being a libertarian than being against the Iraq War. I just think it’s a mistake for the campaign to focus on this issue to the seeming exclusion of everything else, especially when you’re trying to appeal to Republican voters who may be a little less anti-war, but just as pro-liberty, as he is.

Referring to the Iranian Regime as “logical” or “rational” is not likely to win you Republican votes. And it raises doubts in my mind.In either case, I don’t think this was one of Congressman Paul’s better appearances. And I think it’s unlikely that he persuaded any of O’Reilly’s regular viewers to change their mind.

Further thoughts from Kevin @ The Liberty Papers

7 Responses to “Bill O’Reilly vs. Ron Paul”

  1. Sol Rosenberg says:

    I agree. I wish Dr. Paul had tried to change the subject. Something like “I’m concerned about Iran, but I’m even more concerned about …” Where “…” could be any of high taxes, high spending, high debt, or the Federal Reserve. Granted, O’Reilly probably wouldn’t have let him get a point across anyway.

  2. Next Dimensions says:

    I thought he did quite well actually, in spite of Bill’s pompous interrupting and blathering. Ron hit some good points and didn’t come across as the crack pot many people think he is. I thought it was funny when Bill said “I don’t need a history lesson here…” Um, actually Bill, you do. And everyone else does who thinks that the ‘terrorists’ are just ‘out to kill us’.

  3. Flo says:

    More people are watching everyday and Americans are finally seeing what some of us already knew. There is no real news. It’s only entertainment. With the exception of very few most tv today is more about programing what you think then giving you the real news and allowing you to decide.
    OReilly didn’t even give Paul a chance to truely answer the questions. He only wanted sound bites but we all knew it was going to be an attempted hit piece.

  4. Robert Standard says:

    I think you all are focusing too much on the text and not enough on the image. Ron Paul just did not come across very well. He was slouching. He mumbled, and did not express his thoughts well, certainly not concisely. I wish he would have just answered O’Reilly’s questions straightforwardly instead of dancing around the issues.

    And why is it that he always turns everything into a history lesson?

  5. Jeff says:

    Ron Paul did well considering O’Reilly was being a complete asshole. I’m sure before the interview O’Reilly said under his own breath, “I am going to tear this guy up” then patted himself on the back afterwards.

    Go Ron, keep it up, you have mine and my entire family’s vote all the way.

  6. Robert Micheal of the Saints says:

    I think I actually gained some more insight.

    Iran’s foriegn policy is to destroy the US and Isreal, again, that’s a given. But why? Again, one word “Occupation”, or as the good doctor says “blowback”

    All roads lead to bad foriegn policy. I believe if we do leave the middle east things will tone down. But of course if they don’t, we declare war and do what we have to.

    Also, good intelligence gathering is the key, if there is an imminant nuclear threat, the POTUS has authority to act. So if there are reports of Iranians training to do terrorism like the reports of 911, we best not ignore them.

    Dr Paul did well I think, for being cut off. They will try to attack him on this point again. I hope he will look at this interview like he was preparing for a sunday football game.

  7. polo says:

    Ron Paul doesn’t do so well in these kind of debates because he goes into too much detail and he is more inclined to teach rather than debate. Debates with someone like O Reilly are knock down drag out fights where whoever shouts the loudest and keeps accusing the other of wrongdoing, wins(no matter how stupid the accusation). Witness O Reilly’s debate with Geraldo. Geraldo knew OReillys game and had no qualms about playing it. He caught O Reilly off guard by attacking like a mad dog out the box and pretty much came off looking dominant. O Reilly tried to counter with some of his own mad dog but couldn’t work up enough froth and looked relieved when the ‘debate’ finally ended. Of course, nothing of substance was said which is typical of OReilly ‘debates’.

    Ron Paull, on the other hand, tries to explain his position. See…this doesn’t work on OReilly.

[Below The Beltway is proudly powered by WordPress.]