Several days ago, I published three articles (see 1, 2, 3), regarding the Little Green Footballs smear, which attempted to tie Ron Paul to an attention-hungry member of a white supremacist group. The first article explained why the “corroborating evidence” on Little Green Footballs made the entire claim absurd. The next two articles criticized New York Times writer, Virginia Heffernan for perpetuating the smear. My arguments were (1) Heffernan should have looked into the “corroborating evidence” at Little Green Footballs because it clearly bore no substance and (2) that Heffernan should have researched the more-recent updates which refute the entire connection. mistake), but credible, respected Republicans have lined up to support Congressman Paul’s platform. The Barry Goldwater family has altogether endorsed Ron Paul ((Goldwater). Pat Buchanan calls Paul “courageous” and makes Paul’s case all over the pundit circuit see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). John McLaughlin repeatedly distinguishes Paul above other GOP candidates, and named him “Person of the Year” (see 1, 2).  Andrew Sullivan and Tucker Carlson have both endorsed Ron Paul. Wall Street traders back Paul to the degree of going insane when Paul takes Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to task.  The zany Jim Cramer spent a half-hour agreeing with Paul about the Federal Reserve. Even liberal commentators, who have been starved for real intellectual opposition over the last eight years, are defending Ron Paul. That includes Eleanor Clift’s prediction of a New Hampshire surprise and an outright endorsement by Rob Kall, editor-in-chief of OpEdNews.com.

 The New York Times agreed. In the wake of a surge of corrections and criticisms about Heffernan’s article, a New York Times’ editor posted a retraction. admitting, “The post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.”  That is probably a fair concession, but it is more noteworthy that the Times could have determined for itself that the story was weak without a response from Paul. The Times can still reconcile with the 200,000-plus Paul supporters by posting a single positive article. After their saturation-coverage of the other candidates, there is no excuse not to; Paul is now in the double digits in Iowa and the frontrunner in Alaska (don’t laugh, that’s one more state than McCain has).

The Times’ retraction demonstrates that the original conservative branch of the Republican Party is still a force, perhaps even more so than the neoconservative and theoconservative branches. Mainstream outlets were not nearly so sensitive before Paul’s supporters donated 25 million dollars to his campaign. Much of the press still paints these supporters as fringe misfits (see Hugh Hewett being embarrassed for this

Perhaps the best testaments to Paul’s success are his polling numbers. They’re easy to dismiss, but consider this: When Paul came to this race he had no money, press coverage, or campaign infrastructure, much-less impetus. With nothing but an idea, he motivated over 200,000 people to circumvent the mainstream press and donate $27 Million total to his campaign. They created the largest grassroots movement in history and broke fundraising records with every drive. They did all of this without money from interest groups, PACs, the military industrial complex, and without blessings from the Republican Party or the mainstream press. When bloggers complain that supporters bombard them with angry letters for misrepresenting Paul, they misunderstand the nature of political power; the people rather than the press have the power on the internet. And Ron Paul is the new populist.

The mainstream is starting to appreciate this, but Fox News is slowest on the uptake. Cleaving to the neoconservative ideology on which it has staked its reputation, it has stepped up its criticism of Paul in time for the primaries. Here, Bill Kristol was allowed to run rough shot over Paul’s platform, claiming that Paul opposed both World Wars, that he hates America, and that he is a “crackpot”  – of course, he cited no evidence. Bill Maher poignantly explained that Kristol should have lost all credibility with the electorate after 8 years of being disastrously wrong on foreign policy saying, “You cannot call yourself a think-tank when all of your ideas are stupid” He also asked Kristol to "sit this one out”, regarding the claim that an Iran invasion would be treated as a liberation. For libertarians and more conservatives, Kristol and his Fox News ilk are finally confirming old liberal charges that Fox holds a myopic world-view and employs seething, ad hominem attacks to maintain it.

The conservative news media is running the increasing risk of becoming a parody of itself. The New York Times may have slipped by letting a television critic comment on politics, but Fox News insists on embarrassing itself with its big guns. A rebuttal to Kristol used to require a complex ideological argument, but now it just requires observation. Fox's decision to cut Paul out of the forthcoming roundable is transparent malice now that Paul is polling higher than some of the invitees. Americans are turning away from Fox for the definition of “conservative” and a new generation of Republicans is turning to the Goldwater-Paul approach. Fox can continue to grant more airtime to criticisms of Ron Paul than to Paul himself if they please. They can even insist that he restrict himself to one-word answers (yes, seriously). But if the best they can muster are rebuttals to Paul’s academic criticisms of Lincoln, who is going to care? Viewers are more likely to watch Fox break itself against a rock for the sheer spectacle. 

Fair Use Notice: This Post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107