I have to admit that I was worried when I read that Ron Paul was going to be on the The O’Reilly Factor. Don’t mistake this as a sign of doubt about Ron Paul. It is no secret that Bill controls almost every interview, especially if he truly dislikes you, and will interrupt you while answering if what you’re saying is not to his liking.
The show started with a segment on General Petraeus and his report to Congress. He proclaimed that the security situation in Iraq has improved and we need to stay in until next year.
The Interview
O’Reilly started out asking Paul about a comment he made at last weeks debate in regards to withdrawing troops from the Arabian Peninsula.
O’Reilly: Do you fear Iran intruding on the whole Persian Gulf if the Uniated States left the region?
Paul: I think our policy is leading to that
..talk about CIA in Iran and our policies..
Paul: Our policy is doing everything conceivable to enhance Iran. Just the whole invasion of Iraq has helped Iran.. [*interrupted*]
O’Reilly: Well that may or may not be true.
Paul: Well I think it’s pretty [true].
O’Reilly went on and asked Paul if we were to pull out of the region, wouldn’t that just give Iran the ability to do whatever they want.
Paul: I think you’re concerned about the wrong country right now because more than half of the al Qaeda that are committing suicide [attacks] right now are Saudis and no one even talks about that.
..Ron Paul interrupted when O’Reilly cuts him off to go into nuclear weapon talk..
Paul: Wait, please let me answer.
I really wish he would have given Ron Paul a little more time to finish what he had to say. He hasn’t been able to answer a single question yet. You can start to see the frustration build up in Paul. Who can blame him? I was getting frustrated just watching.
O’Reilly asks again, putting emphasis on nuclear weapons in Iran, that if we pull out too early won’t Iran do whatever they want to do. As Paul starts to answer he is quickly interrupted again.
Paul: Why don’t you ever let me answer the question?
O’Reilly: Because you never answer the question, sir.
How can you answer a question when you’re constantly cutoff when you try to?
Probably my favorite moment of the night. Paul goes into a quick history lesson of Iran starting in 1953 where he is again interrupted.
O’Reilly: We don’t need a history lesson.
Paul: But, you have to understand, you have to understand the history. If you don’t understand the history you can’t *interrupted* [expect to fix the situation now].
What’s the old saying? Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it? They go back and forth a few times as Ron Paul talks about blowback. Like last week’s debate, O’Reilly this time misquotes Ron Paul when he asks..
O’Reilly: You didn’t even want to go into Afghanistan to punish those people did you?
Paul: You’re wrong. Bill, you’re wrong on that. I voted for that, so you be careful on your quotes.
The interview ends with Ron Paul saying how our current policy in the Middle Easy is putting our national security at more risk.
My Thoughts
Ron Paul didn’t seem like the candidate I’ve seen in countless interviews. He seemed uncomfortable with not being face-to-face with O’Reilly. He also looked very tired and worn out. I imagine being on the road constantly can be a strain on any person regardless of age. Unlike the media favorite GOP candidates, a grassroots candidate has a lot more work to put into a campaign. If he is going to make it through another year of campaigning he better start getting some rest.
I’ve watched countless interviews with him and I feel that this is probably one of his worst interviews. Let me explain though. For being on The O’Reilly Factor I feel that Ron Paul did rather well. I’ve seen many people fail on that show. Though frustrated, he kept his cool and went on to the next question. So when I say it is the worst, it was because he rarely was given the chance to fully answer any questions. One of Paul’s strong points is that he is a very intelligent person and is well-rounded in regards to all issues.
All in all, could have been better, could have been worse. I hope that the other networks will give him some more air time and won’t be as bias. I look forward to September 27th. PBS is running the next GOP debate. I’ll tell you one thing though. If PBS shows a bias towards a candidate, I think the universe will collapse. 
I was very frustrated after watching that interview last night… I should have just waited for it to be posted here so i didn’t give Fox News the ratings.
The worst part by far was Mr. O’s inability to let his guest answer a single question without him being cut off. I half wished that RP would have more or less side tracked the interview and moved it into a debate regarding Oreilly’s methods of operation. Ron did look very tired in the debate. It was the first thing I noticed as well.
I think this hurts more than helps, because the vast majority of people still watching Mr. O after years of watching his cowboy BS have lost to many brain cells to respond to anything over “shut up” and “cut his mic” jerry springer crap.
I agree. While it probably would have hurt Ron Paul if he avoided going on the show, it really didn’t help him.
We’ll see what happens.
Hi,
I actually watched that interview, and I guess my frustration with Ron Paul was that, even with other concerns included, you still ought to be able to throw the comment in, “yes I am concerned with nuclear weapons in Iran, and I think (xyz) will happen if/when we leave, but…”
I really got no indication that he was going to do anything except complain about other related policies, all of which is relevant but not to the point.
He’s going to have to learn not to get flustered and find smoother transitions to what he actually wants to talk about. O’Reilly can get away with interrupting people like Ron Paul because, frankly, it sounds like dodging when you are asked one question and begin to answer another.
My two cents.
O’Reilly doesn’t let his guests - the ones that disagree with him - answer questions, because it is not his intent to “discuss” issues, but to propagate his view of things - which really can’t stand up to scrutiny. That’s his “No Spin Zone” - meaning “I speak the truth, and if you disagree with me you’re ’spinning’ the facts.
This reminds me so very much of the “I don’t play games” cultural phenomena of the ’60’s and ’70’s. (google: “song the games people play” or “john lennon lyrics just give me some truth”). What began as a serious attempt to get some straight talk from people - primarily the Nixon administration - quickly devolved into every “Right-On” slime-ball in any type of relationship (personal or business, but especially personal) insisting “I don’t Play games” which translated into “I don’t play by any set of rules except my own. I’m not going to tell you what those rules are. I reserve the right to change any of those rules at any time to my advantage. If you happen to discern any of those rules they don’t apply to me in any case.
O’Reilly’s take on that: “the “Facts” are what I say they are. I will not reveal those “Facts” to you, I will only make statements that allude to them. I reserve the right to alter those “Facts” as I see fit. If you happen to discern what lies beneath my statements, you may not use it to counter my arguments in any case, as you then are simply “spinning the facts”.
Reread Mark’s post with this in mind and the incongruities disappear.
Anyone who still thinks O’Reilly is a conservative with the best interest of Americans in mind, or that he is truly a “no spin zone” most likely does not have enough brain cells to follow the intelligence and integrity of Ron Paul anyway.