After huge volume of complaints, Fox reporter was forced to do-over post debate breakdown revealing that Ron Paul blitzed the debate in every category

Steve Watson

Prisonplanet.com

January 17, 2012





The dirty tricks campaign against GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul reached new heights during the South Carolina debate last night, with virtual exclusion from the first 40 minutes of the program, poisonous questions in the second half, and a cringe inducing situation during the post debate analysis where Fox pundits were forced to admit that Paul had completely wiped the floor with the other candidates.

During the post debate commentary, Fox reporter John Roberts blatantly excluded Paul from the charts and graphs he presented representing feedback from viewers.

The results of Twitter surveys on which candidate had most accurately answered questions and who had performed the best were displayed with Ron Paul’s name nowhere to be seen.

Almost one hour later, Roberts was called upon to go over the results one more time, after floods of complaints from viewers asking why Paul had been left out.

“John, you caused a fury in my world.” Fox anchor Harris Faulkner began. “I have a bone to pick with you. You left off Ron Paul.” she added, before Roberts attempted to slime out of the fact hat he had totally excluded Paul from his results tally by saying that because Ron Paul won by huge margins in every category, it was unnecessary to report on it!

Roberts then went through each debate topic again with Paul added to the graphic. As he explained the result Roberts downplayed and skipped over Ron Paul’s figures in every category, causing Harris Faulkner to interject.

“John, can I stop you right there because I’m getting real time feedback.” Faulkner said. “Ron Paul did not just do well, he did the best from that chart. I just want to be fair because people are watching for this.” she added.

Roberts then laughed out loud and flippantly said “his bars are bigger than everyone else’s, we report you decide.” before once again mocking Paul’s performance as he continued the presentation.

Watch the unbelievable footage below:

The fact that Ron Paul was the outright winner of the debate was remarkable, given the fact that the moderators had done their utmost to exclude, smear and misrepresent the Congressman earlier in the night.

The opening portion of the debate was exclusively reserved for Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to attack frontrunner Mitt Romney in an atmosphere that more resembled The Jerry Springer show than a coherent political debate.

Refraining from joining in with such pantomime ridiculousness, Ron Paul patiently waited to be addressed by the moderators… and waited… and waited.

Indeed, during the first 40 minutes Ron Paul was only asked one question, and that was about “scathing attacks” on the other candidates in campaign ads. Refusing to be drawn into what was rapidly becoming something resembling an opening segment of WWE Smackdown, Paul succinctly noted that he believed pointing out legitimate flaws in the other candidates voting records was fair game.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

{openx:106}

As the exclusion of Paul continued, it even triggered a commercial break discussion between the Fox political panel about how Paul was being sidelined. Analyst Ed Rollins commented, “I thought Paul placed second in New Hampshire and was effectively second in Iowa – but they’ve got him standing way over on the side.”

When Paul was finally asked further questions, they were so leading and laced with underlying venom it defied belief.

With almost every question the Congressman had to begin his answer by correcting the moderators for grossly distorting his position on multiple issues.

Firstly, Paul had to once again explain that there is a significant difference between “defense spending” and Pentagon waste, and that he is not about to decimate military funding, as the moderators suggested.

“You don’t understand there’s a difference between military spending and defense spending. Just because you spend — spend a billion dollars on an embassy in Baghdad bigger than the Vatican — you consider that defense spending. I consider that waste.” Paul said to thunderous applause.

“I want to cut military money. I don’t want to cut defense money,” Paul said. “I want to bring the troops home. I’d probably have more bases here at home. We were closing them down in the 1990s and building them overseas. That’s how we got into trouble. So we would save a lot more money and have a stronger national defense, and that’s what we should do,” he contended.

Following that, Fox Moderator Bret Baier then essentially called Paul a terrorist-sympathizer by suggesting that he was opposed to the capture of Osama Bin Laden and that international law should have prevented US forces from tracking Bin Laden down.

“Obviously no, and I did not say that.” Paul retorted, explaining that he voted for provisions to go after Bin Laden following 9/11, and even introduced legislation to keep focused on the target, rather than become embroiled in nation building.

Paul then explained that “there are proper procedures, rather than digging bigger holes for ourselves”, noting that a ten year campaign of bombing Pakistan and repeatedly violating their sovereignty was not something he supported.

Watch all of Ron Paul’s debate answers below:

——————————————————————

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

The Emergency Election Sale is now live! Get 30% to 60% off our most popular products today!