11 votes

Bret responds to Jon Stewart and Ron Paul supporters



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Try and handle and manage the audience? LOL

Good luck with that, Ron sat there hearing crickets with zero questions and once he gets some good debate going OF COURSE there is applause.

If you want to ask more questions stop the back and forth fake arguements with YOUR ASSumed front runners and let the real deal Ron Paul "the front runner" answer real questions.

Real questions are NOT answering why he would legalize heroin or why he is apparently racist or now odds are their next debate will have questions about this rick perry texas ad.

I mean people think this is reality tv (which it sadly is these days) but we are dealing with LIFE CHANGING elections here.

If ron is elected it would be a WORLDWIDE victory and not simply electing yet another evil flip flopper as usual.

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

Hard to tell what to believe

Hard to tell what to believe over there.

I saw Brett & Carl Cameron at the Iowa State Fair the day after

I saw this guy and Carl Cameron at the Iowa State Fair the day after the debate. Took a picture with them, shook their hands and thanked them for giving Dr Paul time to speak at the debate. YOU SHOULD'VE SEEN THE LOOK ON HIS FACE. My buddy that was with me got to see it. He is not being genuine here! They know exactly what they are doing when it comes to marginalizing our man - have no doubt about it.

r3VOLution Continues...

Bret, I will take you at your word.

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

I don't think he's too concerned with Jon Steward's fans... must be the Ron Paul "wolves" he wants to call off the attack.

Represent Dr Paul well folks.

Take care

....where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY. 2 Corinthians 3:17(b)

***wants are unlimited, means are scarce...***

they treat Ron unfair..

and then expect him not to be cheered when he is right?

Come on.. the media has absolutely NO credibility. They screwed us last time, and they are trying to screw us this time.

Its as simple as that. I have not yet heard one person... that listened to Ron Paul and didnt like him or believe him!!! Ive been campaigning for Ron for 4 years.

PEOPLE ARE REALLY COMING AROUND.

The media shot themselves in the foot on Iowa. The story is now why arent they covering Ron Paul.

Thank you JON STEWART!!!

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

The cheering crowd rejected the authoritarian commands of Hume?

He just can't help feeding Jon material. LOL

Free includes debt-free!

Where do you guys find this stuff

Nice work!

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

Bret

What is he getting all defensive about? He is merely doing what he is paid to do. I at least have a bit of respect for him because he is not a hypocrite. He should be mailing Stewart to explain his positions. This was not the first time he has hosted or co-hosted a debate with RP there. We remember how he was then and understand why there should not be any difference now.

Bret, it would be good of you just to admit you have pro-neo-con position and we all would accept you at face value. History will judge you, so do not worry about RP and his following today. Stay true to your colors or you will get lost and most likely loose your job.

donvino

Those that are

giving Bret the benefit of the doubt. OK the snirk can very well be what he said, but let's not forget him playing right along avoiding the mention of Ron Pauls name and talking about the top teir and even adding to that those who aren't running yet or did worse than Pawlenty. The one that dropped out. There was way more to Brets participation in the Faux bias than just a little smirk. Some are letting him off too easy by not pointing that out. If he thinks he is only being called out for a smirk he thinks he weasled his way by the things he really did wrong. I actually believe him about the smirk, but he did much worse.

Re: Those that are

Agreed the he could have 'fessed up to months of bias instead of just explaining the smirk. That doesn't change the fact that he did promise to cover Ron fairly in the future. If you are so offended by his past behavior that you won't exercise self-control for the rare opportunity to encourage better behavior of a Fox reporter, that's sad.

As I said elsewhere, mounting a savage attack on somebody who has just promised to treat you better is low-minded, and it encourages Bret and all other reporters to ignore the implacable Ron Paul supporters.

Fox News...

...chagrined... lost control of the audience. Hmmmmm.....

No honest, thinking, moral

American with any ethical bone in his body could keep quiet at Ron Paul's passionate response regarding another war (with a country that has the backing of Russia - if that doesn't add insult to injury. Pay attention to the press that Putin is getting as of late.)

All wars are fought for money. – Socrates

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

It's called

Lame Stream Media

...for a reason.

THE MORE I LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT
THE MORE I LOVE MY GUNS
FourWindsTradingPost

First hand account

hi all. I was actually at the debate and can tell you that Bret asked the audience to hold their applause until the end so they can get more questions in. I personally did that for the first hour, but it took the panel 31 minutes to ask Dr. Paul a single question. By the time we got to the point in the debate where Bret "smirked" I had said to myself "screw this. They don't want to get more questions in. They want to get more questions in for Romney, Bachmann and TPaw!". So, I started cheering and am guessing all of the other Paul supporters were thinking along those lines. I can only speak for myself though. Keep that in mind for the next debate. If they don't try and screw Dr. P again it's because they know they'll hear from the RP nation.
At the IA Straw Poll Doug Wead (awesome) said he was upset about RP not being asked a question in the first 31 minutes because most people turn off the debate after the first 15. I don't know if that's true, but believe it. If you want to be upset about something, and there's plenty to be TO'd about, it's 31 minutes and not Bret's smirk. I actually believe him. Please don't read this as a support for Bret. Just my opinion of what really happened.

I was there too and I agree.

I was there too and I agree.

Bret Deserves a Chance

From the first time I saw that when it was live, I could see that Bret was concerned about losing control of heated arguments between debaters and of the audience, but there just wasn't enough shown to more than "guess" what he was disturbed about. Since his management of the debate was very fair (especially compared to the 2008 race debates), I thought it wise to withhold judgment about him.

I think it both small-minded and counter-productive to outright reject somebody who has just promised to give you a fair hearing. He is a Fox reporter, so nobody will be surprised if it turns out that he is lying through his teeth, and he could sell out even if he was sincere when making that apology. But he has apologized, so let's withhold the venom until and if he shows himself to be duplicitous. His "excuse" is acceptable-- he would be called out by witnesses if he had not in fact had trouble managing the audience. Have you considered how valuable it would be to have another popular Fox personality who was fair to Ron?... That would be awesome. Retaliating in this fashion without any basic social restraints will discourage both Bret and all other reporters from treating us fairly.

I hope that the people attacking him in this thread will not share their hate with Bret or with the public at large. It's quite unattractive to be unforgiving, and when you do so in public venues (including here at DP), it does not reflect well on our movement, or indirectly on Ron Paul. Even if Bret is totally lying, some of the posts here show a neanderthalic lack of sophistication, for example voicing opinions that he is "ugly". Do you think that totally inappropriate ad Hominems have any positive effect other than to people beyond the reach of rational argumentation?

A lot is uncertain in this episode, but this is not: Bret was more civil, both when hosting the debate and in his apology, than several of the participants in this Topic discussion are.

I sent him this email:

Hi Bret,

Thanks for the response to our emails re. Jon Stewart, and the invitation to keep them coming.

I would urge you to keep a keen eye on the Ron Paul campaign. Don't get influence by the knuckleheads who can't think for themselves.

Ron Paul’s presidential campaign in 2007/8 was quite extraordinary. It built momentum from the summer of 2007 and well into the summer of 2008, right up to time of the GOP National Convention, an event from which the Politburo banned Ron Paul. No problem. His supporters held their own convention, bigger, better and more liberating, just next door to the GOP’s flophouse.

This campaign is no different, except it is starting to feel like “February 2008,” but it is only the beginning. Hold onto your seat and do yourself a favor, follow the campaign closely. Never again in our lifetime.

The other candidates are running side shows compared to what Ron Paul has to dish up. It's electric. It's energizing. It's educational. It's a revolution.

You know what? We don't care a hoot about the GOP. We won't vote for anybody else. In today's Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove, discusses the campaign and makes no mention of Ron Paul - just one example. Why should we feel any loyalty towards the GOP? We didn't vote for McCain and we won't vote for the next neo-con. Besides, my bet is Ron Paul runs as an Independent. He has huge support among Independents (not covered in the phony GOP polls). He has a strong base among the Republicans. The disenchanted anti-war Democrats are also flocking to him. He doesn't need the GOP. He's got the White House sewn up. The media is clueless.

Kind regards,

(signed)

PS Daily Paul is a good place to keep track of the Ron Paul troublemakers, the revolutionaries.

Cambridge-educated Koerner (urging Democrats to join the Ron Paul revolution):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/media-mainstream...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/americas-not-far...

Plano TX

Re: I sent him this...

Well stated.

I don't know, but I recently reprised the question (here at DP) about an Independent run, and I think the majority opinion here is to dedicate fully to the Republican ticket.

I don't know if the DP sentiment is the same as that of Ron Paul supporters at large.

bigmikedude's picture

Hey Brett.. I have an idea..

let's count the number of mentions of candidates on FOX TV and FOX's websites since Paul announced.

I bet Ron Paul doesn't have half as many mentions as Rick Perry and Sarah Palin (who isn't even in the race).

I'd bet he doesn't even have as many mentions as the candidates that polled FAR below him.

In fact I'd bet that before Rick Perry even entered the race he had more FOX articles about him than Paul, who was legitimately in the race.

Then let's count the number of positive and negative words and phrases in each story and segment for each candidate.

Let's take it one step further and see how many times Paul has been cancelled, edited out, and/or "technical difficultied" vs. the other candidates.

I have a hunch that after the final tabulations "fair and balanced" and FOX's credibility will be totally out the window.

No applause, please, because

No applause, please, because we want to control the narra...I mean because we want to ask the front runners more quest......I mean our bosses have their own agendas :(

"Inability to control the audiance"

Hey Bret, you little piss ant pundit, you can't control the voters either.

Any Youtube version

Any Youtube version available?

The tides are changing!

Send him the youtube

of him agreeing with the other talking heads about who the frontrunners are and never metioning Ron Paul. The smirk was nothing. He has been just as biased as his buddy Wallace.

Brett Baier's Assurance

"want to reassure you that we are going to cover this election fairly....but some candidates will be covered more 'fairly' than others."

Nice post!

This goes to show that our emails did work! He got enough of them he felt he had to make a response he says they will cover it fairly..only time will tell... but Thanks for the post good job to everyone who email about it and remember

I am voting for Ron Paul in 2012!!

Don't Let a Pretty Face Fool You

Blah, blah, blah. I know he's pretty but seriously. Whenever any of "their" candidates get an applause there is no smirking. Besides, the only reason why they don't like the applause is because it is now a Pro-Paul applause. When Rudy attacked Paul in 07' and even other times mainstream candidates received an applause they never smirked. If it were Chris Wallace saying this we would never buy it. Remember, when Wallace said, "There's now a top tier in this race of Romney, Perry and Bachmann" Bret Bair said, "And I think that's fair to say."

rp311

Hah.. I got a big laugh, thanks muchly!

Bret has *the* quintessential troll-face. I don't think he has the ability to frown, only grin harder.

pretty?

IMHO that guy is Pretty damn ugly actually

Fair enough.

Sounds reasonable to me and no way to prove otherwise.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Haha

Haha i didn't know you guys emailed him...try not to be too hard on some of these guys. Bret Biar and Chris Wallace are actually pretty nice this time around.