G4's "Attack of the Ron Paul"

G4 television attacks Ron Paul, alienates viewer base.

Kevin Pereira, co-host of G4's popular "Attack of the Show", was caught this week displaying blatant ignorance in a failed on-air joke. After showing a clip of Giuliani in the Fox Republican Debate where the moderator called Giuliani out for "being the only one on this stage that is against the war in Iraq" (implying that he is the only anti-war Republican candidate, which is untrue since Ron Paul is also anti-war), Pereira tries eliciting humor by saying that it is contradictory for Ron Paul to be running for president "since he is anti-government."

It is obvious that Pereira missed out on a few United States history lessons, and knows nothing about Paul's campaign. As G4's viewers know, Ron Paul is not "anti-government." He advocates returning to the vision our forefathers had for the federal government, which is a small federal government with most of the power left to the individual states. Ron Paul does not support disbanding the federal government, just shrinking its power, which is all important after the many executive orders and bills of dubious legality that President Bush signed while he was in office. A president has the power to control the size of the federal government, so it makes plenty of sense for Paul to be running for president.

It is also obvious that Pereira is out of touch about his target audience. G4 is a gamers television network with a target audience of males ages 13-35 who are informed, or want to be informed, about technology. This demographic happens to also be the same people who visit TechCrunch. According to the TechCrunch primaries, 70% of the Republicans in this demographic will vote for Ron Paul.

I suggest that Pereira study up before going on the air again.

What New Hampshire Means to Paul's Campaign

Last night Paul received 8% of the vote in the NH primaries, after last week receiving 10% in Iowa. The two results, despite close numbers, mean different things. In Iowa, it showed that Paul could beat a "front-runner" like Giuliani and was therefore a formidable competitor. In New Hampshire, the results show that Paul is right alongside "front-runners" Huckabee and Giuliani (who both received more votes than Paul, but all three stayed within 3% of each other). McCain, the winner in NH, only received 3% more votes than Paul in Iowa.

What does all this mean? The Republican party is fractured. A number like 10% sounds low, but when the overall winner is lucky to reach 35%, 10% is actually really high. The Iowa and New Hampshire results show that Paul has a real chance in this election, but he needs to pick up some key states to get his delegate numbers up.

You're what?

I was quite disturbed tonight to read the political views of a close friend of mine, another Ron Paul supporter, a lover of God, but a misguided conservative on a quest to attack liberalism.

Why are you a conservative? Because of your religion? Let me clear up your misconceptions about liberals and show you what a liberal you truly are:

Alternative Fuels: You want us to be energy independent, and agree that our dependence on Middle Eastern oil has put us in a bad economical position. That's a liberal point of view.

Capital Punishment: Your belief in the Lord causes you to question the typical conservative view here.

Censorship: You think it's the parents job to protect the children.

Bush/Cheney: You're tired of secret societies maintaining the status quo. That's so far off in left field!

Electoral College: You would like to see it abolished.

Flag Burning: You don't think it hurts anyone.

Foreign Policy: You don't see Islam as a moral threat and support philanthropy overseas in developing nations.

Global Warming: You consider yourself a "greenist" and support recycling.

Globalization: You're against RFID implants and national driver licenses.

Healthcare: You question what the government knows about the needs of the citizen.

Illegal Immigration: You support the children.

Marijuana Legalization: You don't support harsh punishments.

Social Security: You want to see it someday.

Stem Cell Research: You're not against it.

Taxes: Against the personal income tax.

The Constitution: You think we should follow it.

These are all stances that modern liberals rally for. Granted, there were several other issues that you do hold a conservative position on, but I believe you're supporting the wrong camp if your religion is really guiding you here. I encourage you to take a step back and think Independently about everything. You admit that you're not a Republican even though you're registered as one, and you're certainly not a Democrat, so what are you?

Such are the limitations of our two party society. Anyone thinking "outside of the box" and taking into consideration multiple view points on many different issues, resulting in a mix of conservative and liberal beliefs, is left with only two choices come election time: go with one half of your beliefs, or go with the other. Which half is more important that given year? Such a voter is rarely given the chance to support someone who personifies all of their beliefs. And that's why (ignoring the Electoral College for a moment) you see middle class America causing so much turnover in our political system. Every fourteen years or so the majority in the Congress changes hands, the voters are made empty promises, and after a decade or so of little progress it changes hands again. The polarization is what is causing America to fall behind in the world of democracies that it started: we fixed the systems for everyone else but left our own broken democracy in place unexamined.

What are your thoughts? Can the two party system succeed in modern society, should third parties be introduced to the mix, or should parties be abolished all together, allowing individual politicians to stand out in the crowd based on their merit alone? Comment below.