In Frustration, Presidential Candidates Turning to Late Night Talk Shows

As candidates and staff move out of New Hampshire and focus on presidential primaries in South Carolina, Nevada and beyond, the media's ability to predict and some say control the outcome of the presidential primaries appears to be less certain. News media were discussing how many primaries it would take for Hillary Clinton to drop out, and now that question seems possibly moot with her surprise win in New Hampshire. Expectations about Mitt Romney's future have been cast in doubt, and it appears that regional and even state-specific response to the candidates may be varying more than expected. With that in mind, the narrowing of mainstream media coverage is being seen as premature, and Fox News' selection of debate participants has also played a role in driving some candidates to other venues, including late night TV.

The late-night talk show hosts were back just in time to have Republican candidates on their shows on the night before the New Hampshire primary. Ron Paul appeared on Jay Leno's show, and Mike Huckabee was on Letterman's show. Both candidates are arousing curiosity because of their success - Huckabee's in the Iowa caucuses, and Ron Paul's in raising the largest amount of contributions, a result of the efforts of his large number of grassroots supporters. The big issue on both shows, one that has been growing over the last several presidential elections, was the fossilization of the major parties, and the public's growing disgust with the situation both in elections and in the paralysis of Congress. The candidates' late night appearances were an opportunity for the public to get to know candidates outside the filtered coverage of the news media.

Jay Leno welcomed Ron Paul onto his show with a question - why wasn't he invited to the New Hampshire debate by Fox News (a question that will likely be repeated for South Carolina), since he's as major a candidate as anyone else invited? Limitation of candidates invited at this point is likely based on the same polls and predictions that are proving to be highly unreliable. Paul smiled through his frustration, suggesting that perhaps his message deviates from the current standard, and sponsors didn't want to hear it. While Fox's motto of "Fair and Balanced" is frequently challenged and mocked by liberals, Paul suggested that if he had basis for a legal complaint, it would be fraud for putting forth that motto yet producing debates that were, in his opinion, neither.

Leno continued to voice his amazement at the omission of such a major candidate, and one who is representing a position that is clearly more traditional than the current Republican platform, focusing on Constitutional principles which Paul suggested was too much "waving a flag" for the Republican debate organizers. In fact, it was noted, New Hampshire Republicans had withdrawn their support for the debate. South Carolina appears to be presenting a similar situation as another Fox News debate is scheduled.

Leno and Paul discussed Mitt Romney, with Paul expressing regret that, in his opinion, Romney's religion was being treated as a liability. Paul noted that his position shifting or "flip-flopping" was a problem, and Leno suggested that, based on his experience as a former Massachusetts resident, Romney might be vying with Senator Ted Kennedy for most liberal.

Jay Leno asked Ron Paul about the money that was raised, which is usually in recent times an indicator that the candidate has powerful and rich supporters, a mixed blessing. Paul began to speak about "we," and then emphasized that "we" is really just that - the money is being raised by grassroots supporters.

After a break, Leno returned with two questions he had fielded in advance, one about who Ron Paul would select as a running mate if nominated, and one about which Democrat he would select. For the first question, Paul's answer was simple - whoever agrees with the principles on which he's been running. He mentioned Giuliani, suggesting that he is still somewhat confused about what causes terrorism, and explained his position that fifty years or so of American foreign policy in the middle east is coming home to roost, even though he lays the responsibility for terrorist acts with the terrorists themselves.

Paul had apparently provided books to Giuliani to "educate" him, and suggested that the former New York Mayor hadn't gotten around to reading them yet. Paul also used his standard argument of putting ourselves in the Islamic peoples' place by envisioning China with bases in the U.S., and taking measures to protect their oil supply. Questioned about the "surge," he appreciated the more peaceful situation in Iraq, but he suggested that the south of Iraq was stable but under the influence of Iran and the Sunni population. He expressed his concern that the U.S. will further extend into Pakistan, when budgets are not available for the current overextension. Leno piped up and remarked that the economy seemed to be a growing issue, and Paul spoke of the potential domestic benefits of the trillion dollars spent on the war.

Form the perspective of war funding and domestic budgets, Ron Paul returned to his basic "Constitution and founders' vision" concept of government, suggesting that those who created the American system of government were all to aware of the potential for runaway inflation, and that the ability to "print money" by vote in Washington without any basis in reality was a significant danger to national economic stability.

Leno asked if we, Americans, really want change. Paul replied that yes, the people do, but what kind? He offered his fundamental, Constitutional approach as the kind of radical change Americans need. Finally, Leno asked about which Democrat Paul would choose, and he said that Dennis Kucinich and he frequently talked about foreign policy, but that on economic policy, their views differed. Clearly frustrated by the debate in New Hampshire, Leno once again called it "blatantly unfair," and thanked Ron Paul for appearing on his show.

Switching channels, on the David Letterman show Mike Huckabee was winding up an interview, in which the same basic alarm was being sounded - that Washington is in paralysis, and it's going to take a more fundamental change, not of "horizontal" adjustments, but "vertical" raising of the country to a better status.

The two underlying themes of the election year, all but ignored by many major media but clearly sounded by some candidates and political organizations, is that the lockdown of Congress and the electoral process has to end. The results in Iowa, quickly "spun" by some organizations away from rejection of their platforms, elevated candidates who were both taking their own roads through the election to some degree. New Hampshire's results further confounded campaigns and media alike, and raised awareness that regional values may be responsible for Huckabee and McCain victories, and polling may be questionable on the Democrat side because of some respondents' reluctance to admit voting against a "minority" candidate, as they did in Clinton's surprise victory.

After the surprises in New Hampshire, the question is whether mainstream media will narrow their coverage further, or consider the possibilty that the public wants to hear the messages of candidates like Huckabee and Paul. Comments on the Fox News website indicate growing discontent with the network's debate choices. With Paul's growing campaign funding and less predictable state-to-state response to the candidates, surprises in South Carolina, Nevada and beyond could change the nature of mainstream coverage, or lead candidates to find other ways to reach the public.

www.mikehuckabee.com

www.ronpaul2008.com

www.foxnews.com