CBS's Nancy Giles Decries 'Bloodlust' of GOP Debate Crowd

During a prerecorded commentary on CBS Sunday Morning, left-wing CBS commentator Nancy Giles complained about the "bloodlust" of GOP audience members who applauded Texas's use of capital punishment at the recent MSNBC debate and a small number of audience members who applauded at Monday's CNN debate after moderator Wolf Blitzer asked if someone who chose not to purchase insurance should be allowed to die.

CBS played a clip of the exchanges but notably left out Rep. Ron Paul's answer to Blitzer's question as he argued that organizations like churches used to help provide health care before Medicaid existed, leaving Giles to give the impression that Rep. Paul had been unconcerned about the uninsured dying. Giles:

And between the let-the-uninsured-die crowd and presidential wannabe and physician Ron Paul. yeah, excuse me, Doctor, I'm not feeling a lot of that "first do no harm" jazz. Oh, I can picture their comforting bedside manner: Cancer? Tough luck. Get out of bed and come back when you can afford it.

During Giles's commentary, CBS showed the following exchange between Rep. Paul and Blitzer:

REP. RON PAUL (R-TX), WHILE AUDIENCE APPLAUDS: This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody.

WOLF BLITZER, MODERATOR FOR CNN DEBATE: But, Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE #1 IN AUDIENCE AS ONE OR TWO PEOPLE APPLAUD: Yeah!

PAUL: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE #2 IN AUDIENCE: Yeah!

Giles then jumped in:

And how about these guys? Applauding before Ron Paul answered the question. Now, I haven't been to church in years, but I seem to remember the question of, "Am I my brother's keeper?" and something about "Thou shall not kill."  So how is it that not one single candidate - some who claim their spirtuality has been a guiding force in their politics - how could they not challenge the applause and maybe suggest that their invited audience take a step back from the bloodlust?

But the clip did not include Rep. Paul's answer, which began:

I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid in the early 1960s after I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away [AUDIENCE APPLAUSE BEGINS]  from the hospital, and we've given up on this whole concept of we might take care of ourselves or assume responsibility for ourselves. Our friends, our neighbors, our churches would do it.

Below is a complete transcript of Nancy Giles's commentary from the September 18 CBS Sunday Morning, following by a clip of the relevant portion of the Monday, September 12, GOP debate from CNN:

#From the September 18 CBS Sunday Morning:

NANCY GILES: I've watched the two Republican Party debates, and something weird is going on in this audience.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, MODERATOR FOR MSNBC DEBATE: Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times. [AUDIENCE BEGINS APPLAUSE]

GILES: Applause at the number of people executed in Texas?

REP. RON PAUL (R-TX), WHILE AUDIENCE APPLAUDS: This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody.

WOLF BLITZER, MODERATOR FOR CNN DEBATE: But, Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE #1 IN AUDIENCE AS ONE OR TWO PEOPLE APPLAUD: Yeah!

PAUL: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE #2 IN AUDIENCE: Yeah!

GILES: And how about these guys? Applauding before Ron Paul answered the question. Now, I haven't been to church in years, but I seem to remember the question of, "Am I my brother's keeper?" and something about "Thou shall not kill."  So how is it that not one single candidate - some who claim their spirtuality has been a guiding force in their politics - how could they not challenge the applause and maybe suggest that their invited audience take a step back from the bloodlust?

I take it for granted that one of the founding principles of the United States is freedom to express an opinion. But, having said that, regardless of party affiliation, I can't imagine applauding at the idea of death, either mandated by lethal injection or from lack of medical insurance.

GILES: As we've all heard, there have been numerous instances of inmates that were on death row that have been ultimately proven innocent. In Governor Perry's home state, 12 death row inmates have been exonerated since 1973. Could they have missed more?

And you've probably heard that, just this past week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review the case of a Texas death row inmate because, during a sentencing hearing, a psychologist testified that blacks are more likely to commit violence.

And between the let-the-uninsured-die crowd and presidential wannabe and physician Ron Paul. yeah, excuse me, Doctor, I'm not feeling a lot of that "first do no harm" jazz. Oh, I can picture their comforting bedside manner: Cancer? Tough luck. Get out of bed and come back when you can afford it.

In any case, we're gearing up for another presidential campaign, and I guess the ideological lines have been drawn. Yes, there are red states and blue states, but there are a lot of other colors to this country. And, frankly, I'm still wondering what the clearance process was for the audience in these debates. I just can't believe they represent the entire Republican Party. I sure hope some of those other folks can get seats at the next debate and at the GOP's table and let their voices be heard.

#From the September 12 GOP debate on CNN:

WOLF BLITZER: You're a physician, Ron Paul. so you're a doctor. You know something about this subject, so let me ask you this hypothetical question: A healthy, young 30-year-old man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what, I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month in health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens. All of a sudden, he needs it. Who's going to pay for if he goes into a coma, for example. Who pays for that?

REP. RON PAUL (R-TX): In a society that you accept welfare-ism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of it.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself. But my advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not-

BLITZER: But he doesn't have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

PAUL: That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risk. This whole idea [AUDIENCE APPLAUSE BEGINS] that you have to prepare and take care of everybody.

BLITZER: But, Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE #1 IN AUDIENCE AS ONE OR TWO PEOPLE APPLAUD: Yeah!

PAUL: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE #2 IN AUDIENCE: Yeah!

PAUL: I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid in the early 1960s after I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away [AUDIENCE APPLAUSE BEGINS]  from the hospital, and we've given up on this whole concept of we might take care of ourselves or assume responsibility for ourselves. Our friends, our neighbors, our churches would do it.

This whole idea - that's the reason the cost is so high. The cost is so high because we dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy, it becomes special interest. It cowtows to the insurance companies, then the drug companies. Then, on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflatoin devalues the dollar. We have lack of competition. There's no competition in medicine. Everybody's protected by licensing. We should actually legalize alternative health care and allow people to practice what they want.