Fox News Excluding Ron Paul from the January 6th GOP Debate.

[Gronkus]

***Just Released from the Official Ron Paul Campaign***

DIGG THIS http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Has_f ... d_Ron_Paul
December 28, 2007 10:39 pm EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – According to the New Hampshire State Republican Party and an Associated Press report, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul will be excluded from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be broadcast by Fox News on January 6, 2008.

“Given Ron Paul’s support in New Hampshire and his recent historic fundraising success, it is outrageous that Dr. Paul would be excluded,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul has consistently polled higher in New Hampshire than some of the other candidates who have been invited.”

Snyder continued, “Paul supporters should know that we are continuing to make inquiries with Fox News as to why they have apparently excluded Dr. Paul from this event.”
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releas ... d-ron-paul







EDIT: to fix linkseses

[araby]

GOD DAMMIT!!!!

I am so angry about this. I have called into every talk radio station to let them know that I am tired of their attitudes about the candidates, every one of them! Of course they are allowed to have their opinions, but with Sean Hannity on the stop Hillary Express, and Huckabee all of a sudden getting attention when he's not even who the Republicans think he is http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A37946 I am honestly frustrated that the media can't be more responsible and fair during campaigns.

The truth is that the campaigns themselves are messy...Huckabee claims to be leading a "clean" one, and maybe he is, but the rest certainly aren't. I think Ron Paul's campaign is rocking! Fred Thompson supposedly has the lead in SC, but how can Huckabee AND Thompson be leading?? Then they don't know what to say about Guiliani other than to complain about his three marriages and Romney now is surrounded by religious talk, while everyone pardons the good Reverend Huckabee. They don't know what else to say about McCain except that he can win against Hillary!! It's making me ill..because NOW they're retracting ALL the love for Huckabee based on his press release today about the assassination of Bhutto http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=980 because they apparently omitted part of it...how convenient.

A caller complained to Don yesterday who's filling in for Bill O'Reilly that they aren't reporting fairly about the candidates and I was frantically calling to agree, I even had to yell at the radio "YES YOU ARE, YEEEESSSS YOU AAAAAARRRE" when Don said "I am not and neither is anyone else, shutting candidates out of the race" as my phone was giving me busy signals.

That's exactly what they've been doing from the start! since the first debate! Guiliani threw the attention away from Ron Paul by demanding an apology from him when he did not owe one!! The analysts were on RIGHT AWAY to let you know who won the debate...they wanted to count Ron Paul out from the beginning.

The media is horrible. I am angry with the media. I hate that so many people will make their decisions based on the analysts, and polls, and what they are given through the media. Pay attention yourselves!!! I cannot stress that enough. They are constantly fumbling to try to correct mistakes they make, based on their projections...therefore THEY WIN because they constantly have something to "report"!

Two weeks ago in South Carolina all I heard was "Obama" and "Thompson" and now I'm getting "Huckabee" and Thompson signs only just went up this week!! Their campaign hasn't even been moving!! There is NO WAY they can report these things right now...only half of the registered voters actually vote in the primaries anyway!!

[KaiineTN]

Fox is calling it a "forum" and not a debate for the 6th. What exactly is the difference? He definitely is going to be included on the Facebook debate on the 5th, at least. I have a feeling that will attract a larger audience. Any people who watch the Fox forum alone probably are Fox fanboys and not too keen on Ron Paul anyways.

[Yamori]

Wow, that pisses me off.

Apparently being the best financed republican candidate isn't enough.

I shouldn't expect anything better of the treacherous mainstream media at this point I suppose... But still. :\

[Evermore]

they cant stand it that he owns everyone on these debates and now have taken to trying to ignore him to squash his campaign

[Lueyen]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD8TQ2N282

GOP candidates to meet in N.H. forum

WASHINGTON (AP) — The New Hampshire Republican Party is sponsoring a forum for Republican presidential candidates on Jan. 6, two days before the state's first-in-the-nation primary.

The forum, where the candidates will be questioned by Fox New Channel's Chris Wallace, will be held a day after ABC holds back to back Democratic and Republican presidential debates.

"Never underestimate New Hampshire voters' appetite for politics," said Fergus Cullen, the chairman of the state Republican Party.

Participating in the forum will be Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.

Unlike a debate, the candidates will face questions from Wallace around a table in a studio on the campus of St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H.. The 90-minute encounter will air live beginning at 8 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel and on Fox News Radio.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows five candidates within six percentage points of the lead in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination. Not only are the top five candidates very close, 14% of voters remain undecided. With just days to go before the unpredictable Iowa caucuses, it’s Rudy Giuliani 19% , Mike Huckabee 17%, Mitt Romney 14%, John McCain 14%, and Fred Thompson at 13% (see recent daily numbers). Ron Paul currently attracts 6% of Likely Republican Primary voters nationwide.

It's due to numbers, not some conspiracy.

[Arlos]

I am still boggled that people really believe that there is some vast worldwide (or at least continent-wide) conspiracy of journalists and media outlets who's sole dedication is to somehow control... well, what they're after is never really quite enunciated, except to imply they're either leftist or anti-some politician, etc. Given that groups as small as 7-10 are considered too large to keep a secret or avoid infiltration, the idea that there are tens of thousands of people involved in a secret conspiracy is simply ludicrous.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

Here just put this on and all will become clear Arlos:



To be fair I don't think anyone here was really claiming a huge conspiracy, but that is the charge that is running rampant surrounding the issue.

[Arlos]

Wasn't just this thread. Was also referring to the one a bit ago where Ouchyfish was effectively claiming there is a vast Dark Journalist conspiracy to totally slant all news reporting to the radical left. Well, except of course for that beacon of Purity and Truth, Fox News, which is somehow immune to infiltration by those nefarious plotters of the wicked, vile Leftist Fifth Columnist newspeople.

It made absolutely no logical sense whatsoever, but he was convinced of it, in the absence of anything resembling proof. Well, unless you count news media reporting facts even when they're unpopular with the Right to be overwhelming proof..... Somehow, I don't.

This is how I pictured Ouchyfish during that debate:


-Arlos

[araby]

I don't have a home phone, I have a cell phone.
I wonder how many people in NH have cell phones, and no home phone that will vote.

What numbers are they going by? Internet polls?

[Lueyen]

I doubt they are going by internet polls, which tend to be subject to error due to "quick go vote for your guy or gal here:" on various other websites. They likely are calling registered voters via phone, and most likely land lines Araby. I have both a cell and land lines and didn't get a call myself .

[Yamori]

I am still boggled that people really believe that there is some vast worldwide (or at least continent-wide) conspiracy of journalists and media outlets who's sole dedication is to somehow control... well, what they're after is never really quite enunciated, except to imply they're either leftist or anti-some politician, etc. Given that groups as small as 7-10 are considered too large to keep a secret or avoid infiltration, the idea that there are tens of thousands of people involved in a secret conspiracy is simply ludicrous.

-Arlos

Well I think the more simple answer is that Fox News is littered with neo-conservatives all over and they hate libertarianism, so those people don't like Ron Paul and will neglect or dismiss him if they're in the position to do so because they think he's an insignificant nutjob from their perspective. Not really much of a conspiracy. But it does have the end result of stifling an obviously major runner and cock-blocking a potentially huge visibility boost, which is pretty shitty.

[araby]

Here is a full list of Fox News Tele numbers and e-mails. Please contact them and insist that they stop this ban of Ron Paul. It is one thing that they continually harangue him in the most vial ways but now this. We won't take it anymore!

Also, if that isn't bad enough, think about this video and how free speech is being stolen under the gleeful, imbecilic eyes of the Bush Administration.

From the campaign:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-rele...

Paul has raised about $20 million, will likely place high (or win) the Iowa caucuses, is in double digits in many polls---and they think they can exclude him at THIS point?

Of course Fox should realize, this means war. Start contacting people NOW everyone (Or wait til Monday, when they're all back at work):

1211 Avenue of Americas, 8th Floor,
NY, NY 10036
Phone: 212-852-7000
Web: http://www.newscorp.com

Primary Press Contact: Teri Everett, Senior Vice President
Corporate Affairs & Communications
Phone: 212-852-7647
E-Mail: teverett@newscorp.com

Brian Lewis, Executive Vice President
Corporate Communications
Phone: 212-301-3331
Fax: 212-819-0816
E-Mail: brian.lewis@foxnews.com

Irena Briganti, Vice President
Media Relations
Phone: 212-301-3608
Fax: 212-819-0816
E-Mail: irena.briganti@foxnews.com

Thomas Tyrer, Senior Vice President
Communications & Cross-Platform Operations for Fox Networks Group
Phone: 310-369-0008
Fax: 310-969-4334
E-Mail: thomas.tyrer@fox.com

Brian Peterson, Director
Phone: 310-369-0009
Fax: 310-969-4334
E-Mail: brian.peterson@fox.com

Reed Nolte, Senior Vice President
Investor Relations
Phone: 212-852-7092
Fax: 212-852-7145
E-Mail: rnolte@newscorp.com

Craig Felenstein, Vice President
Investor Relations
Phone: 212-852-7084
Fax: 212-852-7145
E-Mail: cfelenstein@newscorp.com



# Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly Factor Host : Phone: 212-301-3320; Email:
bill.oreilly@foxnews.com
# Brian Knoblock, International Editor : Phone: 212-301-5486; Email:
brian.knoblock@foxnews.com
# Brit Hume, Managing Editor : Phone: 202-824-6470; Fax: 202-824-6426
# David Asman, Fox News Host : Phone: 212-301-3944; Email:
david.asman@foxnews.com
# Ian Rae, Exec. VP News : Phone: 212-301-8552; Email: ian.rae@foxnews.com
# Jane Skinner, News Anchor : Phone: 212-301-5023; Email:
jane.skinner@foxnews.com
# John Moody, Sen VP News : Phone: 212-301-8560; Email: john.moody@foxnews.com
# Justin Schmidt, Chicago Bureau Chief : Phone: 312-494-0428; Fax: 312-494-0445
# Kathy Ardleigh, Sen. Politics Producer : Phone: 212-301-3186; Email:
kathy.ardleigh@foxnews.com
# Ken LaCorte, Los Angeles Bureau Chief : Phone: 310-571-2000; Fax: 310-571-2009
# Kim Schiller Hume, Wash DC Bureau Chief : Phone: 202-824-6389; Fax:
202-824-6426
# Shepard Smith, Fox Report Host : Phone: 212-301-3711; Email:
shepard.smith@foxnews.com
# Thom Bird, Fox News Sen. Producer : Phone: 212-301-3250; Email:
thom.bird@foxnews.com
# Todd Ciganek, National News Editor : Fax: 212-301-3352; Email:
todd.ciganek@foxnews.com


'bill.oreilly@foxnews.com'; 'Brit.Hume@foxnews.com'; 'david.asman@foxnews.com'; 'foxnewsonline@foxnews.com'; 'yourcomments@foxnews.com'; 'jane.skinner@foxnews.com'; 'john.moody@foxnews.com'; 'viewerservices@foxnews.com'; 'kathy.ardleigh@foxnews.com'; 'shepard.smith@foxnews.com'; 'thom.bird@foxnews.com'; 'todd.ciganek@foxnews.com'


Comments@foxnews.com, AmericasNewsroom@foxnews.com,
Beltway@foxnews.com, Myword@foxnews.com,
Bigstory-weekend@foxnews.com, Bullsandbears@foxnews.com,
Cash@foxnews.com, Cavuto@foxnews.com,
Fncimag@foxnews.com, Forbes@foxnews.com,
Friends@foxnews.com, Feedback@foxnews.com,
Jamie@foxnews.com, Fncspecials@foxnews.com,
FNS@foxnews.com, Newswatch@foxnews.com,
Foxreport@foxnews.com, Atlarge@foxnews.com,
Hannityandcolmes@foxnews.com, Heartland@foxnews.com,
JER@foxnews.com, Lineup@foxnews.com,
Martha@foxnews.com, Ontherecord@foxnews.com,
Oreilly@foxnews.com, Redeye@foxnews.com,
Special@foxnews.com, Studiob@foxnews.com,
Cavuto@foxnews.com, Hemmer@foxnews.com,
colonelscorner@foxnews.com, Fatherjonathan@foxnews.com,
Drmanny@foxnews.com, Lisonlaw@foxnews.com,
Housecall@foxnews.com (less)

[KaiineTN]

Seems like they don't just hate libertarianism, they hate freedom! Have you heard this quote from Rudy?

Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

[Tikker]

he's not wrong

[Arlos]

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Right, Tikker?

That's effectively what the man is saying, at least part 2...

Bonus points to people who know the origin of those lines.

-Arlos

[Kramer]

i think it is the "great deal" part of that statement that sets people off.

personally as a libertarian i am quite against the federal government having the authority and power that it holds.

though i certainly understand what rudy is saying, there must always be a ceding of certain rights at certain times to gain increased freedom

[Lueyen]

Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

i think it is the "great deal" part of that statement that sets people off.

personally as a libertarian i am quite against the federal government having the authority and power that it holds.

though i certainly understand what rudy is saying, there must always be a ceding of certain rights at certain times to gain increased freedom

That is a load of horse shit. People cede a portion of freedom not to gain freedom but to gain security and structure, security being the derivative of the common law everyone adheres to, structure being the accepted known and finite consequences of the failure to adhere to the law. To appearance this affords people a greater amount of freedom, in reality however it is not freedom of action but freedom from unknown consequence. Our government is a great experiment in an attempt to balance the trade off of personal absolute liberty for security, civility, and protection, the general tipping of the scale upon institution was heavily weighted toward personal freedom and minimal weight to lawful authority. I think Guiliani's concept of Freedom as stated here is flawed and a little to fascist for my taste.

Edit: Oh and Arlos 1984.

[Arlos]

Exactly.

Freedom is *NOT* giving up your right to choose your own life to some central authority.

Giuliani's quote is nothing more than a long-winded way of saying the slogan from 1984. That's terrifying.

-Arlos

[KaiineTN]

The only real problem that I see with the government providing us security is potential abuse of the power that allows that provision. A nation's government providing a military (for defense) is one thing, but a nation's government that is able to go through citizens' financial information, listen in on phone and internet conversations, know our medical history, detain citizens without charges and deny them legal counsel, etc., that's where it becomes abused. That's where we really have lost our freedom. The government no longer serves the people, it serves only itself, and protects itself from the people.

Some people say "I've got nothing to hide," and that's probably the case with most people, however, that certainly does not justify the government being able to know details of your life without you even being aware of it. If we don't know and stand up for our rights, we might as well not have them. People gave their lives to provide us with freedom, and now fear alone makes us willing to give it up. It's a sad twist of fate. Are we a nation of cowards? No one values freedom enough anymore to risk their life for it? We'd all rather give it up as long as we're told we're safer because of it?

I need to go back to being apathetic about politics so I don't get depressed and leave the country. >_<

[Kramer]

i don't disagree and didn't express myself clearly, i was attempting to state what you did about the give and take of personal freedoms and security, etc.

i am libertarian and am annoyed/fearful of rhetoric like that.

[Arlos]

Hell, Kramer, I'm a raving liberal and it terrifies ME...

I see liberals get blamed a lot for wanting to tell people how to run their lives. I don't think that's true. What liberals want is for everyone to have the freedom to live their own lives however they want, even if it's bizarre or different, as long as you're not hurting other people by doing so. It's the right (particularly the evangelist Christian Right) I see as wanting to do that, with their hardcore anti-gay and Christian-only agendas, etc.

-Arlos

[Harrison]

Supporting Ron Paul is the new fad. People I hear talking about him are fucking mongoloids.

Politicians are all out to fuck you. Stop being naive and forcing yourself to believe otherwise.

[KaiineTN]

Well, one of the problems with politics and government positions is that it tends to attract people who get off on power. Rarely, if ever, can those types of people honestly act in the best interests of those they are supposed to represent. It's not so much that they're out to fuck you, just that they're looking out for themselves at your expense.

Ron Paul certainly isn't perfect, but I do think he's much better than other candidates I've seen simply because his strict adherance to the constitution. He also seems to have consistent voting based on principles, so people seem to have a bit more trust for him than others.

[Harrison]

It's not so much that they're out to fuck you, just that they're looking out for themselves at your expense.

Am I the only person who equates these?