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

[10sun]

In response to the original post.

Ron Paul is a crackpot & Fox News has recognized that as well as most other news outlets.

[Harrison]

Thankfully I'm not the only sane person who sees that.

[Martrae]

However, it's not the media's job to decide that. If he's a crackpot, put him on and let people see that.

Marginalizing candidates means THEY decide who people vote on as the next president, and that's wrong. The media is supposed to report on events not shape them.

[10sun]

However, it's not the media's job to decide that. If he's a crackpot, put him on and let people see that.

Marginalizing candidates means THEY decide who people vote on as the next president, and that's wrong. The media is supposed to report on events not shape them.

Lack of media coverage didn't stop Abraham Lincoln from being elected president.

[Gypsiyee]

are you seriously comparing the way elections are run nowadays to back then..?

and you call ron paul the crackpot

[10sun]

are you seriously comparing the way elections are run nowadays to back then..?

and you call ron paul the crackpot

Since when did it become the burden and responsibility of media corporations to provide free forums for presidential candidates?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it dictate that media outlets should provide the services that they do provide in whatever slant that they do.

There is precedent, however it can in no way be construed to be legally binding.

You are a disgrace to the ideals of Ron Paul's platform to think that Fox News should be required to let any candidates beyond the chosen ones attend the GOP debate next week.

[Lyion]

In response to the original post.

Ron Paul is a crackpot & Fox News has recognized that as well as most other news outlets.

Perhaps.

It can be argued that all the frontrunners running for Prez are lying, cynical bullshitters. However, opinions should not cause a news outlet to add/remove candidates. This should be done via fair criteria.

It is clearly not in this case.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/ ... Limits.php

Paul polls the same or better than Thompson, who was given an invite.

This is just as stupid as the New Hampshire Newspaper that invited Alan Keyes to a debate there. I hope Paul starts using his cash and flooding the primary states with ads. Although I'm not sure what he's currently doing to promote his campaign...

[KaiineTN]

Funny that you say news outlet. I remember reading something where Fox successfully argued that it was entertainment and not news, and was able to avoid needing to deal with certain political regulations or something because of that.

[Arlos]

And actually there is a requirement for equal time for all political campaigns on network channels.

see: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htm ... timeru.htm

HOWEVER, as noted there, debates are considered "News Events", and thus are exempt from that requirement. To date, it has generally only been done that way to exclude third party candidates from major televised debates. Can't think of an example where 1 potential nominee from 1 party has been excluded from that party's debates.

Of course, this just further shows how much in the hip pocket of the far-right Fox News is. They can't stand Ron Paul, even if he is a Republican, and are terrified he might win. (to be fair, that is somewhat similar to the Democrats and Lyndon LaRouche, except for the terrified he might win part). So, a brief word to their puppets at Fox, and boom, no Ron Paul in the debate.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

The original AP article stated that the New Hampshire Republican Party was sponsoring it and Fox was hosting it. Typically if an organization sponsors and event, they are the ones who organize it and decide on the content, a media organization hosts it by covering it and providing the stage if you will. I've not seen a single shred of evidence that it was Fox who chose the candidates, and it's more likely that the Republican Party is who is excluding Ron Paul from the debate. You can site numbers and polls all day to support one side of the argument or the other, however in general poll numbers that place Ron Paul in the running are generally from what I've seen linked to internet polls, further more I've seen at least a few instances where these polls were intentionally skewed by Ron Paul supporters (think along the lines if we had a poll here and suddenly had 1500 new users registering on this board overnight and voting in the poll due to a link on a Ron Paul support site). I might question regular poles depending on demographic and such, but with internet polls their reliability is generally very suspect due to a huge propensity for unrealistic sample.

I'll eat my words if nothing significant happens to change the face of the land scape, but assuming no major shifts due to significant events, I'll go on record as predicting that Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination, nor will he be a serious contender, I will be surprised if he gets more then 10 percent of the vote overall, and completely shocked if he gets above 20. Of course we will be told it's because he wasn't allowed in debates and some giant evil force was pushing against him, but look at the facts of what he supports and it's direct opposition to the Republican parties platform. It is true he tows the proverbial line on many issues, yet on key issues he does not. Ron Paul may be running as a Republican at the moment, but he's more of a libertarian at heart, this more then anything is what is stifling his numbers despite some of the most fervent supporters and astounding fund raising.

Now what I just said may not be popular with Ron Paul supporters, but many are living in fantasy land at the moment, their guy may resonate deeply with them, their excitement is doubtlessly due to someone finally saying the things that they feel need to be said and taking a stance that isn't popular with either of the 2 major parties. Just because he doesn't get the Republican nomination doesn't mean it's all over for Ron Paul or his stance on the issues. He might just be able to form a viable third party or strengthen the libertarian party should he choose to run under that party again. Either way he will take supporters from both major political parties in all likely hood, which is fine as that will likely not cause a dominance for either major party but a balance between three... and that is what really needs to happen for a third party and more to begin to surface and be taken seriously, and quite frankly should that occur I think everyone wins.


Edit: I just noticed in the article Lyion posted says Fox stated limited slots and a basis for who was invited, so now I've seen some evidence that Fox may have made the call, however the call was made on poll numbers and not on their dislike for a particular stance he holds.

[Martrae]

From the Ron Paul website

On December 27, the Associated Press reported: "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." Later in the article, the AP stated: "Participating in the forum will be Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson."

On the evening of December 28, Jared Chicoine and Jordan Brown of our New Hampshire campaign staff met in person with Fergus Cullen the New Hampshire GOP chairman to discuss whether or not Dr. Paul would be invited to participate in the forum. Mr. Cullen confirmed there will be an event on January 6, but he could not confirm whether or not Dr. Paul would be invited. We also learned the event would not be a debate with an audience, but instead would be a forum in a closed studio with the candidates questioned only by Chris Wallace of Fox News.

A few hours after that meeting, we contacted Fox News seeking clarification. Later that night, we issued a press release while waiting to hear from Fox News.

On December 29, the Baltimore Sun featured a report by Jason George. Mr. George reported, "Calls and emails to Fox News spokespersons by the Tribune were not returned Saturday evening.

"An official at the New Hampshire GOP, which is co-sponsoring the event with Fox, said that Paul might still be included, but the planning for the debate was still coming together and it was ultimately Fox's call."

As of late afternoon today (December 30), we have nothing more to report.

Kent Snyder
Chairman, Ron Paul 2008

Fergus Cullen, chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, issued a press release this afternoon about Fox News' presidential candidates forum scheduled for January 6. His release is below.

We thank Mr. Cullen for his statement today and for his efforts with Fox News.

*****
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: December 31, 2007

Contact: Fergus Cullen, Chairman, New Hampshire Republican Party

NH REPUBLICANS: DON’T LIMIT DEBATE PARTICIPANTS

CONCORD – New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen releases the following statement regarding primary weekend debates:

“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.”

“Therefore, the New Hampshire Republican Party calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.”

“The New Hampshire Republican Party has notified FOX News of our position, and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6.”

[Lueyen]

Great Mart, thanks for linking that. I truly hope he's included, as I myself do like some of his "unpopular" stances. I still don't believe it will make much difference in his numbers, for the primaries. If I'm wrong on that however I won't be unhappy about it... it would make for one very entertaining presidential election, hell if he doesn't get the Republican nomination, continuing to run as an independent will be interesting as well. When it comes to third party candidates there is always the charge that they cause a rift in one of the major parties base and cause it to lose the election... Nader, Perot ect... Ron Paul I think would pull support from both sides.

[Yamori]

however in general poll numbers that place Ron Paul in the running are generally from what I've seen linked to internet polls, further more I've seen at least a few instances where these polls were intentionally skewed by Ron Paul supporters (think along the lines if we had a poll here and suddenly had 1500 new users registering on this board overnight and voting in the poll due to a link on a Ron Paul support site).

I always find it odd when people say that his supporters "skew" the polls by swarming every poll they can find. Organizing libertarians is about as easy as herding cats. The more simple explanation is that:

1) He has MUCH more favor among liberals than any other republican, and given a choice in after-debate internet/text/phone polls the bast bulk will vote for him over the other guys.

2) Ron Paul people are in all likelihood the most devoted out of any other candidates' campaigns. He is winning the vast bulk of the straw polls (where people have to drive over to it, stay there for several hours, and pay to vote) because people are willing to go to those lengths to support him. Almost all the official cited polls are done via phone surveys, but Ron Paul is winning the vast bulk of the ones where people actually have to show up and spend energy/money to vote. It's not really "skewing" because that translates directly into electability in a lot of ways, because the party nomination will be decided by the people that actually leave their houses to go vote, not by people just answering phone calls.

I don't think it's impossible that Ron Paul could win the nomination. It's pretty much a given that the vast majority of his supporters are going to be getting off their butts to vote for him in the primaries - the same of which definitely can't be said of the other guys. There are also going to be a lot of independents and liberals registering republican to vote for him. If the fates are kind and a lot of republicans are indifferent and lethargic toward primary voting, he could pull it off.

[Gypsiyee]

are you seriously comparing the way elections are run nowadays to back then..?

and you call ron paul the crackpot

Since when did it become the burden and responsibility of media corporations to provide free forums for presidential candidates?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it dictate that media outlets should provide the services that they do provide in whatever slant that they do.

There is precedent, however it can in no way be construed to be legally binding.

You are a disgrace to the ideals of Ron Paul's platform to think that Fox News should be required to let any candidates beyond the chosen ones attend the GOP debate next week.

you're comparing *centuries* of difference in communication, and it's completely ignorant. my statement to you had nothing to do with saying that Fox News should be required to do anything - my one comment said nothing about media contributions to elections; what I said to you was completely based on the complete stupidity of the notion that elections today are even in any minuscule amount comparable to the way presidents were elected back then.

[10sun]

are you seriously comparing the way elections are run nowadays to back then..?

and you call ron paul the crackpot

Since when did it become the burden and responsibility of media corporations to provide free forums for presidential candidates?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it dictate that media outlets should provide the services that they do provide in whatever slant that they do.

There is precedent, however it can in no way be construed to be legally binding.

You are a disgrace to the ideals of Ron Paul's platform to think that Fox News should be required to let any candidates beyond the chosen ones attend the GOP debate next week.

you're comparing *centuries* of difference in communication, and it's completely ignorant. my statement to you had nothing to do with saying that Fox News should be required to do anything - my one comment said nothing about media contributions to elections; what I said to you was completely based on the complete stupidity of the notion that elections today are even in any minuscule amount comparable to the way presidents were elected back then.

You are the one supporting the guy who claims the Constitution should be followed just as it was written.
But I guess the world and government today are just like they were back then right?

[Gypsiyee]

you're really grasping for straws now.

of course it's not the same as it was then, did I ever say it was?

the difference between supporting the constitution as it stands as it's still a document used in court cases today and referencing abe lincoln as a benchmark for today's election is so incredibly vast that one would have to be missing a few screws to not notice the gap in comparison.

it's like comparing learning spanish as a second language to learning latin and saying they're both of equal use in today's society.

[Martrae]

Latin's dead useful. I'm teaching it to my kids. :P

[Gypsiyee]

hey i'm not knocking latin at all, but it's a dead language and not something people use today in speaking to one another was my point :p

[KaiineTN]

Yes, the constitution should be followed just as it is written! That is the basis of the whole damn country. If times have changed enough to require a change, then amend the constitution. Don't simply ignore of manipulate it. I'm pretty sure that the guys that wrote up that little piece of paper had the future in mind and had a few more IQ points than the norm, and tried to make it as timeless as possible. Of course they couldn't predict today's world, but the protection of our rights provided by the constitution, and the limits placed on the government by it should always apply.

The very reason politics has grown to become so corrupt is because there is no respect for the constitution.

[araby]

I agree Kaiine!

It's like being on the bench as Judge...all you really get to do it bend the law as much as you can, like making the rules up as you go along.

If the Judges didn't bend the rules and make deals, and just stuck to the original plan of sentencing then we'd probably have less holes in the justice system. You can't bend the rules in the Constitution in order to please everybody or else you end up with all these ridiculous technicalities and whatnot...with nothing original left over and too many questions about the initial intentions. It is what it is...

[Naethyn]

I simply do not trust any candidate on the stage other than Ron Paul. Every candidate has their own ideas of what should and shouldn't be done, but Ron Paul is the only person who actually LIVES by the ideas he holds. Look at his voting record. Look at his biography. Read the wikipedia. He is legit. For no one else does this hold true. I may not agree 100% with everything he says, but he is close and I support him. And more importantly - I trust him.

Also, on the topic of polls - they are all bullshit. Please watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_ ... h_response

There are signs ALL over my city (pensacola) for Ron Paul! Most of them are home made, but they are literally on every telephone pole! There is a grass roots movement for him. And you do not pull in the kind of money he has by "spam bots" tampering polls.

Ron Paul will be president 08.

[araby]

I went from Charleston, to Sumter, to Charlotte and then back in the same direction since Saturday...I've put up signs all over..

was happy to find plenty of supporters in Charlotte!!

[Evermore]

I simply do not trust any candidate on the stage other than Ron Paul. Every candidate has their own ideas of what should and shouldn't be done, but Ron Paul is the only person who actually LIVES by the ideas he holds. Look at his voting record. Look at his biography. Read the wikipedia. He is legit. For no one else does this hold true. I may not agree 100% with everything he says, but he is close and I support him. And more importantly - I trust him.

Also, on the topic of polls - they are all bullshit. Please watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_ ... h_response

There are signs ALL over my city (pensacola) for Ron Paul! Most of them are home made, but they are literally on every telephone pole! There is a grass roots movement for him. And you do not pull in the kind of money he has by "spam bots" tampering polls.

Ron Paul will be president 08.

here here

[Arlos]

Apparently, Ron Paul supporters have been dumping News Corp shares, and are talking boycott of companies that advertise on Fox over the slight. Share price for news corp is down 5% or so over the last 3 days, so apparently there's some impact. (News Corp is the parent company of Fox News)

http://www.nolanchart.com/article844.html


-Arlos

[Lueyen]

Ron Paul 2008!!!

doh sorry insanity took me over briefly.