Should Ron Paul be allowed at Sunday's debate?

There seems to be a debate going on between Fox News and New Hampshire Republicans over precisely who will participate in this weekend's presidential debate.

Rumor has it that online fundraising sensation and Texas congressman Ron Paul and San Diego congressman Duncan Hunter will be excluded because their N.H. poll numbers are not in double digits, although Paul's fourth quarter fundraising numbers were way into double digits, nearing $20 million, according to his website. In the first 240 minutes of the new year, nearly $11,000 more came in.

Over the weekend a Fox News spokeswoman told Top of the Ticket that the New Hampshire Republican Party was making the choice of candidates to participate in the televised GOP presidential debate on Jan. 6 with Chris Wallace moderating. She even provided the chairman's e-mail: fergus@nhgop.org to confirm that. Alas, the chairman never responded to us.

Then, on Monday, that state party chair, Fergus Cullen, issued a statement saying that limiting candidates was not in the party's tradition, suggesting the media should not be in the ....

business of excluding serious candidates and talks were continuing with Fox.

So whose decision is it?

Understandably, neither side apparently wants to incur the online wrath of Paul's passionate parishioners, who scour the Internet around the clock and descend like locusts on any opportunity to praise Paul or right perceived wrongs on any website or blog they can find. If word got out that Fox/News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch's e-mail was rmurdoch@newscorp.com, his mailbox would be full in a flash.

Paul's supporters have set up a special protest website to marshal support, as well as urge his fervent followers as follows:

"We need to send a message to Fox's Rupert Murdoch & his fellow Neocon buddies that he is not Musharraf and the U.S. is not Pakistan, yet!  Fox News cannot just stifle public opinion, debate and impact a primary election by excluding Ron Paul just because they don't like his message of freedom and liberty. Cover them up with e-mails and they will just say it was a mistake or miscommunication.  Be respectful as all of the e-mail addresses below are just employees trying to keep their jobs with the world's largest media monopoly."

The mainstream media -- or msm -- are a particular target of Paul's vociferous followers, an eclectic mix of libertarians and disaffected Republicans, Democrats and, until now, non-voters. Outspoken to say the least, they disregard stories like this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one. They believe that major newspapers and broadcast networks have conspired to pay insufficient attention to Dr. Paul, a 72-year-old ob-gyn and 10-term House member, citing his low numbers in polls, which Paulites believe are self-fulfilling frauds designed to cause voters to invest their votes in more traditional candidates with a seemingly more realistic chance of winning.

Only when these followers, led by a mysterious amateur musician and fundraiser, began making their average $100 campaign donations by the thousands last fall, setting a new one-day online record in excess of $6 million and making Paul the only Republican candidate to increase his donations every quarter in 2007, did the media begin paying attention. But no amount of attention seems sufficient for Paulites, who complain when there is no coverage and then complain again about any coverage they do get. Watch the comments section below.

They gather in chatrooms and more than 1,200 meet-up groups across the country to paint signs, write letters, organize marches and protests, support each other and otherwise promote the Ron Paul Revolution, which they believe will arrive when primary voting starts.

Some 300 young Paul supporters have been in caucus-training camps in Iowa in recent days and are shooting for maybe a stunning third-place there ahead of more famous fellows like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. And they hope to possibly do even better in New Hampshire where the state slogan "Live Free or Die" would seem to lend itself to their cause.

But first fights first. Iowa this Thursday. The Fox forum on Sunday. Then on to New Hampshire and beyond, carrying Dr. Paul's antiabortion, antiwar, strict constitutionalist banner.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Chef F]

Us here at the Ron Paul bandwagon are screaming for one reason: unfair and eskewed balance of the people candidate. case in point Fox News. We are forced to fight a frontal battle up hill without any comforts afforded the others with far less support.

We the American population that has been clued in on the truth will not be silenced

[Youssif H. Shanshiry]

The mainstream media received their marching orders from their Zionist masters to suppress the Ron Paul message and silence his voice. Even PBS has fallen in line and started ignoring Dr. Ron Paul as of their last night’s news cast.

They pushed us into a couple of unjust wars for Israel and need to stop Dr. Ron Paul pointing his fingers at the blood on their hands. They need him to stop exposing their ongoing efforts to get us to fight more such wars against Iran and/or Pakistan.

They are desperate to muzzle Ron Paul's message of Peace, prevent his TV appearances and even avoid mentioning his name.

In their Masters' eyes, Dr. Ron Paul has committed the ‘sin’ of saying that he would stop ‘aid for Israel’. And they are fighting back as dirty as they can.

Let us stand up for these merchants of death in defense of our constitutional right to freely elect our President by intensifying our donations to Dr. Ron Paul’s campaign and voting for him in both the Primary and General Elections and by boycotting them and their sponsors as much as practical.

[Lindy]

Even though I live in South Africa I was very happy to read this article especially because excluding Dr. Ron Paul and other candidates means that people will be short changed from gaining a true objective perspective, which is very important regarding something so critical as voting for the future leader of the country. I would like think that the media themselves would support their viewers by ensuring that they were well informed.

I wonder why people are surprised that Dr. Ron Paul's supporters are everywhere writing comments, surely it makes sense that if a candidate has a lot of supporters they will be active? Perhaps I am missing the plot because when I perceive editorial being negative about this I am perplexed by the writers opinion, because it sure makes sense to me just like 1 + 1 = 2 or many supporters = lots of activity.

Thank you and a happy new year!

[Colonel Bob Jones]

Pity you didn't suggest that Dennis Kucinich be included in Presidential debates, as he certainly should.

[Jorge I. Gomez]

I think I know why the parties, republican and democrat, are afraid of non-traditional candidates like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel. These candidates don't have to sugar coat the truth and can talk to their admirers without the double talk, I did not mean it that way, it was miscontrued, etc excuses. I have contributed to all three and I hope whole heartly that one of them makes it so my family and myself canvote for so we'll have somebody that will put the Constitution on the pedestal it was until George Bush came to power and destroyed it.

[Barbara Costello]

I read recently that the Board of Directors of the parent company of Fox News, News Corp, have a few New World Order names like Rothchild and Morgan. Perhaps this is a link to their stance against getting truth to the American voter.

[Mike]

Andrew,
I am a Paul supporter but I read all of your articles, not just the ones about Paul. This one was well written, easy to follow and appeared to be as well balanced and fair as you could make it. Like all of your others. I do have to agree with one of the above commentators though:

**Understandably, neither side apparently wants to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY and incur the online RESPONSE of Paul's passionate SUPPORTERS, who READ and RESPOND like RATIONAL PEOPLE, on any opportunity to praise Paul or right perceived wrongs on any website or blog THAT is MISREPRESENTING, LYING or PROFILING Dr. Paul.**

Otherwise, excellent article. Keep 'em coming!

[Kinga Barry]

It seems the "Looser Camp" has another mouthpiece in Andrew Malcolm. Mark the adjectives he was proscribed to describe Ron Paul:
Fundraising SENSATION (like some sort of freaky rock star)

Paul's PASSIONATE PARISHIONERS (passionate i.e. out of control,
PARISHIONERS=parochial, provincial, narrow)

Descend like LOCUST (Paul's followers are apparently a plague in
Malcolm's perception)

(Paul's) FERVENT followers (Fevered or zealots?)

(Paul's) VOCIFEROUS followers (as in loud, strident, boisterous,
obnoxious?)

(Paul's followers)..BELIEVE...that..networks..HAVE CONSPIRED
((bunch them with conspiracy freaks)

PAULITES (as viewed by a MALcontent MALCOLMITE)

( Paul's follower)...MYSTERIOUS AMATEUR MUSICIAN (Malcolm is
attempting a Bush Trifecta here)

(Ron Paul) A 72-YEAR OLD OB-GYN(no mention of the professional title
of MD,- emphasize his geriatric age)

And on and on and on. MALCOLM'S words are POISON AND TRASH. And I'm not even a Paul follower. Malcolm must have gone to the same training center as the Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib malevolent souls.

[Daniel S, Louisiana]

Thanks for the article. This is easily the most objective piece I've seen about Dr Paul and us spambots.

Glad to see there are still a few journalists around.

[Gerudomar]

We the People watch, and they decide.
Isn't that how a modern democracy should work anyway?

Wouldn't it be sufficient to have an election commission consisting of, say, 15 representatives from the 15 most influential media (to be decided by the incumbent president, or maybe by his foreign and fiscal policies advisers) who elect the next president?

Would be much less costly, plus there would be no problems with voting machines. The media then just inform the people who they have elected. They shall be free to invent the reasons for their decision, only a few gullible persons would believe them anyway.

After all, why should homosexuals, pedophiles, supremacists, commies, socialists, free-thinkers, independents, libertarians, anti-war-idiots and the like have a vote?

[Joshua Lanzone]

If Ron finishes in the top 3 or 4 in Iowa, FOX will get a lesson in "unintended consequences" and "blowback".

FOX's bias will be illuminated for all to see, and their credibility will be trashed.

FOX NEWS: We decide. We report. You decide... from our filtered options.

C-Ya Fox! You had a good run!

[Nick in Cypress, Calif.]

Ron Paul is going to be our next great President... We are long overdue for another great President.

Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. THE CLEAR CHOICE FOR AMERICANS!

End the Wars. End the IRS & Income Tax. End the illegal institutions. No Amnesty, bye bye illegals. Better life for Americans. PRO LIFE. Establish a true and working monetary system. Ron Paul 2008 !

~I SUPPORT RON PAUL~

[Roger Pariseau]

I don't know yet if I see Dr. Paul as President, but I do fully concur with his desire to return to the Constitution. What Paul needs to tell me and others in similar quandary is which governmental agencies he plans to excise and precisely how he plans to ameliorate their loss.

[Robert Proctor]

There is no doubt that the media does what it does to fulfill its self interests. It is naive to think that the media is unbiased. The last thing Fox News wants is to give power to Ron Paul because he stands for truth, human rights, ethics, and integrity. Fox News has a history of behaving contrary to this.

Of course Ron Paul should be included.

[Michael]

Ron Paul is a viable candidate and the rest of the Republican party knows it. They don't want him, they know he is capable of beating them, and so they will just take their ball and go play elsewhere. They're afraid of him. The best way to beat a threatening force is to eliminate it. To me this just shows Ron Paul's potential. They know he can beat them. The media have tried to shut him down all long. But, I am a Democrat who can't really agree with all of either the left or right's agenda. Ron Paul is the middle ground. Sure, he will probably veto a lot of issues, but I think congress will work to override for the best interests of the country. This exclusive party-line vote with the president that we have now will diminish. It has been distructive at present. I am going to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. If he becomes the Republican candidate, I will vote for him. If not, I will support the Democratic candidate.

[Aladdin]

Thank you for the great post. I am an avid Ron Paul supporter and do scour the internet as mentioned, I just REALLY care and REALLY want him to win. Dr. Paul is our last chance at real freedom in our country, so we the people have taken over the campaign. And somebody needs to tell Murdoch that he's not Musharraf and this not Pakistan! Include Ron Paul!

Ron Paul cured my apathy.

[Anthony]

I am one of the locusts descending upon you.

I'm not sure whether to call the swarm to attack or to rub my chitinous legs in approval.

(Approval sounds good. Thanks for reading.)

[Pete Mackin]

An interesting twist to this is whether the Federal Communications Commission allows Newscorp to break US Title 47, Section 315(a) of the Communications Act, which spells out the "equal time" provisions.

Basically, in a nutshell, the law states that Newscorp is able to exclude candidates during "bona fide news coverage" of an event, or a candidate dropping by, etc. But my contention with the FCC was that because Fox is hosting the event, creating the format and excluding Dr. Paul and Rep. Hunter, it is creating the descrepency in equal time, and therefore breaking the law and putting their local radio and tv station's licenses at risk should they choose to air the program.

The FCC official I spoke to took my point, but said their agency didn't plan to take any action unless the issue was clarified for them. So, I forwarded the issue to the US House investigations subcommittee which investigates such matters, and is chaired by Rep. Bart Stupak, (D) Menominee.

Congressman Stupak has made numerous cracks over the years questioning the supposed "fair and balanced" nature of Fox News. I hope he takes this opportunity to use his position to actually do something about it.

[john b]

Andrew wrote: ... "antiabortion, antiwar, strict constitutionalist banner."

To clarify, he is personally pro-life and believes state/local government should set rules, not the federal government. He is also not anti-war, though he is anti-unconstitutional-war.

Andrew, here is the text from Ron Paul's website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
“ I am strongly pro life. Life begins at conception ... but, I do not believe this should be a federal matter. All issues of life and violence and crime and murder are dealt with at the local level. ”

[Sam Dodd]

I really hope they dont allow Ron Paul into this debate. I think he will get 10 times the press and exposure by being left out. He will also be able to really paint himself as the dark horse/person the media doesn't want which only helps him grow stronger.

[aletoledo]

"The mainstream media -- or msm -- are a particular target of Paul's vociferous followers, an eclectic mix of libertarians and disaffected Republicans, Democrats and, until now, non-voters. Outspoken to say the least, they disregard stories like this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one"

uuummm, blogs are mainstream yet.

(Oh, I disagree. There've been dozens of items on Ron Paul in this blog and many other subjects that were not in the newspaper. And the newspaper does not have this open a forum and reader/writer dialogue and it's not available, freshened, 24/7 including every item since it began on June 11.)

[Eddie James]

Good article. Perhaps a little condescending, but in a humorous way. It's refreshing to see reporters and crazy Paulites alike not taking themselves too seriously.

Of course Ron Paul should be included in the forum for the myriad of reasons espoused above. But if he isn't, we'll get our media coverage out of it anyway. Our numbers and our determination have reached a critical mass. We are now in control of our destiny, regardless of how we are treated by the media.

"The question is not who will let us, it's who will stop us!"

~Eddie

[charles f schaffstall sr.]

to debate or disagree with ron paul is in effect,going against our founding fathers and claiming you have a superior constitution.i can see why fox news or any one else would not like that position.

[Marr]

Although the Ron Paul rEVOLution has LOVE in it... Love for country, love for peace, love for America; There are times when revolution must remove the love. If Dr. Paul is removed from the electoral process by privately individuals or companies, I say they are domestic enemies and enemies of OUR republic .

[j0]

ron paul - america's last chance