Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

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: 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, 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 () | Archives (465)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ron Paul should definitely not be allowed in the debate. He consistently sings solo and of a tune of his own choosing. He seems not a wit interested in joining in and being a member of the parrot choir. A disruptive figure, such as Mr. Paul, will strike a discordant note and ruin the harmony of The Parrots.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
'Mahatma Gandhi'

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. There is nothing more tragic than to find an individual bogged down in the length of life, devoid of breadth.
'Martin Luther King'

Dr. Ron Paul is the only leader that can save America now. If you are a real patriotic American you should ignore FOX and the GOP leaders. Go out and vote for him. FOX and the GOP leaders are all one of the same. They perfectly complement each other.

yes ron paul should be heard

As Americans, we should be proud that people who support Ron Paul are taking the time to become involved in the political process. It may sometimes be a little over zealous but at least these people CARE ... which is more than we can say for most Americans...

(There are thousands equally involved in other campaigns, but generally excellent point, Megan. Thanks for reading.)

"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."

There was media coverage before the first money bomb. For example, Bill Maher, ABC This Week, Jon Stewart, and many others. Of course, it increased tremendously after the money bombs. It's a shame that the major press outlets will not prick up their ears until the sound of money is heard.

In the case of Ron Paul, however, the message has been consistent for a long time and a lot of his supporters have been aware of it for years. Frankly, I first became familiar with him in 2002 when he began protesting against the build up to war with Iraq. Since September of that year, I have been a supporter of Ron Paul, Scott Ritter, Justin Raimondo, Scott Horton (the talkshow host), and anyone else who spoke truth while the major press helped lead us to war.

Go Ron Paul and all the other speakers of truth.

I'm not sure what integrity is, but I'm convinced a good example is when someone stands behind their views and is consistent in their actions and behavior for not just the moment, but throughout their entire life.

I also believe if you can't get the job done, you won't last very long in your current position.

WHO exactly is a person who can successfully be a Congressman for over 20 years?

WHAT hidden motives could a person who delivers one baby let alone 4,000 have?

WHEN someone steps up to successfully don a military uniform to serve their nation, should we pause and show concern where their loyalties are?

WHY would anyone raise a large sum of money from a massive audience of supporters?

HOW is it that there are individuals who do support a process which weakens our country and national security, while wasting billions of dollars, costing us the lives of U.S. Military service members in the process, and letting illegal immigration negatively affect and impact us all?

Thankfully, there are a far greater number of loyal citizens who do not just desire, but demand change from more of the same and are proactive about doing what it takes to make our great nation strong again, and all the while adhering to existing laws, getting our folks in the military killed, or forcing us into massive debt in the process.

I may not agree with, or share everyone’s views and opinions, but I'm also proud to be an American Citizen who became a disabled veteran supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution, and a set of principles I hold in my heart and mind to this day.

And while I may not agree with or support everything Ron Paul may say or do, I have nothing to fear from him either and say let him participate in all current and future debates.

Besides, all the legitimate candidates have nothing to fear. They all have strong morale compasses; with sound messages supported by all, who’ve never let multiple interest groups sway their opinions, and best of all have never flip flopped on issues or have actions and behavior that cause us to pause with second thoughts or concern.

You mention that Ron Paul wasn't invited because his NH numbers aren't in double digits. However, what you forget to mention is that Fred Thompson is BEHIND Ron Paul in the NH polls, but Thompson is invited. How do you explain that one? See link below.

(I don't have to explain it. Not my debate. I'm pointing the exclusion out. Thanks for reading.)

I watched Penn and Teller and they interviewed a man that makes polls for different groups. He said it is all about how you ask the question and how the answers are given out will effect the results. Where I live allot of people know about Ron Paul and want him to win. I still have to meet a person who says out loud that they are going to vote for Rudy or Mitt??
Is this just posted on the blog or will this show up in your newspaper?

(This is a blog. That is the newspaper. It publishes excerpts of a few blog articles each Sunday, which also appear here on our Campaign 08 page online, and all of our nearly 1,100 articles are here 24/7 for anyone to read and comment on, which is not the case with any newspaper.)

"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"

Here's to Fergus! Screw Fox Entertainment, the revolution will not be televised!

This is a fine article. Andrew Malcolm and the LA Times staff are what journalists should be like. I live in NJ, but the LA Times has become one of my main news stops on the internet.

Great article Mr. Malcolm!

Welcome to the R3volution!


Thanks for the e-mail address.


I appreciate your recognition on Ron Paul. Clearly you follow Dr. Paul as closely if not more closely than some of his supporters do. The fact that this debate is occurring in N.H. prior to voting occurring in N.H. is the reason why the Ron Paul grassroots is up in arms.

Many voters will not be paying attention to any kind of "news" or politics until days or even hours before its time to vote. This puts the T.V. business in a very powerful position. Whether or not people support Ron Paul and at what percentages is not the reason why many of us are so upset.

I personally feel that it time for integrity to be restored to America. In particular, I feel that companies like Newscorp abuse their powerful position by censoring viable candidates and viable messages. The old media (newspapaers, T.V. and radio) has cornered the market on information and dissemination of information for a very long time. This must change.

Through the internet, people like me who have been aware of this information scam for years (I dumped my T.V. set and subscriptions to cable over 5 years ago) are ready to usher in the age of free flowing information with absent of profits. Take a look at the open source software community and you will see the future of broadcasting and journalism.

There simply is no real profit left in controlling the news anymore. Like Dr. Paul said, Fox news is a propaganda machine and I liken what Fox news and the rest of their "competitors" to the large for profit software firms who are losing ground to free and open source coding of new software.

This is the opening battle to the public outcry at large. This issue goes way beyond Ron Paul. Remember what happened to Ralph Nader? How long do you think this monopoly over information is going to last? Fox news and the private companies have reached peak profits and squeezed all they can out of cornering the information market.

The backlash over manipulating our political process will not stop with people losing their jobs and profits being severely cut. I imagine that when Murdoch et al. realize what is happening, they will make another power grab at the net, and one day I may not have the freedom to make a response to a truly Fair and Balanced article like this. When that day comes, We the People will be forced into a corner and in that case we will continue to look to the Constitution for our remedy.


John in FL.

Thank you for the information in this article.

I find it disturbing that the powers that be are trying to exclude active nationally known candidates from a still early discussion on candidate views. I also find it interesting that noone is willing to admit to making a decision as to who to be excluded. Dr. Paul is making many people uncomfortable, and they want him to go away, but they don't have the gusto to stand up and say that. There's something, you know, un-AMERICAN about that.

For myself, I feel that Dr. Paul brings important issues to the national discussion. His belief in smaller government, and a return to the federal government following the constitution more closely are important issues to be discussed. He shouldn't be excluded from this debate.

Um I hate to tell you but Fred is about 2% here in NH so this is a LAME EXCUSE.

Furthermore, if you take all RPs support and not just landline polling, I am sure he would be in the double digits.

Get over yourself, buddy.

Land of the Free?

I've lost faith and trust in mainstream media and much alternative media sources. Their frivolous and inaccurate reporting on Dr. Paul, his principles and the views of his campaign reveal these sources as nothing more than controllers of information. While Murdoch's games at FOX don't surprise me, the blatant attacks on Dr. Paul by "Left Media" such as Democracy Now, NPR or online blogs such as the Daily Kos have astounded me. I would have thought that a message that includes immediate cessation of the War and individual liberty would have congealed these "Left" sources, but I guess they too have "interests" to serve who are different than the publics' interest.

Yes. No question about it. Even if Dr. Paul is not allowed to participate I think the media will all be in a state of shock when he wins the NH primary.

You listed a few news articles where "Ron Paul was mentioned." Even CNN acknowledged that Dr. Paul is getting nowhere NEAR the coverage other candidates are getting. I think it was somewhere around 20x more for other candidates...including HUCKABEE. If you remember correctly, Huckabee only started to have a 'chance' and a huge raise in the polls, after the bombardment of him and his message on the MSM. Before that, he was no different from Ron Paul in the polls.

(Actually, to be honest, Huckabee started getting more media attention AFTER he started rising in the polls that no one here likes very much. He's still only drawing a fraction of the financial support of others including Dr. P.)

In most occasions when the MSM interviews Dr. Paul, it is all nothing more than trying to poke holes in his arguments, or tell him he's wrong in this/that, while with other candidates a question is asked, they respond with their view on it. They attack Dr. Paul and try to make him seem wrong in everything he does.

The reason everyone is upset is because Dr. Paul raised more money than all other candidates, without lobbying. From over 230,000 individual donors last quarter! Reaching close to 20 million in donations. He receives the most donations from Military families. He has won over 80% of all straw polls after debates, which is never mentioned. He is currently leading the 'hack and spam-proof AOL Straw Poll (google it)" - Yet he gets not even 10% the coverage that other candidates get.

He is being Ignored, and Attacked when he is not. That is why people are upset. That is what you need to understand. People are opening their eyes and seeing that True Freedoms are an illusion in this country as of late, and they want to make a change. They want to save the country that they love.

Yours Truly,

Canadian Ron Paul Supporter.

Hmmm... Well, I happen to believe that this is a case of the media making biased decisions about coverage based on flawed statistical data. So I'd say you know, the ethical journalist would want to err on the side of caution and include all of the remaining candidates. That the "mobile studio" isn't big enough is a truly lame excuse. Also, Fred Thompson is polling much worse in NH than is Ron Paul. Looks like the Fox "fix" is in.

Given Ron Paul's record-breaking fundraising and his unusually effective ranks of supporters and his immaculate Congressional record, he should be in the debates. Fox excluding Ron Paul can only be considered a black out of his message rather than a paring down to top tier. I plan to note all Fox advertisers and boycott them, as I do Disney for its manipulative ABC News. Fox = Pravda!!! a state-owned style mouthpiece for the abusive state!

Yes. No question about it. Even if Dr. Paul is not allowed to participate I think the media will all be in a state of shock when he wins the NH primary.

Should I be complaining about this example of "press" that RP is getting? ;)


do we need any more proof that we are owned and our choices are made by the big business that owns us? this is suppose to be a nation run 'by the people for the people'. ron paul is the only person running with enough integrity to want to give us our country back. i will only vote for the restoration of america and that can only be done with RON PAUL as president.

In a free world and a free country all participants of an election should be allowed to debate. The last 2 elections have been mucky and now a third. I don't think the American people will stand for it.

Why doesn't Murdock just pick somebody and we don't have to bother with elections. Is that where we are going?

I support Ron Paul and I appreciate your editorial. Because it is your opinion, I cannot take serious issue with the obvious bias with which it was written. None the less, everyone is afforded the freedom of speech in this country and I for one never want to trample on that right. I do not ascribe to the belief that there is a coordinated conspiracy working against the Ron Paul candidacy, but I do believe that the current "system" is biased towards potential candidates who question the status-quo and might rock the boat a bit too much. When I say "system" I am referring to everything that makes up our current election apparatus, from 24-hour news networks to national polls to circus side-show debates. These functions do nothing more to enlighten us about a particular candidate's qualifications. Instead, they focus on the movement in the polls. It seems that these polls are the bedrock of our election process. This disturbs me greatly. Again, thank you for your article.

(You're welcome. My job. Thanks for reading. To be fair, it takes a lot of work in this political system to cause change and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Hard work, true. But not bad. It tests the new ways and accepts them only over time when a majority comes around, which is better than a series of generals pulling off coup after coup.)

hahaha. Did you actually pay for your schooling to be a "journalist"? If I were you I would demand a refund.

With no disrespect to the candidate or his supporters, it is time to narrow the field of candidates to a number that will promote a meaningful debate on the issues. A debt of gratitude is owed to Dr. Paul for his willingness to enter the race. His presence has sparked the spirited participation of supporters who will surely turn their support to another candidate.

Reality must be faced; the race is coming (and it should) down to the first tier candidates. Despite the impressive amounts of money raised, Dr. Paul must face the reality that his poll numbers are not moving with the same fervor. He should end his campaign but remain a strong voice for his issues.

If it is true that they are excluding Ron Paul because of his not polling above in double digits in New Hampshire, they should also exclude Rudy Giuliani (9% in the latest ARG poll) and Fred Thompson (3% in ARG and Rasmussen, 4% in LA Times/Bloomberg). Ron Paul is polling HIGHER than Fred Thompson in all 3 polls and is within the margin of error reaching Mike Huckabee.

How long can this continue? What more do the people of the US have to do to say we think Ron Paul is a worthy candidate? He leads in almost EVERYTHING, with the exception of the 'scientific polls' I hear 'Clinton had breakfast with so and so...Romney waved at some people...and un ronpaulraised6milliondollars,but in other news..." When is enough, enough? The more he is resisted the stronger his message will get. Why? Everyone wants what the can't have.

Dr Paul's message is freedom. The powers to be do not understand that it is not the messenger, it is the message. Anyone could run on the platform of freedom. What makes this great, is the fact that when it is spread it is hard to stop.

That was a good story, Thanks. The additional links given was a nice touch! Remeber, all that money, all the new donors, and all those who have never voted before (please see link below for a great example of a first time voter-who is 70), they all add up to real supporters! Personally, I can taste a first place win by Paul. Won't that be the REAL shock and awe?

careful, it may make you cry....

The corporate media chooses to use only polls that reflect the results they want. No one mentions the numerous straw polls or on-line polls that Ron Paul has won. A straw poll is the best true indicator of a candidates popularity, they cannot be compromised as easily. Ron Paul's official campaign website displays ALL straw poll results weather he has won them or not. The other candidates only mention the ones that they have won.

You keep mentioning that Ron Paul's age is 72 like this is a bad thing, it's not. He's healthier and bicycles regularly more than most 40 year olds I know. Why do you not mention John McCain being 71 constantly? You fail to mention that Ronald Reagan was 70 when he was elected and won again at 74. Are you suggesting we should age discriminate? How old is Hillary? How old is Thompson? Your Paul bashing is as boring today as it was yesterday.

(We do mention McCain's age and Obama's young age. You're just reading the Paul items. Maybe you should branch out a little and come back. Thanks for reading these anyway and taking the time to comment.)

I have voted republican all my life. Twice for Bush.
But enough is enough. No more "lesser of two evils" for me. I was not going to vote at all this election. Until Ron Paul came along. There are many others like me.

Why exclude Ron Paul? He is making history right and left and his platform truly stands out from all the others. Many of his supporters are first time voters or are not registered republicans so they do not get included in poll results. Thus his true polling numbers are perhaps a bit higher.

Ron Paul's exclusion from the forum has nothing to do with his poll numbers. He is polling twice as high as Thompson in New Hampshire, who did receive an invitation. Paul does not fit into the neoconservative mold so they are trying to shut him out, plain and simple.

I think it is laughable that you post multiple references back to yourself as corroboration for your purported argument. The million dollar question is about the polling numbers. Current MSM polling only polls those with landline telephones and oftentimes Ron Paul is not even listed. Furthermore, only those people who voted in the last primaries when Bush ran unopposed are called. No, that doesn't seem biased and inaccurate.
Don't worry, you don't have to answer my point. You are not writing to me and I don't go to your site except to slap you down. Like everyone else though, I am making note of your advertisers so that apart from sending money to the cause I believe in, I'm going to withhold my patronage to your advertisers. You can continue writing for your shrinking ignorant base. We'll see how long that lasts. Maybe someday I'll see you with a sign on a street corner "will lie and distort for food".

(And maybe someday you'll learn how to read an article without overpowering bias. Oh, and by the way the LATimes/Bloomberg Poll does factor in cellphones in its random selecting. Thanks for reading and commenting.)

I have voted republican all my life. Twice for Bush.
But enough is enough. No more "lesser of two evils" for me. I was not going to vote at all this election. Until Ron Paul came along. There are many others like me.

Why exclude Ron Paul? He is making history right and left and his platform truly stands out from all the others. Many of his supporters are first time voters or are not registered republicans so they do not get included in poll results. Thus his true polling numbers are perhaps a bit higher.

Ron Paul's exclusion from the forum has nothing to do with his poll numbers. He is polling twice as high as Thompson in New Hampshire, who did receive an invitation. Paul does not fit into the neoconservative mold so they are trying to shut him out, plain and simple.

The FCC and the loopholes Congress has given media companies are largely to blame for this Fox News debacle. The original intent of equal time rules was to specifically prohibit media companies from selecting which candidates should be able to access the airwaves. Unfortunately, so many exceptions to equal time rules were given - i.e. interviews and debates became "on the spot news", that media companies are now allowed to do precisely what Congress originally intended to prevent when they wrote the Communications Act that first gave the FCC its authority.

This farce of a forum takes things to a new level though. It is a manufactured event specifically intended to limit voters' awareness to only the corporate-backed shills who currently lay claim to Fox News' own appellation of front-runner status (never mind that some polls have Dr Paul running third in New Hampshire). There's certainly enough precedent to suggest that they can get away with trying to call this "on the spot news", but if one were to mention that the FCC takes abuse complaints from the public at, or that they accept official complaints by phone at 1-888-CALL-FCC, there's a good chance that Fox News would suddenly see a few thousand complaints added to their public file. And if that were to happen, it would certainly make the job of some freedom-loving independent attorney's lawsuit against them all the easier to win, should one rise to the occasion.

No serious RP follower is saying that he gets no coverage in the Old Media. He does get some coverage, but then again, much of the coverage he does get is biased, its also true that he gets less coverage than other candidates, even if they are doing poorly in the Polls. Cases in point - Thompson still gets coverage, despite his plummet in the polls, Huckabee got millions in free press coverage because of the 400 or so value voters that selected him at their straw Poll (RP victories in straw polls of similar sizes were ignored) John McCain was essentially resurrected by the press, when he had no money to campaign (that's George Will talking, not me) . Finally, take the Tim Russert interviews. He was harsh to RP, taking comments out of context, interrupting answers, etc. Alternatively, he seemed to want to give McCain and Obama big wet sloppy kisses.

Now consider fox news, FCC regulated news tation, that trumps up some odd criteria to exclude Ron Paul . What is one to think other that in general the old media is biased against Ron Paul.

(You're entitled to think anything you want and I'm glad you thought of coming here to read and comment.)

A fine article - and a good scoop. Although I have to say.....

...kidding. :)

This is news and I'm sure will be the basis for some tactical redirection as I've seen posts o'plenty in the meetup groups telling fellow Paulites to leave the NH Rep Party alone.

I had a hunch Fox and the NH RP were playing hot potato.

dear Andrew Malcolm
thanks for publicizing the facts regarding fox news and Doctor Ron Paul.
thanks especially for rupert murdoch's email address.
God bless you
charles ranalli

I just "discovered" Ron Paul about 3 weeks ago when I saw a blimp overheard urging me to "google Ron Paul". I did google him and found out that one person came up with the idea to pay for this blimp out of his fervor for the candidates message. I read Paul's website and was impressed that the guy turned down the his own congressional pension. Now that was intriguing for a politician. I don't agree with all of his stances. But, he is an honest man, a well educated physician and seems to push the constitutional message above even himself. The rest of the field seem to be about their own ego.

Let me also point out that Thompson is polling less than Paul is....yet he is being allowed to participate in the debate. So there goes the double digit excuse.

It is bluntly obvious to anyone that has the IQ of at least a fish that the "Fair and Balanced" network isn't being so fair and balanced due to their own personal agenda.

You forgot to mention that Fred Thompson is invited to the Fox News debate despite the fact that his poll numbers and fund raising are below Ron Paul's.

This kind of ommission of an important fact is why Ron Paul supporters have such a low opinion of the MSM.

The MSM isn't a target of Ron :Paul supporters, Ron Paul supporters are the target of the MSM. Our candidate has been called a kook, crazy, crackpot among other things by the MSM. As a supporter I've been labeled rabid, crazy, Paultard, Ronbot, a fan, Paulette, Paulite, internet geek, spammer.

We have to make numerous corrections to news articles, like the one I made above, in order for the truth about Ron Paul to get out to the people. The New York Times published an article that was so distorted and lacking in facts, it was a disgrace. If Ron Paul's supporters hadn't decended and refuted their unchecked assertions and complained; the NYT would never have apologized and printed the retraction.

To the MSM:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams

Freedom is popular. Peace Liberty Prosperity! Ron Paul 2008!

(On the other hand, you could have no articles to complain about and no forum such as this to express yourself. But you do have the RP items here and the forum. And you're welcome to return any time. Thanks for reading.)


Fox is a private business and they can invite whomever they want to their forum. We are consumers and can choose to watch Fox, another channel or simply get our news from the Internet. Fox News is sort of like indecency on the airwaves. I support their right to broadcast the neocon smut as long as I can change the channel. That's what I'll be doing if Fox excludes Ron Paul from their forum this Sunday and I hope their sponsors understand that neoconservatism is offensive, sleezy and offensive.

I won't complain about Paul's coverage here, and I did get a chuckle out of the 'jab back'. It is encouraging that Paul, of all the excluded candidates in the ABC and Fox venues, is getting the overwhelming majority of the coverage. Thank you for covering the injustice of Fox.

Whether or not Fox includes Dr. Paul in it's January 6th Forum, the people of New Hampshire have an opportunity to see him in person at the Free State Project's New Hampshire Liberty Forum that day. He's the closing speaker. Anyone in the area wanting to attend should check out the details at:

Reporters are also invited to attend. Maybe other major media outlets can boost their market share by covering what Fox won't.

Great article Andrew. I am an avid Ron Paul supporter and i know you haven't always been loved by "the revolution" but I found this article to be what news articles should be. Acurrate,fair, unbiased, and enjoyable to read. To quote Joe Friday, "Just the facts ma'am".

Some may jump on here and blast you for not being 100% pro-Paul, but whatever. This one was fair. Thanks again.

Go Ron Paul!!!!

They should exclude Ron Paul solely on the basis of his extreme racism, accepting money from Neo-Nazi groups, endorsement by the NAAWP, not to mention that he is a PHYSICAN? who does not believe in evolution. He's a nutjob all the way around. I'm sure no party wants to be associated with that, ton of ONLINE (only) nutjob followers or not.

« | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | »


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: