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



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.
Posted by: Charles Jensen | January 01, 2008 at 06:15 AM
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.
Posted by: David Lang | January 01, 2008 at 06:18 AM
yes ron paul should be heard
Posted by: TONY SACCO | January 01, 2008 at 06:22 AM
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.)
Posted by: Megan | January 01, 2008 at 06:23 AM
"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.
Posted by: Kenneth Biegel | January 01, 2008 at 06:25 AM
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.
Posted by: Joe Citizen | January 01, 2008 at 06:26 AM
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.
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/new-hampshire.html
(I don't have to explain it. Not my debate. I'm pointing the exclusion out. Thanks for reading.)
Posted by: vanessa | January 01, 2008 at 06:28 AM
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.)
Posted by: Erik K | January 01, 2008 at 06:29 AM
"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!
Posted by: cecil | January 01, 2008 at 06:30 AM
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.
Posted by: Ward Ciac | January 01, 2008 at 06:31 AM
Great article Mr. Malcolm!
Welcome to the R3volution!
Posted by: Brian M. | January 01, 2008 at 06:35 AM
Absolutely!
Posted by: bill parkhurst | January 01, 2008 at 06:36 AM
Thanks for the e-mail address.
Posted by: TOM NYC | January 01, 2008 at 06:38 AM
Andrew,
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.
Respectfully,
John in FL.
Posted by: John in FL | January 01, 2008 at 06:39 AM
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.
Posted by: MarkCinPhx | January 01, 2008 at 06:42 AM
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.
Posted by: NH_GOP | January 01, 2008 at 06:42 AM
Get over yourself, buddy.
Posted by: Sage | January 01, 2008 at 06:43 AM
Land of the Free?
Posted by: mahdee | January 01, 2008 at 06:48 AM
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.
Posted by: Ralph Hare | January 01, 2008 at 06:50 AM
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.
Posted by: Fritz Baumler | January 01, 2008 at 06:50 AM
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.
Posted by: Mista Armageddon | January 01, 2008 at 06:50 AM
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.
Posted by: Darryl Schmitz | January 01, 2008 at 06:51 AM
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!
Posted by: Kevin Southwick | January 01, 2008 at 06:51 AM
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.
Posted by: Fritz Baumler | January 01, 2008 at 06:51 AM
Should I be complaining about this example of "press" that RP is getting? ;)
:)
Posted by: William Drake | January 01, 2008 at 06:53 AM