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 has been the only candidate that has followers as fervent and loyal as any I have ever seen. I think his popularity is more then the media wants to admit and since he is for constitutionalist's ideologies and against government spending, there are alot of people out there that can associate with him. I will vote for Ron Paul and I will tell everyone I see that Ron Paul is the only one that should be our president.

Mr. Malcolm,

Thanks for the note highlighting what seems to be Fox's attempt to limit the debate. If I am not mistaken, there have been several instances of single digit candidates (in terms of polling) that have done very well in the past, even winning primaries.

If this is true, then this data point alone, should end the discussion of whether or not Dr. Paul should participate. It appears clearly, as though Fox is trying to REPORT AND DECIDE for themselves.

This is sad.

As for myself and most in my family, most of the people that I work with, and many friends, we will be at the polls casting a vote for RON PAUL!



(FYI, a few weeks out of the 2004 Iowa caucus someone named John Kerry had 7%. He, of course, ended up winning there and the nomination.)

Yes, of course Ron Paul should be allowed in Sunday's debate on January 6th 2008 which will be televised on the Fox News Network.

Ron Paul represents the thoughts and beliefs of many thinking Americans that have been disinfranchised by the by the media, republicans, and democrats. He does not fit into one of two government-media controlled politcal buckets; both of which build ratings by participating in impotent confrontations about the same old tired social programswhich cause distractions. There is never a resolution to any of these topics because it gives a platform to the imposters to run on and build the size of government and continue to take more of the individual's money further causing the dependency on government to grow.

Ron Paul represents the individual and their own abilities to succeed in the greatest country the world has ever known.

"If word got out that Fox/News Corp. chairmen Rubert Murdoch's e-mail was, his mailbox would be full in a flash."



Well, this is almost true. One major fact has been left out in the article and that is that Ron Paul is in fourth place (8%) in Fox's own New Hampshire poll. This puts him ahead of two of the candidates who were invited for the debate (Huckabee 5% and Tompson 4%). Because of this, it is blatant censoring of the candidates.

There is no other way to describe it than to filter the contest to the way that Fox News wants it. It would be different had the obective be a national debate which it is not but a local debate. Even then Thompson is not even in double digits.

Paul supporters complain about the coverage because it's always so dismissive, and it's always Paul-specific. Paul is never included in broader discussions about the race and who will win.

(Well, not ALWAYS dismissive, witness this one. And this forum. Thanks for reading and taking the time to leave a comment.)

Yes, he needs to be included in the debate. Ron Paul leads Thompson.

The media does suppress or trashe candidates it does not wish to support. John Edwards and Mitt Romney are now receiving the cold shoulder from liberal and special interest media groups. The more the media behaves in this fashion the more irritated and despondent the American voter becomes. The networks have lost the trust of mainstream America and have now relied on the antics of special interest to prop their ratings base. Principals, integrity and community values in a presidential candidate makes present day media moguls shudder.

Thank you, Andrew. A fair assessment. I am 73 years of age and have seen what has been done to our country by those in power. Especially from Wilson on. If more folks understood how we have violated our Constitution and made a mockery of our founding principles they would instantly recognize that Dr. Paul is exactly what this nation needs to restore our greatness.

The media does suppress or trashe candidates it does not wish to support. John Edwards and Mitt Romney are now receiving the cold shoulder from liberal and special interest media groups. The more the media behaves in this fashion the more irritated and despondent the American voter becomes. The networks have lost the trust of mainstream America and have now relied on the antics of special interest to prop their ratings base. Principals, integrity and community values in a presidential candidate makes present day media moguls shudder.

Thank you, Andrew. A fair assessment. I am 73 years of age and have seen what has been done to our country by those in power. Especially from Wilson on. If more folks understood how we have violated our Constitution and made a mockery of our founding principles they would instantly recognize that Dr. Paul is exactly what this nation needs to restore our greatness.

I can't believe I can actually say a major newspaper is giving Paul a fair coverage. Good for you and thank you. It sounds like there's a ton of support in the LA area for Dr.Paul, so it's good to know one media outlet actually cares about what their readers want. Not only is it what his supporters want, but it's true and (for the most part) unbiased.

The airwaves are part of the commons, so Paul and Hunter should be afforded access to that space if they have registered for the primaries. If they followed ABC's criteria that a candidate fulfill one of four benchmarks then exclusion would have not have been so arbitrary.

There is no conspiracy regarding the media and its treatment of Paul. Since major media outlets are by enlarge only a portion a corporation's portfolio no conspiracy is needed. If the CEO of the holding company perceives that a company within their control will negatively affect the overall bottom line their responsibility is first and foremost to the shareholder and overall profits. Given that traditional media derives most of its revenue from advertising and not subscriptions (an 80 - 20 ratio, though I stand to be corrected on a case by case basis) it stands to reason that advertisers will hold influence as well. Yes, there is a symbiotic relationship between subscriptions and advertising - a loss of subscribers means declining advertising revenue - but it would take an en masse revolt of subscribers to have the same influence as a significant advertiser.

Paul's rhetoric suggests that he is no friend of large corporations (he has compared corporatism to fascism), especially ones that benefit from govt subsidies like weapons manufacturing and agribusiness. My question is: is there any major media outlet that is not part of larger corporations and therefore independent of outside influence?

(Well, this one, the former publicly-owned Tribune Co., just went private and is owned largely by the employees. But to be honest, that doesn't have anything to do with what we write or don't write here. It's a free forum and we're glad you found it, read it and are participating.)

Dr. Ron Paul is the only one telling it like it is. for a very very long time 20 plus years ago.
Check this URL:

This is my opinion as to why this is happening...

Young Americans from all parts of this beautiful country are awakening; he is the only one delivering the message that is reaching all three views, Republican, Democrats and Independents.
Do you know why? Well I do not claim to know all the variables that play into this but I bet the following has a big role and that is young Americans see what is going on with their grandparents, where Medicare is a mess, social security is gone or running out and medication is to the roof.

Then they see their parents struggling to pay the bills and getting by week by week.
Parents and grandparents sharing and commenting among themselves the good old days, talking about the days when this or that used to cost XYZ and when he or she used to work for this or that company and now all is gone.
Then this generation born from 1964 to late 1980 is starting to really feel the pinch.

Yes the pinch of what is to come, it has been building year after year, for decades our government has been making decisions and policies that at that time sounded good, or that it may fix this or that, decisions that had a good burst of economic growth but that in the long run will need to be revised.

It is here now, this generation sees, hears and is starting to feel bad economic policies made decades ago:
-1913 (16th Amendment to the constitution) then congress authorized the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank (Private institution) to control our money.
-1933 – Big year, full of bad policies among the more important are President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102. (Unlawful to own or hold gold) and a joint resolution to abrogated the gold clause on all existing government and private contracts was signed.
-1934 – “Gold Reserve Act” became law. This law took away title to all “Gold Certificates” and vested sole title to the U.S. Treasury.

In sum this and other measurements where executed by our government to end the “Fixed Dollar” and with it the “PAPER ERA BEGAN”.
It is 2007 and our government still feels the need to continue feeding this machine, so what does it do? It continues to issue certificates to be purchased by BIG private investors and countries. So with every approval of funding this huge government is making us “We the People” especially this and future generation debtors. Yes, Money out of thin air.

People do not get distracted by your everyday personal or trivial issues, this subject one of many does matter a LOT to you, your loved ones, and ALL of us. We need to be aware of who is going to start to put an end to this otherwise we will end up like many other great countries from the past (Example: Rome, England, Spain, Greece).
Back then they were called Empires and they ended up bankrupt due to bad policies and many, many of their people suffered.
Do not take my word for it… just as I did read the information available in books, archives etc.

who wants another texan in the most important office of our country?

I just want to point out that four out of the six stories that you cite to prove the paranoia of Ron Paulites with regard to the "msm" are blog posts, and thus (most likely) never made it to print.
I'm not sure blog posts are (generally) mainstream... do they not cater to niche audiences, a public actively looking for news on a particular topic?

Just some thoughts, please correct me if im wrong.

(Well, with all due respect, judging by the numbers involved, would have to say online is pretty darned mainstream. Everything we've ever written since we started June 11 is available here 24/7. Today's newspaper will be in the bottom of the parakeet's cage tomorrow. Without the newspaper we wouldn't have the vast news-gathering resources to call on online and to underwrite this blogging effort. So there's an important link.)

Your rag on Ron Paul is a blatant lie! He's in double digit in the New Hampshire Poll and is ahead of Fred Thompson. You skum in the MSM are working overtime to censor him.

(Well , you're right about overtime, but if we were working so hard to cover him up, would we have written dozens of items on him and provided such a free forum for dialogue among readers and writer? And exposed his exclusion from the debate? Gee, don't think so.)

Fox News is making a huge mistake as is ABC. Already, their sponsors are receiving hundreds of thousands of phone calls threatening a boycott. We the people are tired of the state-controlled (and they are) media telling us who viable candidates are based on their so-called scientific polls which any self-respecting statistician would frown upon.

This is the most important factor to take into consideration when thinking about Ron Paul's chances for winning - polls do not apply. Here's why:

1) Who Gets Polled In the Big-Name Polls?
When GOP polls are taken by Zogby, Rasmussen and others, they only poll those GOP voters who either caucused or voted in the last GOP POTUS primary. But GW Bush ran unopposed in 2004, and only 6% of all GOP voters participated.

And let's face it, those that would actually go to a primary to vote for someone running unopposed are the hardcore GW Bush supporters who had to make sure the guy won the primaries. These are not people who would be likely to vote for Ron Paul, but they're a teeensy tiny percentage of total GOP voters. But when these polls are taken, these are the people that get the phone calls. The fact that as many as 10% of them in Iowa support Ron Paul is amazing.

2) Ron Paul and Disillusioned Republicans
I'm one of them, and so are many others. GW Bush ran on Ron Paul's foreign policy platform back in 1999, which is the year I voted for Bush.

After watching Bush and his cartel do precisely the opposite of what he said he'd do, then after 911, and the Iraq invasion, I joined the Constitution Party before the last election in 2003 and that's how I voted.

The press say that 25% of GOP voters are now against GW Bush's policies. The press always underreports though. I think the number is much much higher. All the other candidates are touting following the current policies of the Bush administration (with a few minor exceptions). Based on the hundreds of conversations I've had with Republicans who are voting for Paul, I believe that more GOP voters support Paul than the media lets on, and those GOP voters aren't the ones being polled.

3) Ron Paul and Independents
They're switching more and more each day. So many in this country are so sick of the Dems and GOP that they're declaring their independence. Paul is attracting them in huge numbers because he is so different. But they aren't polled.

4) Ron Paul and Disenfranchised Democrats
I am shocked at how many Democrats I've met that have become Paul supporters. They have "held their noses" and reregistered as Republicans just so they can vote for Paul. But they aren't polled.

5) Ron Paul and Libertarians
Recently, the LP asked Paul if he'd run on their ticket and he refused. Why? Because LP candidates don't participate in debates and get even less attention than Paul gets now. Paul must stay in the mainstream party at least until after February 5th or he'll really get ignored. But is that going to stop LP voters from voting for him? NO WAY! They're registering GOP in the states that require declaring fo primaries. And they too, are not polled.

6) Ron Paul and the Constitution Party
The CP is now the third-largest party in the United States. Some in it's own leadership are supporting Ron Paul, the most notable being Chuck Baldwin. The argument rages across the Internet: Should CP members support a candidate that isn't running on their ticket or should they cut off their noses to spite their faces? The concensus seesm to be: How many chances like this will we ever get? CP Party members seem to agree there won't be many. As I am a CP member, I am on many forums where I see this daily. And they don't get polled either.

7) Ron Paul and Leftist Liberals
Yes, even members and others support Paul, though on one issue alone. That of course is his foreign policy platform of non-interventionism. But the fact that even these liberals would support Paul speaks volumes about his cross-party support. Think these liberals get polled? NOT!

8 International Support:
Paul has more meetup groups, organizations and supporters in other countries than any other candidate. For years, the rest of the world has been dismayed at an ever increasing imperialism of the United States around the world. Paul wants to stop that. Do these supporters have influence? You bet they do! There are millions of new voters in the United States in the form of new naturalized citizens. Those new citizens, proud of their newly-gained status, almost always vote. But they aren't polled.

9) Military Support:
Paul gets the most money from our military than any other candidate in either party. But guess what? They aren't polled!

10) How Are the Big-Name Polls Conducted?
While this may be a minor point (and therefore deserves last place), it IS a factor. All the national and state big name polls are conducted using land line phones. Folks who use only cellular phones aren't getting polled, even if they did vote in the GOP primary in 2003.

When you combine all these factors together, it becomes clear that poll numbers mean nothing when it comes to predicting Ron Paul's viability.

If your only reason for not supporting Ron Paul is you don't see him doing well in these polls, I suggest you rethink your position.

(Hey, Ron Paul and his followers is a great political story this year. We're not supporting him. We're not not supporting him. We're writing about him --and them--and you, it seems.)

good article... thanks for ol' rupurts email address.
i must complain just like any paul supporter has to complain.

we dont "flock" anywhere... we ARE everywhere.

and the polls are fake.

ron paul isn't even in half the polls.
and they only take into account past likely republican voters.
not democrats, not independents, and not people who have never voted before.

paul may not win, but, if he does... we will win through our young vote.

Mr Malcolm,

I can't speak for other Paul supporters, but I think you've written a great article that sums up the situation better than any other I have come across. I have dabbled in politics long enough to have become jaded about my expectations (but still get excited when I see many others embracing the same ideals), and I don't expect the press to make news about Ron Paul. Instead, we will make the news, and you guys, the truly fair and balanced guys that I believe most journalists strive to be, will report it.

However, in the case of Fox, maybe we will have to make them report it! But I think it is great that RP is getting the attention he has now, and we can look in local papers and read articles written by local news staff and not the same old recombobulated (yes I just made up a new word but I'll let you use it) stuff from the AP wire that was printed elsewhere days or weeks ago.

(Well, for better or worse, ours is certainly original.)

I couldn't quite figure out your tone for this article, being a little tired and hungover, so I won't jump to conclusions. Keeping on topic, I think it is most ridiculous for Faux News to put in lower polling Fred Thompson, though polls are rather insignificant, over Ron Paul. Its been evident, for awhile, that Faux is really pushing for G-Man, especially after the statements from Reagan. Sean Hanitty is getting limo services from him and is actively campaigning for him.

good thing i dont have pen & paper to take note of
Rupert Murdoch's e-mail
(opens up notepad on the PC) ^^

Love this article & heck YES Ron should be allowed on the debate!!! what happened to this country!!?? since when did our news become non-free press & o so politically correct & owned? Pay attn people to who owns those news corps! (oops i gagged when i typed the word NEWS)

Thank you for this very enlightening (inscribed link here) article! I am a very happy Ron Paul supporter & even more so for your article! MSM debates be darned! RON PAUL 2008! (opens up email ... and ...)

The real question is why are these other crooks, liars, and war mongers allowed to spew their dishonest, manipulative trash on the air waves?

Here are your candidates. Get educated, get responsible, and get real freedom!


The people will do whatever they can to gain their freedom. This insane grassroots campaign is the result of an oppressive federal government that works to take the liberties, freedom, and privacy from the citizens. Ron Paul wishes to free the people. That's why you see what's going on.

Only when you begin to understand that this campaign is motivated by freedom will you understand why Paulites do such things. Ron Paul is our only hope for freedom.

This is my favorite part of the article:

If word got out that Fox/News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch's e-mail was, his mailbox would be full in a flash.

Something else to ponder.... Fox News.... Fair and Balanced. NOT!

Should Ron Paul be allowed at Sunday's debate?

I can't believe you are even asking the question? Isn't america supposed to be an open democracy? Apparently not according to Fox, for them it's sort of mostly open within the parameters of their own desires.

I really can't see what is so dangerous about Ron Paul.

The standard polls are very inaccurate for a several important reason. To start, some don't even mention his name as a choice, and sample a small number of the 6.6% of Republicans who voted in the primaries for Bush during that cycle. The standard polls are biased, and not designed to measure an outsider's support. Just ask whom are their customers, who pays Zogby or Rassmusen anyway? This is big money folks! The straw and online polls, donations and enthusiasm of his supporters are a better gauge.

As standard polling portends to measure' those most likely to vote', it is ironic that Ron Paul supporters are indeed those most likely to vote, and yet are mostly ignored. As it is, a high % of RP supporters will show at the primaries and overcome a candidate who has better showing in the polls.

I should suggest to the author, who has done some homework, dig deeper into what is relevant, and what motivates Ron Paul supporters to rail against the in justices they see in our less than perfect system. Is it they who have the facts on their side? Often they do! Even the campaign consultant and Fox News associate Dick Morris would back up some of their claims about our very flaw election process. He too doesn't trust either the polls or the electronic voting machines.

Again, it ironic that our media's bias and often full blown prejudiced, the entrenched two party system, that and whom which influences and discriminates the most, the ill advised and uninformed, only galvanize Ron Paul's Revolution. For those of us who truly understand this Ron Paul movement, we have the last laugh. We win even if we don't win!

The real question is why are these other crooks, liars, and war mongers allowed to spew their dishonest, manipulative trash on the air waves?

Here are your candidates. Get educated, get responsible, and get real freedom!


I'm all for letting Ron Paul join the debate. Give him more rope to hang himself.

Not bad, I am not sure of your intended effect, but I am certain that like everything, it will work in the favor of Dr. Paul. Oh, and by the way...the antiabortion thing ? Try not to say doesn't matter if he believes in abortion, because he believe that each state should make it's own abortion laws.



Because these polls they are touting as indicators of voter preference are polls of Republicans and Democrats who voted in the the *last* election and they do not into account the new voters who will turn out en mass to vote Ron Paul into office.

In other words, there is a new major third party - that is growing every day - that the pundits are either ignoring or they are just to blind to see.

I'll repeat that: There is a revolution taking place right under their noses that they do not or can not see.

Wow... I'm impressed with your article. It was balanced and fair, which is something I'm not used to seeing with the MSM and especially the LA Times. I commend you for risking your job with a fair and balanced article on Dr. Paul. and for the record, he should ABSOLUTELY NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEBATES.

When you look at the AOL Straw Poll which AOL created as a true independent poll for the candidates and their support, Ron Paul is winning in Iowa. 237,549 total people have voted in the poll and it does not allow you to vote more than once, even if you clear your cookies. So it is truly tamper proof. And guess what, Ron Paul is winning the national popular vote at 29%. The next behind him is Guliani and Huckabee with 17%In fact, in IA the numbers break down like this... 2,932 people have voted. Ron Paul has 33% of the vote. Huckabee has 32% of the vote, and Romney only has 15% of the vote. I would say this is MUCH MORE accurate seeing as how it is an independent poll and there are a LOT MORE participants.But ultimately I guess we'll find out in a day or so. I can't wait to see how Dr. Paul will once again shock the MSM.

By the way, if you'd like to check my facts just go to news. aol. com/political-machine/2007/12/21/straw-poll-dec-21-jan-4

If double digits is the key, then Fox better exclude Thompson as well. All the polls for NH show Thompson in the low single digits with Paul polling better than he is there. Giuliani is in the single digits in Iowa according to the Des Moines Register and Zogby Polls and Ron Paul is polling higher than he is there in the Des Moines Register and 1% below him in the Zogby. No, I think Fox is trying to manipulate the results of the election. Before anyone has voted in any election, they would like to decide who the viable candidates are. Does anyone remember the 1948 election that the Chicago Tribune declared Dewey the winner based on a poll and even published that information and then had to retract when the actual election results showed that Dewey had lost?

(To be fair and accurate, that famous erroneous headline was published based on early returns, not a poll.)

When you specify that Ron Paul is "antiabortion", that, of course, implies that he would support some sort of federal anti-abortion law; the reality is that while Paul is pro-life, he has repeatedly stated that he feels there should not be a "federal abortion police" and would leave decisions on abortion (along with drugs, taxes, and the like) up to the states, the way our government was actually designed to be.

A skeptic's article, but not bad.

Still, it makes me wonder out loud ...

Why is it acceptable for a few people become passionate enough and skilled enough to do a video or two that are widely followed (e.g. Obama 1984 video, Obama Girl, the Clinton Girl, etc)?

But when tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands if you count donors to this improbable campaign) are similarly passionate about their support of a candidate, those people are considered abnormal?

(Not abnormal. It is unusual and refreshing to see such commitment, which is part of what makes the Ron Paul story so interesting. At least to us. Thanks for reading.)

From someone who isn't a Pautard: Murdoch should let him debate.

It may be harder for Huckabee/Romney/Guiliani (maybe - Paul might come off a little loony) who will get called out on taking money they shouldn't (Giuliani - as mayor with mistress, Huckabee - as governor with his wedding registries, all candidates for their campaign contributors), making untrue pandering statements (Romney - MLK march, Guiliani for his sincerity problem), cronyism, religion, lack of policy...and a lot else...McCain and Thompson might fare better...but Paul will come out the worst.

Allowing him in would make not only Murdoch and Fox seem more impartial, but the Repub who wins the debate stronger. The Repub candidate will have to face these kinds of questions eventually - better sooner than later. Candidates would maybe have to answer some harder questions, actually address real issues, but they wouldn't have to do much to derail Paul.

Though Paul is against abortion, is a constructionist/constitutionalist, and is obviously the most (only?) sincere and honest candidate in the bunch, and the only one who can claim the totally correct Iraq stance and actual fiscal responsibility, he also wants to shut down most every Federal government branch, pull out of the UN and NATO, end the student loan program, federal subsidies (farm), federal emergency relief funds (flooding), the federal reserve...his ideas are just too zany for the American public, who like measured approaches...and a president who would fix our problems would need to show a record of having been able to get ideas/bills through Congress...the ability to get real bipartisan support. Paul isn't that guy -- and really, a guy who almost became a Lutheran minister won't do much better in a general race than a hard baptist or a culty Mormon on the religion question.

When you look at Ron Paul's ability to raise money, and the amount of interest he generates on the Internet, how could anyone seriously believe the "official" polls? We have been lied to so many times that we are skeptical of mainstream media. We know of their connection to the Council on Foreign Relations, and this, I believe constitutes a conflict of interest. How can we expect media outlets to report fairly about a candidate who's views conflict with the agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations?

All I can say is, thank God for the Internet. The Internet is still free from any type of control. Information can get out on the Net that is suppressed on mainstream media.

Andrew, you really didn't need the "locusts" crack in there; it was unnecessary.

That and this story is about 4 days old now...

(Thanks for coming back and reading. Tell you what, if you're on the receiving end of 500+ comments, locusts seems like an apt expression. But can see where you disagree. But then that's what this comments section is for, to have a dialogue. Thanks for taking the time.)

The United States Constitution is the pinnacle of Mankind's social evolution.

Humans have only been "civillized" for approximately 2% of our species existence. During this period the vast majority of peoples have lived in bondage. The Founding Fathers fought, bled and sacrificed all for this great Republic. Now we must either meet the challenge of Freedom or slide back into abysmal servitude.

Ron Paul '08

Live Free Or Die!

Good story. You got only one thing wrong. It is not our belief that the MSM has marginalized and ignored Paul. It is a fact. They have so often distored his positions calling him an isolationist when in fact he is a non-interventionist. Kristol and Toobin use words like crackpot and crazy. Is obeying the Constitution crazy? Even Russert questiioning about the civil war not relevant to the compain, but Paul answered. When AOL does an online poll they phrase the question out of context in which he answered. Dr. Paul simple said alternatives to war were not considered which could have saved 600,000 deaths, destruction and poor race relations for decades after the war. Even the debates gave a lack of time to paul. If debates are their to get ideas out and discuss and learn then why limit the time for the only non clone candidate who has different ideas. I could go on forever but I think I have made my point.

Well the sarcasm you put forward is quite amazing - as it always is.

The point you forget is that if you don't vote your conscious you have wasted your vote. If you vote because some major news "organ" says only a select "tier" of candidates will win, your opinion, your vote, really doesn't count.

Why are Ron Paul supporters so intense? Because they know that the rest of the candidates are being typical politicians, greasily lying as a way of life.

What makes America great, what makes America unique, is the protection of individual freedoms codified by our constitution - which all politicians swear to upholding (by the way) and then immediately break with upon entering the government.

Ron Paul is the rare person who protects that document, and follows through - which is why we are passionate - and why the media is confused by him - and we will not be wasting our vote, like the rest of you. And there may be enough of us out there to win the whole thing. We will be protecting this country for the rest of you.

The mainstream press gets a well deserved "bad rap" because it is just a collection of jaded, comprimised thinkers, and through their dirty filters of their sarcastic eyes, they cannot see, or appreciate, any honest candidate. Sad but true. And that is the real story.

(Just a reminder, we've never said who's going to win. Anytime we mention polls we mention that they are mere snapshots in time, right now, today, not predictive.)


You keep on writing as if Dr. Paul's message was just an odd political position by a few. Be an American and report The Ron Paul Revolution as part of your own agenda, for its message is the message of America...

Liberty, Freedom, Peace and Prosperity.

Carlo, Miami FL

(By a few? What have you been reading? Hundreds of comments. Thousands of donors. We were the only media blog to cover his record-breaking online night that Sunday. Done separate stories on his meet-up groups. His successful online fundraising effort. C'mon. Get serious here.)

Have you seen the coverage Ron Paul gets? I was not a supporter until I saw how horribly he was treated in interviews and by the press in general. I researched his stances on my own and I agree with him 100%.

Only a couple more days until Iowa caucus, I cannot wait to see the look on the MSM faces...

I support Ron Paul and feel that he should be apart of all of these debates. As a 31 year old consumer who provides for a family of seven, I will be sure to take a good close look at those who support Faux News in blinding the American people of thier choices for our next President. I strongly urge everyone involved at the highest of levels to not block the will of the American people. Dr. Ron Paul belongs in ALL debates and should not be excluded. The "polls" are not reflecting the real support that Ron Paul has in this country and it is a crying shame that we allow this to take place in the land of the free home of the brave. I see cowards amoung us who are not willing to stand for what is right. If Ron Paul is not in that debate I will have no choice but to boycott ALL products advertised through Faux News ~ fair and balanced ~


We must hold a counter event right outside with swarms of Ron Paul Supporters!

we should invite Paul and hold an even that dwarfs Fox's forum!

Fox is unnecessary to make educated election decisions!

we should take video, and send it to CNN's Ireport and every online video outlet!

Youtube, VEOH, MyspaceTV, EVERYTHING!

and as a key not we must not mention FOX. We must keep it positive and promote

RON PAUL FOR 2008!!!

RON PAUL WILL WIN WITHOUT THIS FORUM, but we cannot stand by as they deliberately censor freedom.

This is amazing actually it's a miracle in my view that John Paul dosen't flow with the mainstream republicans if he's even republican at all, and that's good! Who says that you have to be democrat or republican,who in these days really cares. All that matters is that we have to get back to the roots of this country which in the past has made us strong. We have to become self sufficient in agriculture/oil and other industry like we used to be. We are triple taxed,once from our paychecks and then on everything we buy and on our land and houses and vechicles.Oh,thats more then triple isn't it. And that's just what we can see on the surface. What about our legislature? There are laws being written & voted on that we have no control over. We are left sitting and praying that they don't pass like the hate bill crime which gives homosexuals special rights that envoke on our rights of freedom of religion.Lets not mention the immagration issue that totally threatens our nations heritage and citizens to work for decent wages. Corporate America would love to kick me out on the curve for a mexican(can I say that?) who will work for minimum wage & by the way,minimum wage is way too low.Oh yeah,if the gov't really wants to give me a tax break(me being a mother of 3 children)then give me my whole paycheck!That would dramatically change my family's life. Yes,this and more needs to be seen on TV and the media as you know are terrified of John Paul because they are controled by the most powerful people in the world.If this were to happen he just might win!! But first he needs to be aware of how dangerous he is when he is supporting "real freedom". I plan on praying for his safety as well as his victory everyday,all day long and you should too. Oh lets pray right now that he gets through all the roadblocks that wants to hinder him from appearing on the Sunday debate on FOX. AMEN...................Thanx

(Thanks for reading and commenting, Susan. But it's RON Paul. John Paul was a couple of Popes. I guess you really are a believer! :-) )

Paul should avoid the debate, and have his own event nearby. Having Paul at the debate will give FOX a better chance to sideline him like they did at the last debate and CNN did at the Youtube debate. I'm sure Paul can create just as much buzz by protesting this debate (and probably more) than if he were actually there. This is an opportunity for him to show the people exactly what the problems are with our electoral process.

Disclaimer: Yes I am a Paul supporter, and yes I do tend to crawl the internet like a locust. This however does not make my "internet" support or my "internet" donations any less real than that from those that don't know how to use a computer. I do have a pulse and I can vote, there is nothing "internet" about that.

I did not email The Ministry of Truth aka FOX News, but I did block them on my cable box and will not be buying anything from FOX sponsors. I found the list of sponsors on a Paul message board. I find it disgusting that FOX is trying so hard to supress Dr. Pauls. This is still a democracy and they must be held to accont.

(What's the message board url?)

Thank you for writing a very fair and unbiased article on Dr Paul. I believe the exclusion of a very feasible candidate for President from a Debate/Forum from Fox news shows there bias.

As far as 'perceived' bias goes, all any person of reasonable intelligence has to do is flip thru CNN/MSNBC/FOX and see the coverage. You will notice that every little detail of the supposed forerunners is covered, almost every 15 minutes. Are you saying that this constant coverage isnt beneficial to their campaigns and the poll numbers?

Anyway you can watch this to see some of the behind the scenes censoring of Ron Pauls message:

maybe he could have a debate with kucinich?

« | 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: