Should Ron Paul be allowed at Sunday's debate?

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

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

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

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

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

So whose decision is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[sherrie]

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.

[H E Garbow]

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?

[Dave]

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.)

[13]

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

[JanetP]

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.

[politicalsanity]

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.

[James]

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.

[Warren Kruse]

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....
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/18981

[Mike]

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.)

[Mike]

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.

[Greg Sarnowski]

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.

[romes]

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.)

[Mike]

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.

[Greg Sarnowski]

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.

[mason]

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 fccinfo@fcc.gov, 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.

[JB]

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.)

[Bretwalda]

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.

[charles ranalli]

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
albuquerque

[Michael OBrien]

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.

[RPINDEED]

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.

[Meg]

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.)

.

[Robert Moore]

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.

[Varrin Swearingen]

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: http://freestateproject.org/libertyforum

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

[Todd kingham]

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!!!!

[Tree]

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.