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
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.
Posted by: slim | January 01, 2008 at 08:00 AM
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!
Posted by: InTheSticks | January 01, 2008 at 08:01 AM
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!
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007
Come on PEOPLE, WAKE UP!
Posted by: eric | January 01, 2008 at 08:01 AM
I'm all for letting Ron Paul join the debate. Give him more rope to hang himself.
Posted by: Greg Jameson | January 01, 2008 at 08:03 AM
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 that...it doesn't matter if he believes in abortion, because he believe that each state should make it's own abortion laws.
Posted by: Anne Webster | January 01, 2008 at 08:04 AM
Yes.
Why?
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.
Posted by: Rocky Mountain Man | January 01, 2008 at 08:04 AM
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
Posted by: John B. | January 01, 2008 at 08:05 AM
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?
http://history1900s.about.com/cs/trumanharry/a/deweytruman.htm
(To be fair and accurate, that famous erroneous headline was published based on early returns, not a poll.)
Posted by: Tammy | January 01, 2008 at 08:06 AM
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.
Posted by: Victor | January 01, 2008 at 08:08 AM
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.)
Posted by: Jeff Winchell | January 01, 2008 at 08:10 AM
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.
Posted by: Terence | January 01, 2008 at 08:10 AM
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.
Posted by: Greg Butko | January 01, 2008 at 08:10 AM
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.)
Posted by: Tannim | January 01, 2008 at 08:10 AM
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!
Posted by: Ian T. Pattie | January 01, 2008 at 08:10 AM
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.
Posted by: Roger Hermann | January 01, 2008 at 08:12 AM
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.)
Posted by: Roy McKissick | January 01, 2008 at 08:12 AM
Andrew,
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.)
Posted by: Carlo | January 01, 2008 at 08:12 AM
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...
Posted by: Aaron | January 01, 2008 at 08:12 AM
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 ~
Posted by: Brian | January 01, 2008 at 08:14 AM
RON PAUL WILL WIN!
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.
Posted by: Francis McM | January 01, 2008 at 08:15 AM
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! :-) )
Posted by: susan michelle johnson | January 01, 2008 at 08:15 AM
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.
Posted by: Tim | January 01, 2008 at 08:18 AM
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?)
Posted by: one of the Ron Paul lucusts | January 01, 2008 at 08:18 AM
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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZNlXSn_vC8
Posted by: Patrick Hooper | January 01, 2008 at 08:20 AM
maybe he could have a debate with kucinich?
Posted by: stew | January 01, 2008 at 08:22 AM