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

[Roger Ritthaler]

"Should Ron Paul be allowed at Sunday's debate?" Duh!

[Skippy]

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but I do believe he's earned the right to be treated as a viable candidate. The reasons for excluding him are so obviously made-up-on-the-spot and desperate, they can only be categorized somewhere between laughable and painful. It's almost like they seriously thought no one would notice. Then again, what can you expect from Fox News?

The other candidates should constantly be embarrassed that their supporters exhibit so little of the passion and organizational skills you see every day from the RP supporters.

[Chip]

FOX News is having the forum on a BUS! Thats right; A friickin bus!

FOX News doesn't want any voters there either.

They are planning on having their little forum with their approved candidates. When the forum is over Frank Luntz will be there to let you know who you are supposed to vote for.

[Metin]

The 'democracy' of debates and debate organizers are hard at work denying the civil liberties of one good doctor who could perform life-saving surgery on the U.S.

[Buswiz]

Guys don't forget to register to vote, the deadlines are up'n'coming.

[Michael]

There is absolutely no reason why Dr Paul should be excluded. The numbers for the NH polls are inaccurate and in some case completely wrong.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110011060

I am sorry for those of you that believe Dr. Paul is a 'crackpo't or a 'looney' - do your research... you are the ones who are crazy!

[Wendy M]

Once again, thank you, Mr. Malcolm for writing about Ron Paul - especially this specific topic which should outrage any American who wants a free and fair election, whomever they support.

I am a Paulite but I do not "believe that major newspapers and broadcast networks have conspired to pay insufficient attention to Dr. Paul". True, he does not get the same amount of attention as other candidates but I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy". More like a blind spot for anything outside the status quo, perhaps.

I do agree that the "scientific" polls are exceptionally inaccurate and are "self-fulfilling frauds". Thank goodness for the tremendous strides the Internet has taken in recent years. I've seen enough tv news clips and creative videos on YouTube, enough online newspaper articles, and enough blog articles to convince me that Ron Paul has far more support than the standard polls seem to indicate.

We shall see the proof in just a couple of days....

[J. Sadler]

Please help me understand, what country are we living in? This election is so biased, because the news media will not let all the canadates discuss their platforms, only the ones they choose. Are we living in a 3rd world country? This is the exactly the reason we need Ron Paul, FREEDOM of speech. Please be fair, and give all canadates equal oppertunity

[tom brantley]

who won the post debate poll the last time fox hosted a republican debate?

[Nash]

Thanks for the attention Andrew.

I'll take this opportunity to inquire as to why Ron Paul is not included in the LAT "ON THE TRAIL: SNAPSHOTS OF THE CANDIDATES" section despite polling ahead of Fred Thompson and Gulianni in the first two Primary states and also having more money.

We keep complaining about this kind of treatment. You keep assuring us he'll get "the attention he deserves" and then the LAT keeps towing the line.

Why?

(Good question. We had a different photo collection displayed until last week and that one had every candidate. I just checked and you're right there are a few candidates not displayed in the new one including Dr. Paul. I'll alert the photo people and intend to get it fixed asap. Thank you for the heads-up.)

[William]

Hey Andrew,
Was this some type of new years resolution for you ; you know, getting right with the revolutionaries?
If it is then glad to have you along, if not then we'll leave a seat open for you.

(Ah, yes, you never know what you might find in Top of the Ticket. Thanks for reading. And Happy New Year.)

[Saul Tanner]

Saint Anselm students held a Mock Primary and Dr. Paul tied with Huckabee and outpaced Thompson 5 to 1!! If you look at St. A's website, you'll find plenty of mention of support for liberty and the democratic process. They need to back up their ideals with actions and request Fox include Paul.

[420greg]

Dr. Paul cured my apathy.

[Donn]

When you consider the rigged elections we have in the USA, it makes you shudder to think about the "elections" we foisted upon Iraq. We invaded their country, occupied their cities, killed their people, closed down newspapers, confiscated private firearms and then held and "election." Who selected the candidates that were presented to the Iraqi voters? Who determined what newspapers and broadcasters would be allowed to operate?

The USA is the modern version of the old British and French colonial empires. We come. We conquer. We take.

[Tn]

I like Duncan Hunter and RP this guys will keep Middle class job in US since CLINTON BUSH machine was sold out to global monopoly china and open border since they run by lobbies big bucks.

billary talk by scripted like bill NOT attention to middle class since Hillary Clinton was on the board of Wal-Mart(99 % chiness economi) & Tyson Foods most illegal alien worker). Accustomed to dirty tricks. Large corporate entities.

The experience card that Hillary Clinton claims to hold is nothing more than a joker Her ‘experience’ is a crutch and will bring more personal vendettas into American politics. She is a narcissistic puppet in a pantsuit.
how come president impeached master of lier back to 2008 again..people so GULLIBLE.

[Keenan]

I've always voted Republican because of social issues, but now they all look the same to me...tickling people's ears with non-committal words. Ron Paul is the only candidate I've listened to that appears to speak his mind. I'll never agree with everything, but for goodness sake, stand for something! Give the one person that has a different message an opportunity to share it with the folks that might hear.

I could care less what the polls say. I'm done with the "typical" process of picking the lesser of two evils, etc. At this point, raising a family is only becoming harder because of the exact issues that Ron Paul brings up, so my vote is with him, and I will vote in a primary for the first time in my life. Big government is stealing my American drive to pursue the dreams I've been taught to dream.

[HNeil]

Ron Paul is the last best hope for this floundering nation, and the so-called pundits and major news media ignore him. Why? Because they are scared to have an honest, forthright idividual guiding the country. The mega- companies including FOX news etal want the same crooks as they have always had there in Washington because they know they can be bought to do whatever is best for the mega corporations. 'Screw the individual taxpaying Americans in every way possible' is their motto.

[Joshua Earlenbaugh]

That article was extremely well done. Kudos to Malcolm for a great piece of journalism!

[tN]

I like Duncan Hunter and RP this guys will keep Middle class job in US since CLINTON BUSH machine was sold out to global monopoly china and open border since they run by lobbies big bucks.

billary talk by scripted like bill NOT attention to middle class since Hillary Clinton was on the board of Wal-Mart(99 % chiness economi) & Tyson Foods most illegal alien worker). Accustomed to dirty tricks. Large corporate entities.

The experience card that Hillary Clinton claims to hold is nothing more than a joker Her ‘experience’ is a crutch and will bring more personal vendettas into American politics. She is a narcissistic puppet in a pantsuit.
how come president impeached master of lier back to 2008 again..people so GULLIBLE.

[Likkerish]

Mr. Malcolm, since the email address that you gave for Rupert Murdoch does not work, as I suspected might be the case, I am reprinting the email here that was returned to me in the hope that you might forward it to the appropriate email address. Of course, you have that, correct? In any case, perhaps, Emperor Murdoch may stumble across it in a Google search. Here it is...

Mr. Murdoch:

Since the airwaves are limited, you bear a great responsibility to make Fox News truly "fair and balanced" and not to use its license to pursue your personal agenda. Excluding Congressman Ron Paul from the New Hampshire debate on January 6, 2008 is inimical to the principles upon which this country was founded and is thus unconscionable in a society that values freedom of choice. It is totally antithetical to the democratic process for Fox News to exclude the candidate who raised nearly $20 million in the last quarter simply because the so-called "scientific polls" show his nationwide support only in the single digits. The validity of these polls has been challenged amply and Dr. Paul's fundraising figure lends strong support to these challenges, not to mention the fact that he leads all other candidates in winning straw polls across the country throughout 2007.

The decision by Fox News to exclude Ron Paul, despite the objections of the New Hampshire GOP, and despite the fact that he leads other invited candidates in support in NH polls, makes the motive behind the decision patently transparent. Fox is quite obviously attempting to limit the exposure of Dr. Paul's views and those of the millions of people who have advanced him as their spokesperson and candidate for the presidency--views that are committed to restoring respect for the Constitution and the rule of law--because these views run counter to the Fox agenda.

And, now the final poll before the Iowa Caucuses is showing Dr. Paul tied with Fred Thompson for fourth place. How, Sir, can you justify exclusion? Dr. Paul's support shows him to be a major contender in Iowa where he is polling higher than Rudi Giuliani or at least tied with him, given the margin of statistical error, and in New Hampshire where he is polling higher or at least tied with Fred Thompson, again given the statistical error. From a logical standpoint, in view of all indicators, it seems ludicrous to exclude Congressman Paul from the Fox debate.

Perhaps, you are, indeed, afraid that the people who hear Dr. Paul will realize that you, Sir, have no clothes!

A Concerned American

(Since that e-mail NO LONGER works.)

[Jim K]

My letter to FOX:

Why is Ron Paul (of all the candidates) being excluded in your upcoming debate in NH when he clearly has new ideas that need to be considered that will help fix this rapidly sinking ship we all reside on? Why in the world wouldn't you WANT pro-constitutional ideas voiced anyway? Makes no sense.

Why would I or any other viewer continue to "watch FOX news to get their news" when it is becoming obvious you are incapable of being "FAIR and BALANCED" in a critical 11th hour national debate??? Shame on you. What else are you trying to keep me from hearing?

Count me as a loyal viewer that no longer wants more business as usual (Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain) and someone who wants to hear fresh ideas. Can't you include him in the debate AND continue to make him sound like some kind of nut? Can you do this for one of your loyal viewers?

Until I hear otherwise I can only assume he is being deliberately Perot'd by FOX news as he obviously has ample financial backing and voter support and therefore should be included.

What a shameful act. I am left to wonder exactly WHY you would silence THIS particular voice from your viewers?

[Bill Douglas]

Of Course Ron Paul Should Be in the Debates? What an assinine question.

It amazes me that such a thing would even come up. Just as idiotic as Kucinich being axed from the Iowa Debates. Thank you Iowa Democratic Party for being the epitome of UN-democratic (with a small d).

The corporate media should be ashamed for not causing a firestorm of inquiries into why candidates like Gravel, Kucinich, and Ron Paul are excluded from debates.

IT'S LIKE THE CORPORATE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PARTIES, AND CORPORATE MEDIA POD PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN OVER AND CAN NO LONGER SEE REALITY.

Ron Paul not being included in the debates is scandelous!!

[Sean Powell]

The People demand Ron Paul to Debate. So supply him the chance. You will get more viewers! . . and may sell more soda pop LOL

[Mal]

I am in Ireland and looking at the MSM websites it is patently obvious that there is a bias against Ron Paul.

I just had a look at the Fox News site as one example and there isn't a mention of RP yet every other candidate whether Rep. or Dem. have articles and videos covering their progress in the elections or lack thereof.

The popular and spontaneous support of Ron Paul is a massive story and in a truly free society this would be major news, ie. what is prompting this popular uprising against the status quo?

You would need to be blind to deny that this disaffection in large sections of the American public is happening and growing.

I believe that the results in the forthcoming caucuses will reflect the reality of the situation in the U.S - a reality long overdue.

[Rena]

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter (rather, I've donated what to me is a copious amount of time and money to the Obama campaign), but I think it is just plain wrong that he is excluded from the debate. Whether or not we agree with his platform, he has a right to be heard - particularly when there is clearly such a following. Gravel has been excluded from the Democratic debates pretty regularly, and I also think he should be able to speak his piece.

[Jeff S.]

Thanks for the article, Andrew.

I am a Ron Paul supporter and I do not "disregard" some of the coverage Ron Paul and his campaign have received from the corporate media.

Of course Ron Paul's campaign has received some good press. How could we not? We have set all-time fundraising records, have likely outraised all GOP candidates for the fourth quarter, more likely have more donors than any other GOP candidate, have far bigger turnouts at rallies than any other GOP candidate, have far more grassroots supporters than any other GOP candidate, have won more GOP straw polls than any other GOP candidate, have the only GOP candidate running who is against the war, have the only candidate GOP who speaks strongly against the PATRIOT Act and against abuses of our individual rights and liberties, have the only candidate who has specific, clear plans to significantly reduce the size and cost of government, etc. etc. There are so many things about this campaign that make it newsworthy, interesting, and/or unique.

But Andrew, "all or nothing" thinking is a logical fallacy that you seem to imply in your article. Just because we have received "some" good coverage from the corporate media is not the same as saying that we have received a fair amount of coverage. CNN reported a couple months ago, for example, that John McCain is mentioned in the press 20 times more frequently than Ron Paul. Now is that balanced? I don't think so. As a Ron Paul grassroots volunteer, I interact with hundreds or thousands of American when campaigning for Ron Paul. I can tell you that even now, on January 1, 2008, most people in America do not know who Ron Paul is, or that he is running for President. That is not the case for Romney, Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or even nowadays Huckabee. The mainstream media has given those other candidates media coverage that is probably equivalent to tens of billions of dollars worth of free advertising.

The fact is that the Ron Paul campaign has been battling a mainstream media which has given him woefully inadequate and biased coverage in general compared to other candidates such as McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Romney. To rebut that by saying that Ron Paul supporters "disregard" good articles about Ron Paul is false and misleading. We do not "disregard" good articles about Ron Paul, we read them, or view them, and disseminate them to fellow Ron Paul supporters as well as others on our email lists.

So, thank you for writing about Ron Paul, but please in the future do your research and admit in your articles that Ron Paul has received far less coverage from the mainstream media than he would deserve if it were based on the factors I mentioned above which make his campaign highly newsworthy and unique.

PS many of the so-called "scientific telephone polls" are biased against Ron Paul, and some have not even included Ron Paul's name as a possible response.

Thanks again for the article.

[paul T]

The rEVOLution will not be televised.

"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure." Albert Einstein

[GatorVol]

I married a European, and we were in American at the time of the first Gulf war. My husband's relatives in Europe gave us news about the war...news that we didn't hear about in America until 3 days later! Our news was "filtered".

Thanks to the Internet we Americans now have a chance to know what is going on in the world ... and not 3 days later. Thanks to the Internet, we also get to hear the other side of the story.

Thanks to the Internet...we Americans are finding out there really are candidates who are not war-mongering neo-cons, candidates like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich who really do care what it says in our Constitution, and they didn't wait to stand up for it until this election...they have been living these principals all along as they served in our Congress.

People really are beginning to wonder why MSM news stories conflict so much with the information we now get from other sources. Maybe it's time to start telling the truth, the whole truth.

[Dan the D-Man]

"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."

You did that on purpose didn't you?

(I don't know what you're talking about.)

[John Bowery]

I know that you will not be reading this Andrew, but I must again object to the use of the marginalizing epithet, "Paulite". Why is that term socially acceptable when applied to Ron Paul supporters? And why is it that you would never think of calling the gullible backers of his opponents "McCainites", "Guillianitards" or "Huckabozos"?

(Relax. Nothing wrong with Paulites. How about Fredheads? I've seen Clintonistas, Romneyites. Still working on Rudy.)

[Circlecircle]

Thanks for writing this article and giving Ron Paul some pulp time. Your efforts are commendable for reporting on this significant political movement in our country. However, I must say that you have painted most Ron Paul supporters as fervent internet hawks and disaffected political convertees. While there are a lot of loud voices that support R.P. they are only the tip of the iceberg. His real base are very common folks from all walks of life that want a real rational alternative to the "managed" choices citizens of this country usually get.

(You're welcome. It's a good story. Well, if the quiet folks don't speak up, who's to know about them? Is the world supposed to guess? Don't think you'd want writers guessing about your movement.)

[TRACY]

LET THE MAN SPEAK!!! WHAT KIND OF AMERICA DO WE HAVE HERE????
SOUNDS LIKE UNFAIR AND NOT BALANCED FOX! WHAT KIND OF MEDIA IS FOX?? NOT A GOOD ONE!! NOT FAIR!!!

[Mark]

All I know is that I just changed my TV purchase from Best Buy to Circuit City and my car purchase from Toyota to Chrysler, all because they support and advertise with Fake News. It may not be much but when thousands and thousands of us do the same thing, it ads up on those skimpy quarter ending financial statements. Stop supporting Fake News.

[Scott Frost]

I thank Mr. Malcolm for this article. I think he misunderstands the "Ron Paul Revolution" a bit, though.

The revolution is not going to show up on election night. It is already here, right now, and it will be here long after the election, regardless of the outcome. People may go their separate ways, Ron Paul may win or he may not (I think he will), but the rEVOLution is about the ideas, not the man, not the election -- liberty, in a word.

The reawakening of appreciation for liberty and the Constitution that brought this country into existence is only going to grow, regardless of the outcome of this election.

[Carol]

I am a Romney supporter but find it unconscionable that Ron Paul should be excluded from this debate. Ron Paul is an exemplary individual, a true patriot, and a candidate for President of the United States. FOX News congratulates itself on being the station where "We Report, YOU decide. Has it become the station of "We Don't Report, We Decide...?"

[Tyler Durden]

Excluding anyone from what is suppose to be a public debate using the public airwaves is censorship by the corporate elite. What we are witnessing is the hijacking of public airwaves used as a propaganda tool by the corporate media criminals who determine and decide content based on their agendas. The airwaves once were used to give all candidates equal time, but neo-cons and their lobbying elite paid to have those rules and restrictions released by their brethren the FCC. This is what Ron Paul mentioned on "meet the depressed," with Russert. He said we are seeing a soft form of Fascism in America, where the corporate criminals alter and affect the policies of the United States. Corporate influence in Politics, that is Fascism. Fox news WE DEMAND YOU INCLUDE RON PAUL IN THE DEBATE.

[Christopher Witmer]

You betcha -- Mad as Hell and Not Gonna Take It Anymore.

JAPAN LOVES RON PAUL

-- Chris Witmer, Tokyo

[evelyn]

I support Obama and Edwards but definately think these candidates should be in the debate, especially Ron Paul who has shown he has significant support. Fox just doesn't like his anti-war message. They are like Pravda.

[Rik]

Back in the late 60s and early 70s, the Establishment was viewed with suspicion and distrust by many of the younger generation. “Antiestablishmentarianism” was coined to describe an attitude or doctrine of opposition to the social and political establishment. Adherents viewed the power exercised by the Establishment – government and big corporation – as corrupt, repressive, excessive and self-serving. Social and political norms were challenged by youthful freethinkers, which caused the generation gap to widen even further.
Today, there are still signs of growing distrust in the government as it acts as “big brother” to its plebeian citizenry. I became aware of Congressman Paul after participating in an online straw poll. I felt the typical party candidates touted by the mainstream media would garner the most votes, and I was surprised when the results showed Ron Paul significantly in the lead. After doing some research, I can see why many who had become apathetic to the current party politics are invigorated by a possible president who is striking a chord with a large demographic swath of voters.
Now that the Establishment-controlled media cannot ignore him because of his popularity, they are doing their best to marginalize his campaign by misconstruing his message. However, their attempt to orchestrate a media makeover gives his concepts even more credibility.
One of the things I find refreshing is that Congressman Paul seems to speak from his convictions rather than from a politically correct script developed from a public opinion poll. Unlike other politicians that sprinkle their speeches with platitudes and crowd-pleasing promises they have no intention of delivering, Paul’s track record has been amazingly consistent throughout his 17-plus years in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Rather than cock-eyed, idealistic dreams, his views are backed with careful research and aligned with the ideologies espoused in the U.S. Constitution – the basis for the original Establishment to guarantee individual liberty.

[AH]

I've been undecided for some time who I would vote for. I hadn't heard of Ron Paul until someone came to my door a month ago. He hasn't had much media coverage on TV. After doing my homework on all of the candidates, I'm voting for Ron Paul. I'm a NH resident and I'm disappointed with FOX New's decision to exclude him from the debate.

[GT]

excellent article...funny to...never thought of the paul people like this...did think of the media like this..

But Fox is not conservative. ABC is far more conservative with its links to disney than fox on so many levels. Anyone that has watched their late night gaggle of shows can see that this is something really wrong in the heart of FOX.

To try to pull of something like pick the presidential candidates via UNBALANCED media access and financial support is mind bogglingly disturbing and worthy of a supreme court visit to clean this mess up once and for all on the use of Polls to decide absolutely anything.

[Heather]

Great article, Andrew! Granted, I've been called nicer things than a locust, but overall, it was very informative, and fairly reported. I even laughed out loud several times. Keep up the great work!!

(Thanks for still reading, Heather.)

[Rick Fisk]

Andrew? Responded: (Let's examine this a sec. We write dozens of items about Ron Paul, his followers, their meet-up groups, their comments and invest time in answering a fair share of their comments. And provide a forum for all sides and a dialogue. And we're oblivious to the Ron Paul phenomenon? That just doesn't track, Rick.)

I should have been more specific. I apologize. I could go back and find other quotes like this Andrew but from this particular post:

"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."

I know you guys blog about the Revolution, I've read most of it. In fact I don't know how Google choses rank but I've seen older blog posts pop up to the top of the search results that are months old. So I've caught quite a few posts by you and your colleague. Maybe its just me but that quote above is pretty typical of what I've seen in other posts. It paints supporters as completely reactionary. That's something that happens, sure. But the quote above also implies that there is nothing really to complain about.

You might write about RP, but frankly I haven't seen anything that really takes the movement seriously. I suppose we'll know in two days whether or not this thing has real legs. Everything that I see though says its far deeper than anyone in the old media knows.

As far as providing a forum, every blog worth its salt turns on comments. I really don't see that as a reason for you to blow your own horn frankly. The deadtree media icons -- the New York Times and L.A. Times -- turn on blog comments about 8 years after the alternative media did it and I'm supposed to pat you on the back?

You know when the Washington Post and your newspaper sued Free Republic for posting complete articles, some thought it might be because they wanted to prevent open comments. Frankly I think it had more to do with preventing a second source of archival, but there is some merit to the notion that newspapers have always wanted tight control over responses to articles. It's hard to defend poor reporting when somebody can easily refute information in close to real time.

This is a digression though. I suppose I'm one of those people who is just never satisfied.

(Looks like it. Thanks for reading anyway.)

[Mike]

Ron Paul is undoubtedly a "top tier" contender...

http://truthalert.net/Republican%20Presidential%20Candidate%20Rankings.htm

...and it's absurd to consider excluding him.

[Rick Fisk]

Oh, and Andrew, as far as Rudy goes, I agree that it is hard to come up with something for Rudy's followers. I really don't think he has many at all that aren't beltway "libertarians", Sean Hannity or Eric Dondero.

Maybe, Guilable.

I also prefer Paulunteer to Paulite but Paulite doesn't really offend me. I'm not as easily offended as it might seem from my last comments...

(Paulunteer. That's good, very good. Thanks, Rick.)

[Mary]

Geesh, there's sure a lot of support for Ron Paul commenting here. Think you can handle just one more?

Fairly good article, thanks.

You know, I was watching an Arab-American man's video on Youtube today, who happens to be a Ron Paul supporter and he had an interesting concept for us to consider. He didn't like the description of RP supporters being called "grassroots". He said we are the "cream of society" and anyone that doesn't support Ron Paul are "bloody dumb people".

I guess in his ethnic culture, "grassroots" is considered dishonorable. He feels that he is part of the "cream" at the top. The best Americans, the informed, intelligent Americans.

I like the way this guy thinks. Have the grassroots ascended to becoming the Cream? I'm absolutely sure of it.

[GoRonPaulinL.A.]

Andrew, thank you so much for your article.

One note, when you say: "There are thousands equally involved in other campaigns..."

I truly don't believe the number of supporters involved with other campaigns comes close to the number for Ron Paul's. From the site Meetup.com - it's pretty clear which campaigns the public is interested in donating their time to support:

Ron Paul 2008
-- 80,154 Ron Paul Supporters in 1,432 Groups from 1,080 Cities
Mike Huckabee for President 2008
-- 6,446 Mike Huckabee Supporters in 324 Groups from 301 Cities
Barack Obama
-- 1,065 Barack Obama Supporters in 65 Groups from 61 Cities
John Edwards / One America
-- 522 One America Supporters in 48 Groups from 42 Cities
Duncan Hunter for President 2008
-- 365 Duncan Hunter Supporters in 21 Groups from 18 Cities
Dennis Kucinich
-- 70 Kucinich Supporters in 97 Groups from 90 Cities
Mike Gravel for President 2008
-- 63 Mike Gravel Supporters in 8 Groups from 8 Cities
Hillary Clinton
-- 27 H R Clinton Supporters in 45 Groups from 39 Cities
Fred Thompson for President
-- 30 Fred Thompson Supporters in 11 Groups from 10 Cities
Mitt Romney for President 2008
-- 1 Mitt Romney Supporters in 8 Groups from 8 Cities

Otherwise thx for your article and leading support to the Constitution! The only true sound-money candidate running is Ron Paul.

[Rick Fisk]

Andrew Writes: "Well, if the quiet folks don't speak up, who's to know about them? Is the world supposed to guess? Don't think you'd want writers guessing about your movement."

You tip your hand. Good reporters dig up the story, they don't wait for people to hand it to them....do they? Is this going to be your excuse for being snarky? Only the reactionaries show up so that's all you'll note?

(Gee, there's been lots of well-reasoned, careful Paulunteer comments on this item. Many fewer reactionaries and obscene ones than previous posts. So what's the problem?)

[al adams]

Have we forgotten the propaganda that we are fighting a war to establish freedoms in Iraq and Afganistan and it appears that we have lost the freedom to hear Ron Paul in a Forum designed for us to choose the next president of THIS country.

[Monty]

Vote Ron Paul 2008.