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

[kerry welsh]

Andrew Malcolm,

Ron Paul is NOT carrying an anti-aborion banner.

If California wants to keep abortion legal, then Paul has no problem with that.

Why do you and so many others feel compelled to report his views so inaccuarately?

If you would like Dr Paul's platform, please read the US Constitution.

I would bet $100 that you have never read it in your adult life.

And if I am wrong, then send me the address of your favorite charity.

(Because I've heard him talk powerfully about how could someone hold some 4,000 newborn lives in his hands and not be pro-life?)

[ed]

Of course Ron PAul should be in the debate. If not then we are conceding our choices to the pollsters. I could word a poll question to have Mickey Mouse the highest rated contestant. The money tels in this case. He raised more money than Thompson or Huckabee.

[Josh Geller]

Hey folks, the voting hasn't started yet.

Opinion polls are someone's opinion, and the ones from Iowa and New Hampshire tend to be, historically, famously ill-informed. Paul's supporters are absolutely right to be raising hell about this.

.

[Emmett]

Ah, Andrew Malcom. Hating Ron Paul back before he thought hating Ron Paul was cool. I love how every article he writes with RP's name is just dripping with sarcasm and condensation, yet he somehow then goes on later to show how those articles are proof of his non-bias. Its like Dahlmer showing pictures of him standing next to non-dead people, and using them as proof the he isnt a murderer. Love ya Malcom, cant wait for you to eat your words. :D

(Emmett, you sure you read THIS article? And if you meant condescension, never, not here. Disagreement, sarcasm, opinion, sometimes, but not condescension. I admire the political commitment of people in campaigns, yours included. That's why I tried it once, so I'd know before writing.)

[Rick Fisk]

Andrew,

For somebody as distinguished as you appear to be, you certainly make some juvenile remarks.

Ron Paul is going to stun everyone in the old media and win in Iowa and New Hampshire. There will be a great deal of pundits who will be at a loss for words in the following days. Many pundits may even lose their jobs.

You folks in the old media (you are not mainstream by any stretch of the imagination) are going to wonder how in the world it was you didn't even suspect that Dr. Paul would win. But it's obvious to me why you don't have any suspicions. For people so enamored with their own superior intellects, you folks never take the time to investigate anything that doesn't fit within your particular world view. So when a real movement comes along, you can't recognize it. And you're too lazy to make a serious effort to find out about it.

A great number of old media pundits are going to look very, very stupid next week. I am going to revel in that. Not that it will do me any good. A large number of old media idiots said that Iraq was a threat to our national security too. Look how that turned out.

(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.)

[Leanna]

Ron Paul should be included. He has more support than Huckabee, McCain, and most of the other Candidates! And to not let him in just shows people that he is something to pay attention too! I hope Fox realizes the consequences of trying to play parent. Trying to tell American people who they should vote for! Ron Paul is the only true Candidate that will do good for this country! And they are obviously getting scared that the "dark horse" candidate just might win! And most likely will!
So for those of you who don't know Ron Paul, check him out! Just listen to him, and you will fall in love with him and I did, and millions more that have as well!

[John]

By all means Ron Paul’s ideas should be kept visible in this campaign, even if it means (in the interests of fairness) that Duncan Hunter must be visible also. I’ve found Dr. Paul’s presence energizing and educational—his ideas have sent me back more than once to read the Constitution, surely a worthwhile exercise for any citizen/voter, and one that no other candidate particularly encourages.

I admire his supporters’ energy, and like many of them I’m deeply dissatisfied by what’s developed as government in the United States in the last several years. I like his honest anti-war position, and I like the general clarity and consistency of the principles elucidated on his website.

I’m skeptical about some of his positions, and I wonder how they would work out in practice. For example, I think that the degradation of the world’s natural (or environmental) resources is an absolutely critical problem for the U.S. (and everyone else), but I wonder if it can be addressed (as he suggests) simply by insisting on individuals’ rights to sue those whose actions damage their property. If my neighbor is a big factory whose waste defoliates my trees or poisons my family, is my individual right to sue really the most meaningful defender of the environment? Who would help me to enforce that right effectively? (An army of trial lawyers?) I’m no big fan of government regulation of business, but I doubt that I as an individual have much chance of successfully challenging corporate (or government) polluters without some help.

Or regarding Dr. Paul’s insistence that government itself (not just government that abuses its power) is to blame for most of our national problems: are government and its programs really, for example, a principal cause of racism? (Would we be better off, a more equitable society, without the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965?) When Dr. Paul says that a property owner should have the right to decide who may or may not enter his property, does that mean that a restaurant owner has the right to deny service to those whose skin color he doesn’t like? Does it mean that a hospital owner may deny care on the same grounds? (I’m very aware of the argument that eventually competition will drive out discrimination, and I think it’s probably correct—but from the viewpoint of the individual being discriminated against, it’s an awfully slow process.)

I would like to see these kinds of questions addressed by Dr. Paul and all of the candidates, as part of the step back that he demands from the abuses of government with which we've lived for the last several years. I’ve found his candidacy intellectually invigorating, even where I don't agree with him, and I hope that he will be able to participate in the debate.

Happy New Year to all—and thank you, Andrew Malcolm, for keeping the news of this candidacy and the voices of its supporters in the foreground.

John

(You're welcome. Happy New Year too. And thanks for reading and re-visiting us.)

[The Rock of Ages]

If Ron Paul were a woman, the question of "whether or not" he could attend would be moot. The sexism in this country going against men is becoming unbearable and so very ridiculous. This is a free country, supposedly, those "in charge" of determining "who may or may not attend" a Presidential election debate should be exposed for what they are; censors. They should then be unceremoniously fired and replaced with those that have nothing to hide or fear. Obviously, Ron Paul is a growing threat to the establishment.

[Lawrence Chachere]

Nice article. The only inaccuracy, is that Thomson is also polling in the single digits in NH, but Fox is including him in their debate.

[Mike]

Malcolm, I know you are a sellout because I know you will later write an anti-paul article as you have done in the past.

(Maybe I will write something negative about him as we have about all the candidates. But that's because we're uncommitted. You read it. You agree. You disagree. There's a forum here. It's called a blog. A dialogue. People read what you write. They read what I write. They think and make up their own minds. Kind of exciting really.)

[chris]

Media Coverage

I actually haven't seen enough media coverage of any of the candidates. I have no idea about the specific programs they want to put in place. But I know their religions, personal history, how they interact with thier families...and their thoughts on such issues of national prominence as abortions & gun rights.

What about economics and foreign policy (which according to the media consists of whether to bomb Iran or not).

The system is messed up when the things that actually affect America are not even MENTIONED!

Wake up LATimes.

[WH]

Dr. Paul should be included for a number of reasons: 1) He'll liven up the debate with his unorthodox views, 2) he'll offer some contrast to the otherwise dull soundbiting by the usual talking heads, 3) his honesty will remind people that honesty is not impossible for a presidential candidate, and 4) the ratings will nudge up because the Paulites will tune in to a man (and woman).

I'm still not sure if I could vote for the man, because I love half his platform and fear the other half, but even as a non-supporter I think he's the only guy with integrity other than McCain (who I also loathe half of, platform-wise). Dr. Paul brings important ideas to the table and his involvement raises the intelligence of the debate, wherever one stands on the issues.

Count me as a non-Paulite who wants him on that stage.

[John C Anderson]

I urge Fox News to allow Ron Paul to participate in Sunday's debate.

[Tess101]

Andrew Malcolm:

Thank you dear Sir for writing this. Ron Paul should be included in this Fox Republican forum in New Hamshire. His record donations alon should include him. I am really curious as to why Fox did not invite him. What are they afraid of? We all know, don't we? I am one of the Republicans you speak of that have had it with the old song and dance that the other Republicans are preaching. We have to cut the size of our government if we are going to stay afloat as a nation. Ron Paul is the only one wanting to address issues and make changes so that we no longer compromise our Constitution and give in to the Special interest groups. We The People are to govern this country, and it is not the media or the special interests that should have first say about our country. Ron Paul is very supportive of our troops and defense, he does not believe we have to police the entire world and most of our citizens agree.

Lets vote for Ron Paul, lets bring our troops home, lets get our country back on track before we collapse. I am a former United Air Force member, and the government and the media have lied to the American people way too long. We do not need the oil from other countries in order to prosper, we do not need Cheney's Haliburton stock to get bigger, or GE weapon making to profit more, espeically on the backs of the American people and our US soldiers.

[Dianne]

Yes, of course Dr. Paul should be included. Media events should be the transport of information to the people. We, the audience, use information to help form our views.

It does seem that we (the population) are being fed what has already been viewed by some biased sources. It is very difficult to get past editorial reports and find what was actually said by the candidates.

Participation should not be based on fundraising or on poll results.

[Chadwick]

All raods lead back to Bilderberg..

Its that simple

[M Nimetz]

Mr. Malcolm,

This is the time to put up or shut up. As Paul supporters, we will either demonstrate the polls are bias or this was all just a internet conspiracy. I tend to believe there's more to this story. But let me propose something to you.... If Ron Paul does much better than the polls suggest he will, throw out your argument that the polls have anything to do with anything! And give the man a fair chance!

(Polls are often wrong. Never said they're infallible. They're a snapshot at a moment in time, not predictive. As I noted above, at about this point in 2004, Kerry had 7% and went on to win Iowa and the nomination. Iowa caucus system especially rough on polls.)

[Bill Henderson]

It takes a gentleman to recognize a gentleman. Thank you for your coverage of Dr. Paul.

[Winston Parsons]

Even though I live about 2,000 miles away from LA I like the way you two (two pics on the right of page so I assume that the two of you are writting these blogs), write and think. It reminds me of the late Richard Allin of the Arkansas Gazette. Have you two written any books that I could purchase?

(Search amazon.com or abebooks.com for Andrew H. Malcolm)

[Eric Daure]

Hi Andrew,

Nice Article. I especially liked your insight into the repercussions likely to befall Mr. Murdoch should his email address reach Paul's supporters ;-).

I also appreciated your effort to maintain an impartial tone, and your expression of the manipulative self-fulfilling prophesy many perceive in the ways polls are conducted and elections covered by the MSM. I would only point out that characterizing Dr. Paul's banner as "anti abortion" is a bit misleading, because unlike the other candidates, it is demonstrably not his way to try to foist his personal opinion on the entire country. I may not agree with him on some issues, such as abortion, but with him in office, even if Alabama takes on very ugly laws, at least people can fight at the local level or move away. If the whole country comes under unified, draconian, unconstitutional Federal laws, where is there to go?

A far greater fundament of Dr. Paul's banner is monetary policy.
I think this short and exceedingly entertaining video may make it apparent to you why this one issue often eclipses all others in the minds those who value individual rights and human liberty: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279.

Best wishes and a Happy New Year,

Eric

(Same to you and thanks for reading.)

[paathfinder1]

This is what happens when we the people (through our representatives) let one person own to much media sources.

We can thank the decider for this one.

[james]

As ususal the reporter didn't mention Dr Paul's policy positions that motivate his followers, namely a noninterventionist foreign policy and a stop to the inflationary behavior of the federal reserve. Instead he mentioned abortion and the war in Iraq. The press is simply incapable of understanding anything but polll numbers and the horse race aspect of the election campaign.

[laszlo horvath]

ron paul respects personal property right so its up to the owner of fox news who he wants to invite and i dont think ron paul needs anykind of msm forum or debate show because he either ignored or they will ask him questions what kind of hat he weared 20 years ago or if they try to be nice to him than may ask him did you gave back that $500 or will you run as an independent so all this nonsens is just a head acke for an intelligent man like ron paul, it is better if he keep doing on his own stuff
by the way the election will be riged again with the DIEBOLD as usual
or if they wanna be nasty they may just wont let him enter the premises when the actual debate take place. big bussines hates to LOOSE

[David Friedman]

Fox has already been exposed as dishonest having claimed legal victory when a court ruled in their favor for reasons that the media has no obligation to tell the truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E-5KivgwO4

The large majority of the Fox talking heads are neo-cons, they support the american war machine through ridicule of opposing ideas. Fox, being a giant corporate conglomerate itself, aligns itself with other giant corporate interests. It should be no surprise to anyone that they oppose any voice gaining momentum against its own interest.

Our great country's freedoms are under attack and we have pol's bought and paid for by corporate interests doing their bidding. If you are getting your news from FOX, you are only learning what they want you to learn and it is presented with substantial spin.

Paul is the worst nightmare for Fox and their ilk. A pol who can not be purchased. They have already done their best to present him as a kook, a marginalized crazy. I expect no less from them.

David Friedman

[bkusz]

Andrew, you well? I noticed you did not use the typical insults you have in the past Ron Paul articles? Where is the negative innuendos? The Ron Paul cannot win comments? A majority of online users support Ron Paul but of course we are not average real Americans according to you and we do not represent the views of most Americans according to you, apparently according to you we are a small group onlt vocal online... How wrong you are Sir, and we will remind you of it after Iowa & NH..

(To say Ron Paul supporters are a majority of Americans at this moment is a bit of a wishful stretch. But it's a fascinating story whatever the numbers. Thanks for reading.)