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

[Heath Whiteaker]

give me liberty or give me death! Remember that?

We are no longer FREE.... We have no personal liberties. The government is trying to rule everyone's life.

We need Ron Paul. I am a Veteran and a small business owner. This is the only candidate that even has a record of doing the right thing.

It's time for a revolution. The article was great by the way.

(Thank you. And thanks for reading.)

[tishjo]

Locusts? Hmmm....according to wikipedia:
a) they breed rapidly under suitable conditions. Okay - you got us there.
b) they subsequently become gregarious and migratory. Well, okay - you got us on that one, too. (It really is a lot of fun being a Ron Paul supporter!)
c) they form bands as nymphs - oh, yeah. We have more meet-up groups than any other candidate - 88,000 of us in 1,400 groups across the country now (vs. 38 members in 8 groups for Mitt Romney)
d) they swarm as adults - heck, yes! We love nothing more than swarming out to sign-wave or march!
e) travel great distances - yep. hundreds of students at the Student Vacation in Iowa, hundreds more over at Operation Live Free or Die in NH. You got us again, Andrew!
f) rapidly stripping fields and destroying crops - um??? Generally, we're on a passtionate mission to SAVE America, but I guess you could state that equally accurately as being on a mission to destroying the growing crop of oligarchy in America.

Yep, Andrew - ya got us pegged. My next sign is surely going to be:

I'm a Locust for Liberty!

(Good one! :-) )

[Elaine McLellan]

Thank you for your article. Ron Paul should be allowed to speak. All Americans have the right to hear him. Personally, I would not vote for anyone other than Ron Paul. Add me to the list of those cured of apathy.

[Go Dr. Paul]

This only makes my will to vote for Dr. Paul even stronger. We don't need bogus media to tell us who to vote for. Go Dr. Paul!
Check out:
www.ronpaul2008.com
www.ronpaulblimp.com
www.ronpaul.meetup.com

[Lori]

Just a side note... I have always been a registered independant voter. I have hated to hear people make claims to have "voted across party lines". AND I have hated going to the polls to vote for which person will be the lesser of two evils to run our country. This year as a Republican, I will vote for Ron Paul.

Now consider this .... many candidates have raised a lot of money from a few special interests or rich individuals .... Dr. Paul has raised a lot of money from a lot of individual voters and last I looked, my vote is still equal to eveyone elses.

[Elizabeth]

Mr. Malcolm,

Nice to talk to you again, and thank you very much for another article about Dr. Paul.

In two days some of this hysteria will turn into reasoned discourse.

Thank you for Mr. Murdock's email address.

Fox: call it what you want, but don't call it "fair and balanced"!

Please keep following our man and keep writing about him. We do so appreciate it!

Cordially,

Elizabeth

(Thanks for comikng back, Elizabeth. Tell your friends. And thanks for joining the dialogue again.)

[Brad Linzy]

Will there ever be a time when news outlets like the LA Times don't cover a story about Ron Paul without some sort of tongue-in-cheek jab at him or his supporters?

This has really gotten old. The fact of the matter is, Ron Paul is "polling in single digits" because these "scientific polls" are not accounting for the thousands and thousands of supporters just like myself who have never voted before in a presidential race, let alone for a Republican.

This is a simple, overlooked FACT you seem to miss every time. We don't want to think it's all some conspiracy against us because that makes us sound like lunatics, but what other conclusion are we supposed to draw? It's either a conspiracy of malice or it's just plain journalistic stupidity and incompetence.

By the way, Happy New Year everyone! This is the year we take our country back.

(This is a blog. We have an attitude. And a growing number of of readers. Some don't like comments on Romney or Hillary or Rudy. That's what makes it interesting. But this is a blog dialogue and I see you've found the comment box, which is always here. Thanks for reading.)

[opossum]

Donate to the Ron Paul blimp today.

[tom rankin]

KMoore122311:56AMDec 22nd 2007
Liberty is not the natural order of things. It is extreme. It has existed in a relatively small place for a relatively short period of time. Ron Paul is extreme. He wants elected officials to honor their oath of office. He wants this country and posterity to enjoy the blessings of liberty by going back to the future, Back to our Constitution.

A Ron Paul Presidency would usher in a return to the Constitutional principles of limited government, just taxation, fiscal responsibility, sound money, strong national defense and individual rights.

Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul is a man of principle and integrity.
He's as incorruptible a politician as there ever was.

What would we think if China had a military base here in Florida and battle groups constantly patrolling in the Gulf of Mexico? What if China was openly and/or covertly subverting our political process? What if they forcibly removed our elected leaders and installed their puppet government? We wouldn't like it and we would revolt. Our Federal Government's interventionist foreign policy is what led to 9-11 and will continue to inspire hatred and terrorism against us unless we change policy. As a nation, we need to recognize this or we will never even begin to solve this problem.

They don't hate us for Who we are.
They hate us for What we do.

For the sake of our children:
Vote Ron Paul!

tom&pam

[G.Jordan]

I'm starting to thing it could be a stunning first place! His support is still skyrocketing. When he does well in Iowa, there is going to be a huge rocking of the boat as people go to his side.

People are realizing its okay to want the Country to operate according to Constitutional rule of law and freewill, no matter what the military-media-industrial complex tries to decide for you.

I can't wait to vote for Ron Paul. Watch the votes carefully, folks!

[Brett]

Debate whatever you want to, we still have soldiers in Iraq and they want to come home. Ron Paul is the only republican willing to grant this wish. Proof is in the numbers I guess, and the members of our military have given more donations to Ron Paul over every other candidate!

And now even democrats like Hilary say "we can't just up and leave," and Obama wants to regulate the internet by "providing it to the rest of the country." I just don't buy it anymore.

It is our job, as Americans to help them get out of that country and out of a war that was established unconstitutionally. It is our job to ensure no more of our liberties are taken from us under the guise of some beauracrats good intentions and slithering tongue. If you wake up, you're realize that Ron Paul is the only person truly supporting the America we all think is going to be ok. It just isn't people, unless we do something now.

[Mike]

Looks like FOX News is in denial over the fact that the Internet has removed them from their position as gatekeepers of information.

[Ryan H.]

Hate to say this, but as a Ron Paul supporter I AGREE with him being excluded from the New Hampshire events.

Here's why: According to this map on the NYTIMES.com website, Ron Paul has not had an event in New Hampshire since October:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/schedules/pastevents/index.html#candidate15

People, he has had two money bombs totaling $11 million since November 5th... and yet he can't visit New Hampshire ONCE?

Mark my words: Ron Paul is ducking the Republican nomination, saving his money, and will go third party.

[Clayton]

Excellent story. Thank you for the quality reporting.

I look forward to the actual election!

RP08

[greg]

wow look how many readers you have when you cover what a lot of people want to see ron paul for pres

[Flo]

The American people are waking up to the fact that the Media has been choosing our candidates by who they allow in front of the cameras.
We are shedding our party affiliations because nither party has represented the people for a long time. They lie, cheat, steal, flip-flop and take lots of money from corporations leaving us with taxation ( of plenty of it) without representation. They ignore our constitution. America has become less free, less safe, less properous, less respected around the world. Our dollar in on the verge of collape as the Federal Reserve again and again debases our currency with no care what it does to the middle class and poor. More social programs are not the answer. Their promises no longer hold water.
Dr. Paul a consistant, transparent man of integrity is schooled in economics. He might not have Mitt's phsical looks but he is intelligent and has a big heart.
He loves America and Americans not corporate dollars. He is not beholden to big corporations. He is beholden to the american working every day to keep this country afloat.
Absolutely he should be in the debates. More important though is that people need to study were he comes from. Sound bites can't tell you the intelligent thought and study this man has formed his opinions on.
Time always proves his positions are right. People for some reason like to put blinders on ignore the housing problem, ignore the enemies we are making around the world, ignore the 10 trillion dollars in debt, ignore the 70 trillion in entitlement programs that are going to fail. Ignore these things at your own risk. Economist say we are heading for the worst depression this country has ever seen. But go ahead and ignore what Dr. Paul is warning you about. It won't change because you close your eyes. I believe enough people are looking into these issues and if we have any life left in this country they will vote to advert the train wreck that is coming.

[Bob Dobbs]

I don't see how people would rather continue to collapse of America with the continuing loss of civil liberties and to continue our conquest of the Middle East to "protect our interests". The republicans are obviously for this, and so are the main democrats. They have a softer "anti-war" tone, but they still support the American empire. We need a man who will get us out of this mess. The amount of support he has been getting and the views he holds compared to the rest of his GOP contenders would be healthy. These aren't real debates anyhow, and he would get 4 minutes tops.

[Chef F]

New Hampshire was one of the thirteen colonies that revolted with the British rule in the American Revolution. It was the first state to declare its independence in January 1776, ........, New Hampshire was the first post-colonial nation-state in the Americas. The historic attack on Fort William and Mary (now Fort Constitution) helped supply ......was needed for the Battle of Bunker Hill that took place north of Boston a few months later. ...New Hampshire would raise three regiments

On January 5, 1776, the Provincial Congress of New Hampshire, meeting in Exeter, ratified the first state constitution in the soon-to-be United States, six months before the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

All of this is a Wikipedia.com if you want to keep reading.

My point is that a state so so important to the Battle for Independence, be taken lightly and told well " YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE CANDIDATES..... THE ONES THAT WONT EMAIL AND BOTHER US"

Screw you Fox unfair and unfriggin - balanced We are Americans. Not lame, spineless.... we will do what will make your life easier and ours miserable SLAVES. Here for your pleasure and to serve your Elitist whims.

Shame on you and the rest of you wannabe Scumbags.

WE ARE AMERICA WE ARE STRONG WE WILL NOT GO SILENTLY INTO THE NIGHT AND PERISH.

WE DEMAND UNTAINTED FREEDOM GIVE US RON PAUL OR GIVE US DEATH!!!!

[Linda I]

We citizens of the US are not being offered an anti-war choice in a presidential candidate. Simple as that…

Ron Paul’s volunteers and paid people have been forced to carry his message to the streets as his name is rarely mentioned by the mainstream media. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, not having the funds to aggressively campaign, have for the most part, been eliminated.

Why would the self-proclaimed, “fair and balanced” media wish to remove from the presidential venue an anti-war candidate when only 3 years ago we elected a replacement Congress on the basis of ending the war in Iraq?

Fact:
The US military expenditures for 2006 were $623 Billion. Much of this is for the huge conglomeration of military contractors. This $623 billion is more than the military spending of rest of the world combined. And 10 times that of the next largest spender, China.

Yet, this does not include Veterans Affairs, maintenance of the nuclear weapons arsenal, and “classified” research which then brings the total to approx. $1,000,000,000,000. That’s $1 trillion. Interestingly that amount correlates to the amount of personal income taxes collected which were also approximately $1 trillion.

Please refer to the following website for verification. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

It would seem that the military-industrial comlex (corporate military contractors) may exert “influence” on the mainstream media.

(Well, I guess not here since we've written so often about Dr. Paul and intend to continue to do so.)

[Steve S]

The question must be: "Should the Fox News be allowed to pick and choose the candidates, therefore controlling the debate?" Ron Paul is the only worthy candidate among Republicans.

[Jacques Poirier]

As a Canadian retired in Mexico, these two countries represent the bread of the North American sandwich where the US is the tuna salad. In our vanity we like to think that without us the content of the sandwich would be dribbling all over the place. So with this authority, here it is:

A- Rupert Murdock has been having a field day gaining more and more influence on the politics of your country, using demagoguery, cheap talk, lousy reporters, bad ads and junk, appealing to the lowest instincts.

B- Here comes Mr Clean, followed by hordes of bright people that can see through all that crap, that have the resolve to stick with it for the long haul, no matter what.

C-The guy is terrified. Really scared, enough to have breakfast with Hillary. It's really ALL of you against HIM and his worn out talking heads. And he knows that the better ideas win out in the end.

D-HEAD ON...APPLY ONLY WHERE IT HURTS...But it hurts everywhere, dixit Murdock and the Neo-Cons. Youguys are his worst nightmare...and it's about time. The whole world is cheering for you. In 2012 or before, you will all be knighted!

[John O. Johnson]

Could it possibly be that ABC and Fox feel that Ron Paul is too honest and not sufficiently corrupt to be President.
J.O.J.

[MarkD]

Terence, how dare you call someone who supports the constitution and your freedom as "loony"? You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Brian]

Ron Paul doesn't believe that he, or any other federal establishment, should have any say in abortion, so to say that he wants to spread his anti-abortion (even though most would call it pro-life) message is somewhat misleading. Yes he is going to talk about his pro-life stance, but he doesn't think anybody but the states should rule on it. Other than that small detail, which is an easy mistake to make as most people only know the pro-life/pro-choice stance, and are unaware that there is a way to be pro-life and still respect people's right (if their state wishes) to be pro-choice.

[Roger Taylor]

I am amazed by the varied responses to your article. I have followed the debates and responses - especially online since it has become apparent that the MSM have become very 1984. I am heartened by the responses to this article, as they are mostly reasoned, well articulated and positive reflections of a segment of America that is pro-Ron Paul.

I am also disillusioned by the sheer amount of money and the disproportionate influence that money has within the political system. (Who owns you?) This really is evident whenever one looks at a "reputable" polling service vs. one that is more widely accessible (i.e. - AOL's spam-resistant {mentioned above}).

Yes I do scour the Internet. I do research as much as I can on the candidates that are running. As far as I can tell - based upon my perspective of what has been said here and the overwhelming support I have seen Dr. Paul getting from the actual voters (here and other locations), if Dr. Paul does not get the Republican nomination; it is merely because of the fact that.... the fix is in.