New Hampshire GOP Pulls Out Of Fox News Debate
The New Hampshire Republican Party has pulled out as a co-sponsor of tomorrow night's Fox News debate, due to the controversies surrounding the exclusion of Ron Paul. Fox News is barring Paul from the debate, with many people believing it is because of his opposition to the Iraq War.
Bear in mind that Fox News is excluding Paul from the debate, despite the absence of any objective criteria that would shut out Paul and still include some of the other people they're inviting. For example, Paul got 10% of the vote in Iowa, while invited candidate Rudy Giuliani took only 4% and is at about the same place as Paul in New Hampshire polls.
Comments (72)
Rob Kane wrote on January 5, 2008 2:06 PM:Good for the NH GOP. Nice for them to show some backbone. Well, at least in this matter. Better late than never.
BeAngryAtTheSun wrote on January 5, 2008 2:08 PM:This comments section should be fun. Can I just say "Ron P4aul Ron P4ul Ron P4ul" and bypass the typical stuff to say,
I wonder how many more hits Fox debates will take this cycle. It looks like they won't get to host (or send a moderator to a panel) any general election debates. The Dems won't go if invited, and now the libertarians are upset.
So, that leaves Fox with a lock on...social conservatives and business conservatives? And wingnuts like Grover Norquist?
With the RNC's financial supporters potentially increasingly at odds with the RNC's voting base, whose party is it anyway? Will Fox adjust, especially if independent candidates challenge the Republican nominee from the right economically and socially?
And, finally, why HASN'T Americans for Tax Reform endorse Ron Paul? He is, strictly speaking, their dream date... (naturally, I'm being fatuous here)
hello_world wrote on January 5, 2008 2:24 PM:Looks like you're on to something BeAngryAtTheSun. Fox News is getting the cold shoulder, and it looks like they're starting to melt down trying to find an in. I say that it couldn't have happened to a better group of folks.
zooguitar wrote on January 5, 2008 2:24 PM:This brings to mind the sentiment I was feeling last night watching AC360 (don't ask) and saw Tony Perkins of the FRC proudly endorsing Huckabee.
I'm a loyal Obama dem and am excited about the fall. But there was something heartening I saw in Perkins' eyes: he had the same feeling of dissatisfaction with his establishment leaders as many of us progressives have. To watch someone like Bill Clinton now try and champion someone who was born into privilege, married for opportunity and succeeded on nothing but favors and connections is really sad. Our leaders have become corrupt and it's time to start over.
There isn't a single issue Tony Perkins and I intersect on. But if it means real debate with people who really believe in their issues, and not just watching the equivalent of meaningless political "bowl" games, bully for him. And all of us.
sabatia wrote on January 5, 2008 2:24 PM:RE: Americans for Tax Reform: Like most of his other endorsers, Mitt has made a substantial "contribution" to ATR and will get their endorsement. Mitt made major "contributions" to National Review, Right to Life, Citizens for Limited Taxation, and the National Rifle Association, among others. I strongly suspect that he has "donated" to TownHall, given their nearly unrelenting support for him. Now they endorse him--Just coincidence of course, nothing to do with "gifts". One of the really funny aspects of the relationship between Mitt and his right-wing endorsers is that he never made a major gift or, in most cases, any gift of any amount to any of these organizations before. What a sneaky lyin' hypocrite Mitt Romney is!
kucinich for prez wrote on January 5, 2008 2:27 PM:Good for the GOP. Now if the Democrats would show the same courage and concern for democracy, and boycot the ABC debates. Denying Kucinich, the only one with single payer health care plan, a place at the debate is shameful corporatism.
obamamania wrote on January 5, 2008 2:49 PM:Kucinich should be barred, he is polling at 3% at best and did nothing in Iowa.He is turning into the democratic version of Harold Stassen .
jawbone wrote on January 5, 2008 2:49 PM:How does the commenter above know that Hillary married for "opportunity"? As opposed to thinking this was perhaps the brightest, most intellectually stimulating man she'd ever met? Bill Clinton might have seemed like a political winner, maybe not, back then.
Honestly, for most Dems, aspiring to high office is "raw ambition"; for Repubs it's simply right and proper.
Infuriating.
And Hillary is not my first choice, btw; it just galls me to see this kind of treatment, so MCM*-manipulated and so purely projection.
MCM--Maintstream Corporate Media
Dave wrote on January 5, 2008 2:57 PM:I think Ron Paul's a nutjob, but kudos to the state GOP. They did the right thing. He's pulling enough support to deserve a place at the table.
jussumbody wrote on January 5, 2008 2:58 PM:I can't stand Hillary, but I'll take her any day over Obama bin Lieberman. Obama is the most electable because the R's are going to vote for him as the easiest chump to roll. The R's are going to lose BIG this year, no matter whether Hillary, Obama or Edwards run. This is our only chance to get a progressive for maybe another 12 years. Why settle for Obama and his sanctimonious, empty promises and "bipartisanship" (translation: selling out your base).
kucinich for prez wrote on January 5, 2008 3:04 PM:obamamania,
Kucinich is taking on the main stream media. You want to shut him up? Taking them on is going to cost him coverage and phony poll points. This lack of exposure hurts him and may cost him the election, but he's doing a good thing. He's bringing up things that the compromised candidates won't. Let the voters decide not some CEO.
My guess, obamamania, is if it were up to you, Kucinich, Gravel, Richardson, Clinton, and Edwards would all be barred.
Eric U. wrote on January 5, 2008 3:10 PM:Dave: all the republicans are nutjobs, but you're right, Paul is the nuttiest nutjob.
I think it's fair to exclude Kusinich, but it would be fair to exclude Rudy too, at his numbers. Just saying that to amuse myself, the MSM would never do such a thing.
wellbasically wrote on January 5, 2008 3:14 PM:Romney should refuse to debate without Paul, because Paul pulls independents from McCain.
And Obama... was there ever a more cliche-ridden empty campaign? Look at Deval Patrick to see what happens after the campaign is over.
Ron Paul is a kook. He wants to shut down Guantanamo. Unlike the serious John McCain, he doesn't propose nor endorse "one hundred years in Iraq." And of course, he wants to question the Fed about damaging the currency, propping up corporate welfare and protecting the economy and rights for the little guy. Ron Paul is a total whackjob.
zooguitar wrote on January 5, 2008 3:18 PM:Look, I'm not pretending that HRC is the equal of Fred Thompson's wife. Let's be clear about that. If anything the contrast becomes more painful because HRC was at Yale Law School in the late 60s, no small feat. She was politically active and later was making news as a young lawyer in DC before she chucked it to be a politician's wife. She hitched her wagon to him and there is no denying that. She put up with all of his womanizing over the years (would your mother have stayed with your father if he lied to you and everyone around that he was not cheating, only to be undone by something as simple as a stained dress) because she felt invested in something besides her own self-respect .
And for all her 35* years of experience, only 7 of it was actual elected office of her own (4 years less than Obama, btw), which came after her husband effectively retired. She could have ran in 2002 on her own in her home state of Illinois, but she cherry-picked a media-friendly state while she still had the warm, waning influence of her husband's office.
Michael A wrote on January 5, 2008 3:30 PM:Good one Tom B.
buford puser wrote on January 5, 2008 3:37 PM:Kucinich is taking on the main stream media. You want to shut him up? Taking them on is going to cost him coverage and phony poll points. This lack of exposure hurts him and may cost him the election, but he's doing a good thing.
May?!?
Yeah, otherwise it was in the palm of his hand.
Please share your drugs.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that even this episode will fail to convince the crazy Faux News supporters that their network is more about propaganda than news.
I don't blame the Democratic candidates who have avoided this mouthpiece of the Republican establishment. It's one thing to have a bias; it's a whole 'nother one to try to actively influence the outcome of an election--which is precisely what Faux News has been doing, and will continue to do.
I've lived long enough, and known enough women who had spots of bad times in their marriages--and also had the jobs and ability to get out--to know that some looked around and saw nothing better and stayed, some stayed because there were other factors in the marriage which were very important (such as feeling the husband was a best friend, not just a lover-husband), some did leave.
It's very individual. I can't judge these women I know as to what was right or wrong for them. What is is.
Looking back, those who did stay seemed to haved ended up with fulfilling and happy parnerships with their wayward or difficult spouses. One did divorce much later. One is sorry she decided to leave her husband. Some say nothing to very little. It's so totally private and not for us to judge that kind of thing.
Adam wrote on January 5, 2008 3:48 PM:What are the reasons they are banning Ron Paul? I agree he has some crazy ideas, but he has more ideas than Giuliani. Only thing Giuliani says is vote for me because I was the unlucky mayor of a city that got hit by a terrorist attack.
kucinich for prez wrote on January 5, 2008 3:52 PM:buford, it's your 'winning is everything' mentality that is driving this country off the cliff. Winning isn't enough. You have to win SOMETHING.
zooguitar wrote on January 5, 2008 4:15 PM:Jawbone:
You're still mis-interpreting my comments. I don't believe, under any circumstances, that a spouse ever deserves to be cheated on. A real sense of respect and love for one's partner would require addressing issues and/or divorce.
My point is that she was once a promising, young and rising future politician. She made a choice to put it aside so Bill could ride first. He rewarded that loyalty by continuing to dishonor her. But she's the one who chose to have him do most of the heavy lifting in their 30+ year alliance. He's the one who lost Arkansas governor races, not her. He's the one, as a year younger than Obama is now, who ran as an outsider against the Washington DC establishment in 1992. First Lady, while very high profile, is an honorary, non-elected , non-appointed title with absolutely no official legislative or executive duties.
If she had just been honest from the start and said, "after a lifetime of watching politics from the sidelines, after Bill left office I felt it was time to see if I could do it, too," I think a lot of people, myself included, would have given her a chance. But she didn't, so we didn't.
And if she thinks she's taken all the VRWC has to offer, she's crazy. As much as they hated her, they couldn't impeach her or have to beat her in a presidential election because she was still just Bill's wife. Now, she really is THE target, not the collateral damage.
GSD wrote on January 5, 2008 4:18 PM:Fox Snooze is destroying their brand.....
Gotta love it.
Now the Paulite wing sees Fox as the establishment.
Roger Ailes is going leave a slug trail as he melts.
-GSD
Don wrote on January 5, 2008 4:41 PM:You can always count on Fox to shoot itself in the foot....and the GOP to try and get in the way of the bullet. It is nice to finally see the Repubs being as clumsy at things as the Dems have for such a long time....that's one "change" I do surely welcome. Go Obama!
bps wrote on January 5, 2008 4:46 PM:Why must everyone mimic the Main Stream Media and call Ron Paul a kook and his ideas as idiotic? The man is a well-read, well-educated, lucid thinker who believes our country is on the wrong track, and has firm ideas on how to fix it.
Those of you who think otherwise are the kooks and idiots. You do nothing but listen to the media's biased reporting and believe what is spoon-fed to you.
Ron Paul is real, and his ideas are real. Those who can't argue against him only laugh and mock him (see Ghouliani in all the "debates"), because to engage him in an intellectual debate would only show their own lack of intelligence. The presidential field is full of opportunists who see their chance to become president due to a lack of any real choices.
As for Fox News, thanks for the free unintended publicity.
I have an idea for Fox, though. Make room for Ron Paul by leaving Chris Wallace out. Let the candidates fight it out for speaking time, and let them say what they want without any idiotic hypothetical questions.
And by the way, Ron Paul is now polling at 14% in New Hampshire, 3 points ahead of Muck Huckster, 6 points ahead of Ghouliani, and 9 points ahead of Thompson. Maybe one of them would give Ron Paul their seat at the table.
First, I'll say I think Ron Paul and most of his ideas about economics and government are pretty crazy. That said, he should absolutely be able to participate in any debate of GOP candidates. He generated a notable, if not great, number of votes in Iowa and probably has more cash on hand to sustain his campaign than several of the other participants. It's more than possible he out raised all other GOP candidates in the last quarter. He's not a
I saw John Sununu (R-Senator, NH) on C-SPAN this afternoon, and he agrees as well. If he doesn't participate, I hope the backlash on FOXNews is significant. That would be 'Fair and Balanced'. I wonder if the WSJ editorial page will comment on the story. It could be an early test of the independence of that organization.
Paul wrote on January 5, 2008 5:20 PM:Fox has proven itself to only be worthy of covering Brittney's latest spiral.
I'm glad the NH GOP stood up to their crapola & kept some integrity within the Republican party.
Fox News Unfair & Twisted
bnb wrote on January 5, 2008 5:30 PM:Good for the GOP. Why should New Hampshire and the rest of us have fewer choices than Iowa, on Murdoch's say so?
Karen wrote on January 5, 2008 5:32 PM:Ron Paul should be there. If the cutoff point is 10% in Iowa, Rudy should not be there. But Fox has a soft spot for Rudy.
I am absolutely bemused by the exclusion of Ron Paul. It is going to make the debate a joke. RP was on a talkathon on PBS last night and came across as more of a mensch than I had heard him be in a while.
Karen
Jack Jett wrote on January 5, 2008 5:37 PM:It seems Ms. O'Reilly has pulled a Britney on us, so we better not be so hard on the Fox folks. You know right wingers are great at shoveling shit but freak out when it gets thrown back in their face.
The government should force Fox to give an entire day devoted to Ron Paul.
EH wrote on January 5, 2008 5:43 PM:The only reason Paul and Kucinich are doing badly is because the whole process is geared toward soundbites. Any idea that takes longer than 100 words and 30 seconds to explain gets eliminated from the discussion. Because they have more sophisticated plans, their ideas do not get heard.
EH wrote on January 5, 2008 5:45 PM:Adam wrote on January 5, 2008 3:48 PM:
What are the reasons they are banning Ron Paul?
If you're not going to make yourself an educated person, it's not really fair to clog up discussions with your cluelessness. There's no need to drag the discussion down to basic "how do I breathe?" information.
Fox is using national polling numbers to determine who they invite, rather than Iowa, NH results or any other regional polls.
Tom Paine wrote on January 5, 2008 6:01 PM:Eric U. said “Paul is the nuttiest nutjob.”
If this is how ‘progressives’ think (claims without proof), I’d rather not be one.
I wish the Democratic Party had the same principles as Ron Paul.
A non-interventionist foreign policy.
Deep cuts in the Pentagon.
Shut down military bases overseas. Why do Japan, The Netherlands, Spain, and Italy, among many other nations need US military bases?
Put the noose around the DEA. Why should it be the government’s business if I smoke marijuana or take LSD if it does not harm others?
Choice in my retirement; why should I be forced into paying for Social Security?
Immediate withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq and the Middle East.
EH,
National polls, especially FOX's interperatation of them lie, too. If they were reliable, why have elections?
Tom Paine wishes the Democratic party had the same principles as Ron Paul.
You mean like the restoration of civil liberties, as long as you're a wealthy white male?
You mean like appointing SCOTUS justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade and send women in many states back to the days of coat hangers and filthy back rooms?
You mean like making the U.S. an isolationist, racist, xenophobic empire?
Thank the FSM Ron Paul's principles only attract a few supporters who don't look very far beyond his opposition to the "war" in Iraq.
radlib1 wrote on January 5, 2008 6:27 PM:Ron Paul is a tried-and-true Libertarian. I agree with with anti-Iraq war stance, I disagree with him on about everything else. So what? The man has principles, even if they're not mine.
Rudy Giuiliani, on the other hand, is a one-note troglodyte -- "Vote for me because I was the mayor of New York on 9/11." Hey, Rudy, why did you put the "emergency" headquarters of all of N.Y. at the Trade Center (which was already attacked by terrorists in '93)? What are you, stupid? Or did you just want easy access to your mistress? Remember, you were the one who chose the emergency headquarters and you were the one who chose the walkie-talkies so that the police and firemen couldn't communicate on 9/11. You were the one who caused hundreds, if not thousands of needless deaths on 9/11.
And you want us to vote for you for President, because you gave a few self-glorifying sound bytes on 9/11? You, sir, are the definition of a true asshole.
May your pederast priest friend soon give you your last political rites.
NRG wrote on January 5, 2008 6:32 PM:I encourage all the Ron Paul supporters to get their Libertarian candidate to run as a Libertarian or Independent. He will never, ever, be allowed to win the GOP nomination. His reception by Faux is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the GOP establishment's reaction to Paul's candidacy.
NRG
shawn wrote on January 5, 2008 6:39 PM:Go BPS! You're right on!
shawn wrote on January 5, 2008 6:44 PM:Hallelujah! Several folks on here are speaking the truth --- the thing I like about Ron is all that this comment describes (thanks Tom!):
==========================
Tom Paine wrote on January 5, 2008 6:01 PM:
Eric U. said “Paul is the nuttiest nutjob.”
If this is how ‘progressives’ think (claims without proof), I’d rather not be one.
I wish the Democratic Party had the same principles as Ron Paul.
A non-interventionist foreign policy.
Deep cuts in the Pentagon.
Shut down military bases overseas. Why do Japan, The Netherlands, Spain, and Italy, among many other nations need US military bases?
Put the noose around the DEA. Why should it be the government’s business if I smoke marijuana or take LSD if it does not harm others?
Choice in my retirement; why should I be forced into paying for Social Security?
Immediate withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq and the Middle East.
drew wrote on January 5, 2008 6:57 PM:I don't support Ron Paul, but I find this to be an outrage. Seriously. Who is Fox News to decide who is and is not viable? This is wrong.
Good for the GOP. I hope, somehow, this ends ups helping Ron Paul, the way a record goes platinum as soon as MTV bans it.
roger wrote on January 5, 2008 7:17 PM:It will be interesting to see how sycophants like Howard Kurz defend Fox on this. Fox news is a goldmine for the punditocracy, and they cried big crocodile tears when Edwards baulked at having the official GOP news channel host a democratic debate. They still groan and gasp that it isn't fair. With Fox playing GOP kingmaker, they are going to have to devise ways to look away while appearing to be all fair and balanced. I'm sure they will come up with something - some quickly forgotten slap on the wrist thing that doesn't endanger the next invite to analyze the news on Fox.
rational wrote on January 5, 2008 7:33 PM:Faux News has the right to invite whoever they please to their debate party. It is up to its sponsors and viewers to decide if Faux's choice of debaters is interesting.
We should be pleased that Faux news is doing what it is doing with Ron Paul. It is narrowing its viewership and will soon become irrelevant and a niche "news channel" for right wing nut jobs.
It is a free country. Faux news has the right to destroy itself.
nogo war wrote on January 5, 2008 7:34 PM:Why Are Republicans Afraid to Debate on Fox??????
I love the smell on irony in the evening.
For the Republicans and FOX it is indeed a
Shootout at the Fantasy Factory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5lJkuPtWDQ
But did O'Reilly make any cracks to Obama about running for "Lezident?"
You know how he loves to make up those cute names like "turd blossom" "feminazi" etc.
mcc wrote on January 5, 2008 8:32 PM:With the RNC's financial supporters potentially increasingly at odds with the RNC's voting base, whose party is it anyway? Will Fox adjust
The question here is who's in the driver's seat. Do the Republicans control Fox? Or does Fox control the Republicans? For the last eight years, it seems like it's been the latter more than the former. And it seems more likely that Fox will do everything they can to reassert control over the Republican party, before they'll change their content to fit any shifts in the Republican base.
Dee Illuminati wrote on January 5, 2008 8:35 PM:It was a smart move by the NH GOP and as a Republican I was glad that the GOP did not urinate on the efforts of 10% of the voters in NH or 15% which I think will be a fairer representation.
I'm amazed that Fox continues to alienate this segment of an audience, and I feel that it will be looked back on as a blunder of profound hubris.
If anything, the audience should be allowed to evaluate Ron Paul and in the IOWA debate there was some very heater comments between McCain and Paul.
But what the NH GOP did was smart, they avoided the issue by getting out of it, and that will not leave a sour taste in the mouth of Paul supporters with the GOP.
The close elections will hinge on who can get that young vote, and the GOP has marginalized the voters, not the candidate which is a BIG mistake and will haunt them later.
Frankly TPM/DEMS should be fighting for it's market share of this group, but like the GOP no better at inclusion.
But the GOP/Fox is really screwing the pooch when they could of simply allowed him to speak.
To Dave:
You wrote:
I think Ron Paul's a nutjob, but kudos to the state GOP. They did the right thing. He's pulling enough support to deserve a place at the table.
I agree the GOP shouldn't be in the business of alienating 10% of it's registered base, and the youngest segment at that!
Fox should be marginalizing Ron Paul not the voters.
CaptainVideo wrote on January 5, 2008 8:41 PM:"Good for the GOP. Now if the Democrats would show the same courage and concern for democracy, and boycot the ABC debates."
The situations are completely different. Kusinich is a fringe candidate who has shown virtually no support in Iowa. There is no reason why every fringe candidate should be allowed to participate in debates with candidates that have shown serious support.
Ron Paul got 10% of the Iowa vote. That was more than Guilani, who is allowed in the debates, got. This is censorship and should not be tolerated.
JHHugo wrote on January 5, 2008 8:50 PM:Jussumbody -- We need your skepticism regarding Obama to help keep Obama honest and focused on the realities of politics.
Still it is worth remembering that FDR pent the 1932 election saying nothing to frighten the establishment including such matters as balancing the budget. Obviously, he went in a completely different direction once elected. Is Obama made of the same stuff? I wish I knew, but he has already proven himself to be a skilled politician, who can respond to changing circumstances. So without suggesting Obama's troublesome comments about Social Security and the weakness of his health care plan are cynical ploys, I think it is quite possible that he will not feel bound by them come 20 January 2008. God I hope not.
kucinich for prez wrote on January 5, 2008 9:32 PM:Captain Video,
Kucinich didn't run in Iowa. But, the point is why should Iowa affect New Hampshire? Isn't the point of states having primaries so each one has an input. You are suggesting that Iowa has the job of deciding who the rest of us can choose from.
Kucinich, as the only one to be advocating single-payer health care, needs to be there. Bob Iger has eliminated a lot of ideas for 2008.
Slim wrote on January 5, 2008 9:54 PM:Part of the agreement for a broadcasting license is to serve the public good. Fox should be fined.
goofticket wrote on January 5, 2008 10:01 PM:They can keep using the former indicted, the former disgraced, and the shunned and shamed of the fringe right wing to comment and cajole over the innuendo and speculative gossip, they promote as news.
Fewer real politicians, and even fewer candidates are seen there.
This will certainly thin the 'fool pool' on Fox.
brad wrote on January 5, 2008 10:14 PM:BeAngryAtTheSun:
I have to disagree with your comment that no Dem will go on a Fox nutwork debate. Hillary and Obama were all set to... it was Edwards who stepped up and got the ball rolling. If it's H or O in the general, they will kneel and spread them just like the Dems always do....
B
slb wrote on January 5, 2008 11:36 PM:jawbone: Thank you -- my sentiments exactly (both posts).
slb wrote on January 5, 2008 11:39 PM:So without suggesting Obama's troublesome comments about Social Security and the weakness of his health care plan are cynical ploys, I think it is quite possible that he will not feel bound by them come 20 January 2008. God I hope not.
As we should have learned the hard way by now, hope is not a plan. How can we judge any of these candidates except by the reality of what they have done in the past and what they say they will do in the future?
daniel155 wrote on January 6, 2008 12:46 AM:I can't really figure the logic that FOX News is using when they exclude Ron Paul from the debate.
The can't say he does not have significant support. They can't use the the fact that he has no chance to be nominated as the reason because if they did then Fred Thompson should be excluded.
He usually goes into his rants about the war and monetary policy but he does not get in the way of the debate. A five person debate is no more cumbersome that a four person debate.
They should have waited until after New Hampshire to start excluding candidates.
Colin McLafferty wrote on January 6, 2008 12:49 AM:I emailed Chairman Fergus (fergus@nhgop.org) yesterday to encourage him in pulling support from Fox. Please send him your thanks.
frogolicious wrote on January 6, 2008 1:03 AM:I'm glad the NH GOP has enough brains and guts to get out. Fox News has just dropped to my "totally uncredible" list and therefore, will not be watched at all. What blatant censorship when Ron Paul just beat everybody else on fundraising during the fourth quarter! What are they thinking?!
daniel155,
It's simple. Murdoch doesn't like Paul, or his ideas and doesn't want the American public exposed to them. Same with Iger at ABC and Kucinich.
Karen described Ron Paul as a 'mensch.'
I looked up the definition: "a particularly good person, like 'a stand-up guy,' a person with the qualities one would hope for in a dear friend or trusted colleague; someone to admire and emulate, someone of noble character. The key to being 'a real mensch' is nothing less than character, rectitude, dignity, a sense of what is right, responsible, decorous."
Yep. I would say that would describe our good Dr. Paul all right!
P.S. Ron Paul has been blacklisted from the mainstream media from the start for his brilliant solutions to this country's economic, foreign policy and other problems. He is a "threat" to the status quo. This has now backfired on Fox. Payback is a...! :)
Karen described Ron Paul as a 'mensch.'
I looked up the definition: "a particularly good person, like 'a stand-up guy,' a person with the qualities one would hope for in a dear friend or trusted colleague; someone to admire and emulate, someone of noble character. The key to being 'a real mensch' is nothing less than character, rectitude, dignity, a sense of what is right, responsible, decorous."
Yep. I would say that would describe our good Dr. Paul all right!
P.S. Ron Paul has been blacklisted from the mainstream media from the start for his brilliant solutions to this country's economic, foreign policy and other problems. He is a "threat" to the status quo. This has now backfired on Fox. Payback is a...! :)
blakmira wrote on January 6, 2008 2:00 AM:Karen described Ron Paul as a 'mensch.'
I looked up the definition: "a particularly good person, like 'a stand-up guy,' a person with the qualities one would hope for in a dear friend or trusted colleague; someone to admire and emulate, someone of noble character. The key to being 'a real mensch' is nothing less than character, rectitude, dignity, a sense of what is right, responsible, decorous."
Yep. I would say that would describe our good Dr. Paul all right!
P.S. Ron Paul has been blacklisted from the mainstream media from the start for his brilliant solutions to this country's economic, foreign policy and other problems. He is a "threat" to the status quo. This has now backfired on Fox. Payback is a...! :)
Marvin Meadors wrote on January 6, 2008 4:54 AM:Yes, Fox can not even keep the Republican party happy anymore. It has always been hostile to Democrats and their platform. Now it will not tolerate those on the right with humble foreign policy prescriptions. Fox is showing itself for the rankly partisan, corrupt, warmongering outfit it is. Who in the Fox hierarchy of executives has served in the military? Who among their war cheerleading pundits have served?
The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker wrote on January 6, 2008 10:37 AM:This incident should flip the light switch in everyone's brains, if the light bulb isn't on already: Both parties are owned by the same corporatist interests, which means partisan politics is kind of stupid. I've come to see the right and left wings attached to the same Neocon vulture.
Talk is cheap. Go for the one who walks his talk. Know that he's been blackballed for a reason and that we should take a very good look at him because of it, not write him off as a nutjob because of his party affiliation.
When I read the explanations for why people don't like Ron Paul they cite things Ron doesn't even stand for. It's as though they ate the MSM pablum without even asking what it was. They're fighting strawmen, and one would think the bloggerbase would be able to check itself for that logical fallacy by now.
Mike wrote on January 6, 2008 11:59 AM:please note fox is owned by a huge clinton supporter
audit the polls wrote on January 6, 2008 12:08 PM:FOX is the worst, but all MSM are under the thumb of big corporations. As such, they will do what the CEO says. They'll cover the pro-corporate candidates [witness McCain on Meet the Press AND Face the Nation this morning.] and ignore the ones who talk about corporate greed like Paul, Kucinich and Edwards.
Karen Leonard wrote on January 6, 2008 1:17 PM:It is amazing and very telling how Ron Paul affects people. Many, like myself marvel that such an honest a guileless guy could ever rise to such heights in our political system-which is designed to create simplistic but powerful emotive products of the "establishment". Most of the things I don't agree with Mr. Paul on are things that would never get passed through congress. What he could and would do is what the political corporate machine fears the most- end the stronghold belief that only war and threats will lead to peace. This is of course contrary to reality. But this is the land of manufactured consent- so no surprise that most people can be so easily manipulated to only except a two party system - a mere pretense of real choices.
Petey wrote on January 6, 2008 2:01 PM:Anyone else see that CNN is replaying last night's debate tonight? Nice slap at FOX, that.
BeAngryAtTheSun wrote on January 6, 2008 2:11 PM:Brad:
Sure, Edwards' move was the catalyst for change, but returning to Fox after snubbing it will only provoke the network. I think it was taboo to state the obvious, that Fox is not a news network. Now, there is no advantage to reverse the position and strength can be shown by holding the line.
It would take an abyssmal political mind along the likes of Mark Penn to make the shift, but even then I think the Clinton campaign wouldn't backtrack. I can't offer any evidence in the form of a white paper, but, then, neither can you.
Compare it to the YearlyKos debate from this summer. Every candidate except Biden made an appearance, including Gravel, who was serially cancelling events this summer.
With Biden out, any candidate can now be painted with the Netroots brush (if the Netroots are something to be held at arm's length, like Hollywood). I'd be shocked if the nominee didn't spend an hour in Austin with the Netroots convention (maybe raising some dough for Rick Noriega, making Cornyn hustle).
Precedents have been set, and going back on them takes us nowhere.
Matt wrote on January 6, 2008 3:33 PM:Fox is not a news organization, it is a propoganda machine to push Murdochs agenda.
Faux News, all bullshit, no substance
Dan Dashnaw wrote on January 7, 2008 8:08 AM:Does it strike anyone as odd that the NH republicans don't have THE LAST WORD on who is invited?
merryll wrote on January 7, 2008 2:11 PM:Does it strike anyone as odd that the NH republicans don't have THE LAST WORD on who is invited?
Totally. The idea that a private company can host the debates is so undemocratic.
