--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't silence Ron Paul!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 4, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern




As almost everyone who reads this column regularly know, I do not support Ron Paul's bid for the presidency.
My strong preference is for another admittedly long-shot candidate, Rep. Duncan Hunter.

I have even offered up my share of unflattering commentary directed toward Ron Paul.

But, from my perspective as a newsman of 30 years, one thing is certain – Ron Paul has more than earned the right to participate in the Jan. 6 presidential debate sponsored by Fox News Channel.

Yet, he is being barred, censored, silenced, eliminated, squelched, muted, suppressed, stifled.

It's outrageous. It's unconscionable. It's unfair. It's unbalanced.

(Column continues below)



Keep in mind this decision was made before a single vote was cast – even in Iowa! So on what basis did Fox News make a decision to eliminate Ron Paul? Is it on the basis of public opinion polls showing him with 8 percent of the vote in Iowa – tied with the Big Media's long-pronounced front-runner, Rudy Giuliani? Is it on the basis of fundraising? In the last quarter, this darkhorse candidate has raised $20 million – more than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney or any other candidate running for president.

It seems clear Fox News Channel is eliminating Ron Paul's voice from the debate for reasons other than polls or financial viability – neither of which am I certain would be good reasons at this stage of the campaign.

So what are those reasons?

Fox claims it is making the decision based on national polls, not local polls.

What's wrong with this logic?

That's not the way our nation makes decisions about which candidates are selected to head their parties' tickets.

It's somewhat ironic that Fox would use national criteria to determine who would get to participate in the debate before the New Hampshire primary.

In New Hampshire, Paul is outpolling at least one of the candidates invited to debate.

But, again, polls don't mean squat. Why are any candidates being eliminated before the first primary of the election year campaign?

This is a very bad decision for a cable news channel whose slogan is "fair and balanced."

Back in 2003, Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, explained how his competitors showed their bias: "Bias has to do with the elimination of points of view, not presenting a point of view."

Isn't that exactly how Fox News is demonstrating an outrageous form of bias today against the increasingly viable and unexpectedly impressive candidacy of Ron Paul?

Notice I am emphasizing the elimination of Ron Paul from this debate – not my own preferred candidate, Duncan Hunter. That's because Ron Paul's campaign has surprised everyone who observes politics in this country carefully. Yes, I would like to see Duncan Hunter get a shot at participating in all the debates, too.

But, even as a Hunter partisan, I can say there is no good reason, no legitimate reason, no objective reason for eliminating Ron Paul from the New Hampshire debate. Ron Paul has exceeded everyone's expectations, just as surely as Mike Huckabee has.

Do I think Ron Paul is going to win the nomination? No.

Do I want him to win the nomination? No.

Do I think he can be the next president of the United States? No.

But he deserves to debate. He and his supporters have shown they can compete with any of the other Republican contenders – for money, in enthusiasm and in the polls that really count.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a ... E_ID=59517