Thread: Should Ron Paul Be Allowed In Sunday's Debate?

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

January 01, 2008 in Campaigning, Caucus, Debates, Forums, Fundraising, Iowa, Media, Polls, Presidential Campaign, Republican Politics, Ron Paul, Television | Permalink

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... -paul.html

I imagine this sheds light on Paul's exclusion from the debate. They are owned by globalists:

I want you to see and talk about the extreme conflict of interest on the board of Directors of the parent company (Newscorp) of Fox news. That is why Ron Paul has been eliminated from our public airways we allowed fox to use for legal purposes and they have chosen to use for illegal purposes. Not only do the board of directors each have a conflict of interest, its also a foreign company attempting to influence and undermine our election process.

Here is just a summary of their board of directors... Most are board members affiliated with banks of the Federal reserve, and others are associated with globalization. Ron Paul has spoken about his intent to do something about both issues.

Its legitimate to speak out or fund or spend money against a politician you do not support, but YOU MUST GO THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCESS OF FILING WITH THE FEC in order to do so and htey have not. Instead they have used their license for OUR public airways to circumvent the law.

Here is a list of their directors and who they are affiliated with... I am not through with the research yet, but this is more than enough.

Andrew S.B. Knight
Director
Rothschild Investment Trust C.P
(Banker)

Rod Eddington
Non-Executive Chairman for
Australia and New Zealand
JPMorgan
(banker)

John L. Thornton
Professor and Director of Global Leadership
Tsinghua University of Beijing
(globalist)

Viet Dinh, creator of Patriot Act
ex-employee of GW Bush

Ken Crowley, Commonwealth bank

Peter Barnes, Health services for Ansell, a health company.... remember murdock supported hillary who has advocated universal health care, while Dr. Paul has said no government health propgrams.

Jose Marie Aznar - read about him here

http://en.wikipedia.o...

Bush supporter and ex President of Spain. Here is an excerpt from this link

"Aznar's government posthumously granted a medal of Civil Merit to Melitón Manzanas, the head of the secret police in San Sebastian and the first high-profile member of the Francoist government killed by ETA in 1968. He was widely considered a torturer, and Amnesty International condemned the awarding.[citation needed]"

He supports Bush and obviously supports torture which Paul would do away with upon taking office.

This is a partial list and I will send more when I have finished researching the rest of the board, but so far this is a definite conflict of interest and use of our airways to try and affect election results outside the recognized and legal system for doing so.

here is proof of what Fox is capable of doing and its on the record.

I just recently started to do some research on Ron Paul, and it became obvious almost immediately that he has a huge following. The globalists are shaking in their boots that he may gain momentum, but I doubt they will be able to hold back the roar of the people for long. This man has followers from all ethnic and age groups.

I was reading an article where up until May. when the article was published, Ron Paul's name had been excluded from polls in 27 states. This is not what I call free and fair coverage.

Sent e-mail!

Paul is the only candidate in the same league as Hillary Clinton in fundraising.... and his contributions come from the average blue collar worker or student at around $50. per donation.

I did not know until just moments ago that the owner of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch's is not american; but rather austrailian... It seems as though we have all these foreign nations interested in bleeding us of the last dollar we have.

Murdoch has recently purchased MySpace as well, so I imagine sooner than later, the internet will be owned and controlled by globalists outside of the United States.

Good for you, SOSAD. I am going to, too.

Here is my letter to Rupert: Of course he could care less, as he owns just about everything, lol.. But tomorrow I will call Fox News sponsors. I have a floor covering business and plan to stop taking American Express cards until this travesty is corrected.

I am writing to share my concern regarding the exclusion of Ron Paul from Sunday's Republican debate. As a long time republican, and for that matter, a long time viewer of Fox News; I am outraged with this censorship. I have trusted Fox as the source of my news, and can only now wonder what other matters you have withheld from your audience.

This in my view is election fraud and manipulation; and obviously blatent censorship. I do plan to call your sponsors tomorrow morning and point out the "Tokyo Rose" type proganda network you have become. I do intend to boycott each of your sponsors until such time as they remove their advertising and sponsorship of Fox News. I also intend to pass along these company's names to those that come into my floor covering store. Whether someone is a Paul supporter or not, they do believe in free and honest elections..... not censorship and misrepresentation by a "so called" news outlet.

Ron Paul is the only answer all....

Originally Posted by Dianne

Paul is the only candidate in the same league as Hillary Clinton in fundraising.... and his contributions come from the average blue collar worker or student at around $50. per donation.

I did not know until just moments ago that the owner of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch's is not american; but rather austrailian... It seems as though we have all these foreign nations interested in bleeding us of the last dollar we have.

Murdoch has recently purchased MySpace as well, so I imagine sooner than later, the internet will be owned and controlled by globalists outside of the United States.

And remember Cintra is owned by Spain/Australia corportation that has the contract for the NAFTA super Highway (North American Union) Coinsidence And Rudy G. law firm Represents them!

Ron Paul may cause them some grief in New Hampshire.

More Than Geography Separates Iowa, NH
By DAVID ESPO – 1 hour ago

MANCHESTER, NH. (AP) — So long, ethanol. Hello, taxes. More than geography changes when the 2008 presidential campaign leaves the land of flat — aka Iowa — for New Hampshire, the Granite State. The electorate is different, and the blend of issues.

Which may be why former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's made-for-Iowa television ad tagline, "Christian leader," has yet to make the trip east across the Mississippi River. In New England, he's a conservative leader.

And why Ron Paul, as close to a libertarian as there is in the Republican race, may yet prove a spoiler in a state whose motto is "Live Free or Die."

Or why Sen. Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, could yet have cause to wonder why he told Iowans that they could decide who wins the party's nomination and the White House in 2008.

"The people of New Hampshire pay attention to Iowa, but it's not the determining factor," Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona observed recently.

That's a diplomatic way of saying New Hampshire primary voters see little merit in rubber-stamping decisions made in Iowa.

Truth be told, they specialize in humbling the mighty.

Think 2000, when George W. Bush roared out of Iowa, only to lose New Hampshire by a whopping 19 percentage points to McCain.

Only twice since 1976 has the same Democrat won both Iowa and New Hampshire in a contested nominating campaign. And for all the boasting that Granite-Staters do about picking presidents, both Al Gore and John Kerry went on to lose the general election.

This year will test whether Massachusetts Republicans fare as well as Massachusetts Democrats in the primary in the state next door. If so, Mitt Romney will be very pleased, as were Kerry (2004), Paul Tsongas (1992) and Michael Dukakis (198 before him.

As a group, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are overwhelmingly white and better educated than the national average.

Still, the differences between them are significant enough to dictate adjustments by the campaigns, even if this year's compressed timetable provides only a five-day interval for changes.

In a recent poll by The Associated Press and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Democrats in both states picked the Iraq war as the top issue in the race.

But in New Hampshire, they care somewhat less about health care as an issue than Iowans, and more about the economy. Not surprisingly, they were also less apt to say that jobs are plentiful locally.

New Hampshire Democrats are more likely to be in union households and far less likely to attend church regularly than their brethren half a continent away.

"Iowa Democrats are more liberal," says Stephanie Cutter, who worked for Kerry in both states in 2004. "In New Hampshire, they're not more moderate, they're more libertarian, it seems."

Overall, New Hampshire is more independent-heavy than Iowa. At about 40 percent of the electorate or so, they outnumber registered Republicans and Democrats. They are free to vote in either party's race, a fact that complicates any pre-primary predictions.

New Hampshire Republicans are more moderate politically than those in Iowa, likelier to support gay marriage, abortion rights and stricter environmental laws.

Among Iowa Republicans, white evangelical Protestants account for an estimated 38 percent of the population of caucus-goers. In New Hampshire, it drops to about 18 percent, according to the Pew survey. In theory, that will make it more difficult for Huckabee to match the strong showing that pre-caucus polls suggest he will have in Iowa.

Then, too, expect less praise for President Bush from Republicans vying to succeed him. Thirty-five percent of New Hampshire GOP voters disapprove of the job he is doing, nearly double the dissatisfaction rate among Iowa Republicans.

For all of New Hampshire's charms, a corn crop is not one of them. In fact, 84 percent of the state is forested, while 88 percent of Iowa is farmland.

That makes federal support for ethanol a nonentity as a political issue in New Hampshire. It's unlikely anyone is happier about that than McCain, who opposes federal subsidies.

Instead, if there is a single issue that has traditionally dominated the state's politics, it is taxes. New Hampshire is one of only two states (Alaska is the other) with neither an income nor a sales tax, and even Democrats running for statewide office suggest one at their peril.

"There's certainly a different focus, more so on fiscal issues, and a libertarian streak in New Hampshire. But I don't see a huge difference between New Hampshire and Iowa voters," Huckabee said recently.

Even the method for sorting out the candidates is different.

New Hampshire has a straight-forward, daylong secret ballot election on Jan. 8 in which voters go to the polls at a time of their choosing.

Iowa's caucuses on Jan. 3 are essentially neighborhood political meetings, all starting at 8 p.m. EST and each requiring voters to publicly declare their presidential preference.

Which New Hampshire is free to ignore.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jrSn ... gD8TTB2E00