Fair & Balanced?

[WI wide body]

Good ole FOX News is sponsoring a debate in it's mobile studio tomorrow.

In it's quest for truth, honesty, and the American way...FOX has excluded Ron Paul from appearing even thought Paul was reported to have gotten over 10%in the Iowa caucuses.

Naturally, front runners Huckabee and Romney were invited. Fred Thompson and John McCain received about 13% and they were invited.

And Rudy 9/11...who received 3% in Iowa was invited while Paul was not. Go figure.

[Moneyguy1]

And you are surprised? Ron scares people, especially the far right.

I may not agree with all he espouses, but at least he is up front.

[Rearden]

Ron Paul still polls less than 5% nationally. He is irrelevant. It's time to focus the debates down to the people who stand a chance of being the nominee.

[Moneyguy1]

Opposing views, even from a minority player, deserve to be heard. The front runners ain't always right in their thinking. (Ain't THAT the truth......)

[MRM]

Yes, but this is not a debate meant to air all oposing views and educate the populous at large; it is a debate to educate the Republican voters about the candidates who are competing for the Republican nomination. Ron Paul deserves to be in many debates, or at least his views do, but it isn't beyond the pale that he gets excluded from this debate on that basis. He is a movement candidate, not seriously competing for the Republican nomination. Further, if he's serious about a third party candidacy, the Republican leadership would do well to consider whether they want him in the party. I'm a big tent Republican - I'll take almost anyone who's willing to call themselves a Republican, but no party should tolerate a candidate who uses the party as a platform for running against it as a candidate for a different party. Joe Lieberman is a good example. He caucuses as a Democrat for selecting Senate leadership and committee assignments, but he is no longer a Democrat.

My personal opinion is that there should be some automatic qualifiers, and 10% in any primary or caucaus immediately before the debate, at least at this early stage, should be an automatic qualifier for being included in that state's debate.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

And you are surprised? Ron scares people, especially the far right.

I may not agree with all he espouses, but at least he is up front.

what do you mean, I like him

[Moneyguy1]

(Said with a smile)

Did I say I didn't?

[the]

Originally Posted by Rearden

Ron Paul still polls less than 5% nationally. He is irrelevant. It's time to focus the debates down to the people who stand a chance of being the nominee.

I agree. He doesn't "scare" anyone. That's a LOL.

[lendaddy]

Alan Keys was also shunned, I'm outraged.

[K. Roman]

I think he deserves to be heard. He got 10% and that deserves some airtime, which in turn would give him even more attention.

[KaptKaos]

Originally Posted by Rearden

Ron Paul still polls less than 5% nationally. He is irrelevant. It's time to focus the debates down to the people who stand a chance of being the nominee.

Some candidates need to be in the debates to force the "leading" candidate to address issues that they don't particularly want to have to deal with. Tancredo was just such a candidate.

[techweenie]

Far and balanced Faux News is run by a close associate of one R. Giuliani.

They have consistently excluded Ron Paul in their coverage, even to the point of leaving his name off of reports on polls where he outscored other candidates who were mentioned. Their online polls attracted so many Ron Paul votes that they discontinued them.

The Republican machine will not allow Ron Paul to be nominated. Chances are his followers will try to launch a third party campaign, but AFAIK, no libertarian has ever gotten more than 150K votes, nationally.

It's frustrating to RP followers, who point out that he is more closely aligned with Americans' opinions on key topics than any other candidate of either party.

[john70t]

Wouldn't that indicate to the voters that the Republicans are more interested in the "business as usual",: i.e. tax and spend, big government, corrupt lobbying, etc..., everything they have been whining about the Dems doing?

[96740]

If it wasn't for FOX NEWS I would still be a liberal zombie watching the network brain washing machine. At least it's closer to the center than anything else, even if it is a bit right.

[Rick Lee]

Paul has raised boatloads of money. If he gets excluded from a debate, he should buy airtime during that debate and run a commercial explaining why he was excluded. I doubt the network would be able to turn him down and he'd embarras the hell out of them, as well as reach a lot of likely voters.

[Moneyguy1]

9670:

Fox is a "bit right"?

Thank you. needed something to laugh at. Not much for me to chuckle at lately....

[idontknow]

Apparently PPOT isn't the only group who think Fox did a no no by Ron Paul.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS92860+05-Jan-2008+BW20080105

"The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary serves a national
purpose by giving all candidates an equal opportunity on a level
playing field. Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded
underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national
figures. Consistent with that tradition, we believe all recognized
major candidates should have an equal opportunity to participate in
pre-primary debates and forums.

"This principle applies to tonight's debates on ABC as well as
Sunday's planned forum on FOX. The New Hampshire Republican Party
believes Congressmen Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter should be included in
the FOX forum on Sunday evening. Our mutual efforts to resolve this
difference have failed.

[Moneyguy1]

MRM:

The debates are there to educate ALL those willing to learn, regardless of party affiliation. Dems can watch the Rep debates and so on. If they don't, what can they base their "I hate XXX" on? Hearsay? "feelings"? Scuttlebutt? The opinions of others? I WANT to know the positions of the leading candidates of ALL parties. I find they differ among others in their own party, sometimes in dramatic ways and these differences have led me in the past to be far from a "one party" voter.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by idontknow

"This principle applies to tonight's debates on ABC ............Ron Paul .

Ron Paul was awesome, the smirks he got from the others in the debate only prove that he has valid points to make.

Dr. Paul said the high cost of oil is more a reflection of the fall of the dollar. That oil priced in Euro's and other currencies have seen only minor price increases. He said the national dept and spending money we don't have on the Iraq war are the reasons, and that the price of oil is right in step with the price of gold. Of course this makes his point that we would not have this type of energy "inflation" if we were on the gold standard and balanced our budgets.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by techweenie

The Republican machine will not allow Ron Paul to be nominated. Chances are his followers will try to launch a third party campaign, but AFAIK, no libertarian has ever gotten more than 150K votes, nationally.

Another fake but accurate story from weenie. Harry Browne got 485,798 votes in 1996.