Paul and the Debates

NASHUA, NH - Outside of the Fox News catacombs I don't think anyone wants to keep Paul out of the New Hampshire debates. The Union Leader here in NH has a front page story on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama pushing Fox (and WMUR/ABC, holding another debate) to include everybody—in both races, it's implied.

In a statement released yesterday, Clinton said: "I believe in the true spirit of the New Hampshire process; the candidates who have participated in past debates should not be excluded from this one."

Obama expressed similar views.

"The voters of New Hampshire deserve to hear all the Democratic candidates' views on who can best lead America in a fundamentally new direction, and that's why I urge these networks to allow full participation in this week's debate," Obama said in a statement.

Meanwhile I just got a press release from the Libertarian Party on the issue—a group of people who have, let's say, a certain interest in keeping up warm relations with the candidate.

"There is simply no tolerance of competing voices against the political elite of two-party politics," says Shane Cory, executive director of the Libertarian Party.

"The leading GOP fundraiser for the fourth-quarter is being snubbed from the debates for nothing more than having political views outside of mainstream Republicanism," says Cory. "The Republican establishment shuns Paul for his pro-liberty views, and will do everything it can to marginalize him. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. There is a long-standing culture of censorship among the political elite when it comes to competing viewpoints."

I'm still betting against a Paul independent bid, but if I ran the GOP I'd be acting like a hostage negotiator right now: "Just give him what he wants!" If Paul gets shut out of debates, or if the GOP coalesces behind an anti-Paul candidate in his House primary, that's going to make a spoiler bid more and more likely.

At 3:09 I saw the Paul immigration ad on CNN. Again.

Comments

creech | January 2, 2008, 3:17pm | #

Will there be audiences for this debate? If so, try to get eleven RP supporters inside.
As the debate begins, they all get up, walk to the side aisle and quietly spell out "Where's Ron?" (one letter per person). Maybe it won't get on camera, but reporters will see it and react. Be prepared to be tossed out too, at which point chanting "Where's Ron?" as you are escorted out will create an impression.

Taktix® | January 2, 2008, 3:23pm | #

This press release will make things worse, as we can predict the GOP to react as they have over the past decade, namely:

Blue team says x, ergo x is wrong.

sixstring | January 2, 2008, 3:26pm | #

Geez, Hillary, why the change of heart? Or did you think we would forget?


From July 13 Fox News (sorry, lost the link):

They (Clinton & Edwards) were caught by Fox News microphones discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some lower rivals after a forum in Detroit Thursday.

Edwards says, “We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group.”

Clinton agrees, saying, “We’ve got to cut the number” and “they’re not serious.” She also says that she thought their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates and say, “We’ve gotta get back to it.”

TrickyVic | January 2, 2008, 3:27pm | #

""""The Republican establishment shuns Paul for his pro-liberty views, and will do everything it can to marginalize him. """

Most of America shuns his pro-liberty views too, so says the polls.

I have noticed a trend. All of my, what I would call Fox News republicans, friends have jumped to support Ron Paul. They have realized their former heros on Fox are full of crap because they don't really support the candidate that supports conservative values and the Constitution. Fox News probably wants to limit that loss. It's not so much a loss in viewership, they still watch, but a loss in their ability to really influence what their viewers believe.

GE | January 2, 2008, 3:28pm | #

I hate to be Captain Negative here, but at what point is it okay to remove candidates from the debates when they have little or no support in the polls? Despite his huge fundraising, Paul is still a relative nobody in the polls. Considering he attended the first 341 debates with the other 64 candidates last year (I joke), is it wrong for news organizations to remove candidates with no chance of winning, to allow for more time (and god willing, but unlikely) substantive discussions with front runners?

Warren | January 2, 2008, 3:29pm | #

That immigration ad sucks. He has so many principled positions that distinguish him. Who does he think he's going to win over by touting the issue he's flip-flopped on and is most like the front runners.

Sam Grove | January 2, 2008, 3:30pm | #

...says the polls.

Ah, the polls. We shall see what the polls are worth.

TallDave | January 2, 2008, 3:30pm | #

I wouldn't vote for Paul, because I think people outside the U.S. deserve liberty too (and because he's a little nuts), but I do hope his candidacy gives a shot in the arm to libertarianism in general and on the GOP side in particular.

I think the so-cons are gradually losing influence in both parties, though Dems are generally better on those issues.

thoreau | January 2, 2008, 3:31pm | #

GE-

Whatever the appropriate* level of support, I'd say that if he's polling competitively with Thompson (or better), and Thompson is in the debate, then Paul should* be in the debate too.

*This is merely my suggestion, insert all disclaimers about private debate forums, owners, property rights, yadda yadda.

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 3:33pm | #

Despite his huge fundraising, Paul is still a relative nobody in the polls.

In IA and NH, he's in the same range as Giuliani and Thompson. This is supposed to be an NH-centric debate, so Fox choosing to go by the results of the national polls (and indeed, the national poll most friendly to Thompson) reeks of cherry-picking.

joe | January 2, 2008, 3:35pm | #

sixstring,

Ron Paul isn't Mike Gravel. Paul is up into the double-digits in New Hampshire. I don't think Mike Gravel ever reached 2%.

The problem isn't that Fox is winnowing the field by eliminating the lowest of the also-rans. The problem is that they are eliminating someone who has risen well above that tier, and violating their own stated standards to do so.

Captain Chaos | January 2, 2008, 3:35pm | #

GE-You make a fair point. However, it's also fair to ask if the media should be playing kingmaker. When they decide who is worthy and who is not, especially when the race has just started, that's essentially what they are doing.

Of course, it's just silly to pretend that these debates (or anything coming out of a politician's mouth) are anything but kabuki theater with advertising slogans.

James | January 2, 2008, 3:35pm | #

The last I heard Paul said that he would not necessarily support other Republican nominees because they are too pro-war, is this still true?

Lost_In_Translation | January 2, 2008, 3:39pm | #

GE,

We still remain with no votes cast and 3 candidates (Brownback, Thompson and Tancredo) have already taken themselves out of the process. There are 5 candidates tied for first nationally and the order of popularity at the state level is all over the map. Paul's true popularity will be measured in the next two statewide competitions, where he has focused on getting his message out, as opposed to nationally, where most people still haven't heard of him or his policies. By the beginning of February, there will be some real guidance on who is going to be competing through the end of primary season and I think the field will be winnowed down further by then (atleast Fred, Alan and Duncan out). By then, Paul supporters will know whether this was their year or not too, and he might be wrapping up his campaign if he finishes poorly in super tuesday. So I think this whole idea that Fox needs to do the winnowing itself is ludicrous.

Lost_In_Translation | January 2, 2008, 3:41pm | #

James,

He's still running for president, so I'd warrant he hasn't changed his answer.

mk | January 2, 2008, 3:42pm | #

BTW, Fox News Corp. Stocks are tanking
There seems to be a rumour going around that Paul supporters are dumping their stock out of protest.

James | January 2, 2008, 3:42pm | #

I thought that a more open market was supposed to improve the quality of news, but can anyone seriously say that FoxNews has improved news over the so-called 'liberal media'. If anything I think news has gotten worse and worse and worse since Fox became big.

iowan | January 2, 2008, 3:44pm | #

GE --

In the latest Iowa Poll from the Des Moines Register (the gold standard for Iowa polling), RP is above Guilliani (9% vs 5%) and tied with Thompson at (9% each).

Last I saw RP is polling above both Guilliani and Thompson in NH.

Even ignoring the claims that the polls under-represent RPs support, he will beat Guilliani in both IA and NH as well as Thompson in NH.

Given that these two contests tend to sway the results of subsequent primaries, it is absurd to include those two also-rans and leave out RP.

The only logical conclusion is the Fox is making the decision on ideaology.

Guy Montag | January 2, 2008, 3:44pm | #

sixstring,

Glad you brought that conversation between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama up as I had forgotten about it.

Also, both of those candidates boycotted several debates run by FOX news anyway. Have they been on a single FOX news debate in 2007?

thoreau | January 2, 2008, 3:45pm | #

There seems to be a rumour going around that Paul supporters are dumping their stock out of protest.

Oh, that would be too funny if they actually managed to hurt the stock price of Faux News.

Libertarians use Market Power!

Guy Montag | January 2, 2008, 3:45pm | #

Oh, the Libertarian Party response is quite rich! When is their debate being aired on one of the "big 4"?

Reinmoose | January 2, 2008, 3:46pm | #

There seems to be a rumour going around that Paul supporters are dumping their stock out of protest.

Whatever effect the Paul supporters could have on the stock could be exacerbated by others who also own the stock and expect the value to drop sharply because of the Paulites. Good play against NWS if you ask me.

TrickyVic | January 2, 2008, 3:53pm | #

"""but can anyone seriously say that FoxNews has improved news over the so-called 'liberal media."

I was recently checking out O'Reilly's section on the FNN web site, the topics listed read like any tabloid rag at the news stand. What's Brintney Spears doing? I was laughing my butt off.

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 3:53pm | #

Yeah, right. I have a hard time believing that a significant portion of NewsCorp stock is held by Ron Paul supporters, let alone Ron Paul supporters willing to dump their investments out of spite.

It's more likely there's another big O'Reilly lawsuit in the wings.

Warren | January 2, 2008, 3:54pm | #

The Paulites are 'spamming' the market by selling the same share of FOX over and over again.

Morat20 | January 2, 2008, 3:56pm | #

I'm all for taking the no-chancers out of at least some debates -- while I do think the issue candidates bring something useful to the table, it really crowds out any chance of hearing from people who might actually win.

(Frankly, I'd be all for letting the no-chancers write one question for each candidate and force an answer out of them over it. That way their issue can be aired).

But while I'm no real fan of Pau, and the guy has absolute 0% chance of winning the primary (and less of winning the national), excluding him and letting Thompson on stage is wrong. Have an open standard or don't cut candidates -- there's no rational standard under which Thompson qualifies to be there and Paul doesn't.

It's BS, and I have no problem in calling it such.

iowan | January 2, 2008, 3:56pm | #

Nice one Warren

Reinmoose | January 2, 2008, 3:58pm | #

Personally I can't believe that Duncan Hunter hasn't taken himself out of the race yet. Bets on when that will happen?

de stijl | January 2, 2008, 4:04pm | #

Personally I can't believe that Duncan Hunter hasn't taken himself out of the race yet. Bets on when that will happen?

Friday morning.

Elemenope | January 2, 2008, 4:06pm | #

Middling nit -- The conversation was Clinton & Edwards, not Obama.

Elemenope | January 2, 2008, 4:07pm | #

Sorry, above was directed at Guy.

sixstring | January 2, 2008, 4:09pm | #

joe,

I'm not talking about Mike Gravel. But I would consider it premature, before a single primary vote or caucus, to start winnowing the field of candidates such as Biden and Dodd on the Dem side and Paul on the Republican. And I also love it when I can concretely show what a duplicitous hypocrite Hillary is.

TrickyVic | January 2, 2008, 4:10pm | #

If there are 30 candidates running, all 30 should be allowed to debate.

iowan | January 2, 2008, 4:12pm | #

The only thing that could be better than seeing RP succeed is seeing Hillary go down in flames tomorrow.

From ABC News


Clinton Camp Pre-Spinning Possible Bad News in Iowa
Campaign Insists Even a Third-Place Finish Would Not Be Disappointing

As the presidential candidates engage in furious pre-caucus spin, one of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's most prominent Iowa supporters said Wednesday that she's already accomplished what she needs to in Iowa, and can declare success even if she finishes in third place.

Former governor Tom Vilsack, D-Iowa, told ABC News that Clinton has already accomplished what she came to Iowa to do: Show that she can appeal to a wide swath of Democrats.

"She has done what she needed to do here," Vilsack said shortly before a Clinton campaign event in Indianola. "When she started the process she was way behind -- it's now by all standards a competitive race."

Asked if the order of finish matters, Vilsack deflected the question.

"She absolutely had to be competitive and she's accomplished that," he said. "Obviously everybody's interested in winning, and I think we're going to do well. It's tight. There's no question about that."

Warren | January 2, 2008, 4:14pm | #

Reinmoose,
He hasn't? Everybody else has. Hunter is running neck and neck with Alan Keyes (who I guess is also pretending to run) at 1%. The Huckster needs to win Iowa to or the wheels fall off. Likewise, if McCan't wins NH he stays, but even a close second and he's gone. Thompson should also fall by the wayside after NH. Everybody else has the cash to go the distance.

iowan | January 2, 2008, 4:16pm | #

Everybody else has the cash to go the distance.

The latest email from the campaign is that they want another $23M to run ads for Feb 5.

Has anyone heard of any impending money bomb?

joe | January 2, 2008, 4:17pm | #

sixstring,

But I would consider it premature, before a single primary vote or caucus, to start winnowing the field of candidates such as Biden and Dodd on the Dem side and Paul on the Republican.

So would I. Winnowing the field of people like Mike Gravel, otoh, seems a bit more reasonable. At the time that exchange took place, Gravel was still in all of the debates.

So while I understand how dearly you love to slam Hillary Clinton, it doesn't really work is this case - unless you consider Ron Paul to be in Mike Gravel territory.

Ali | January 2, 2008, 4:20pm | #

Ron Paul on Larry King Tonight!

sixstring | January 2, 2008, 4:20pm | #

Ron Paul website has him appearing on Larry King tonight. I could not find corroboration on CNN.

bryan | January 2, 2008, 4:22pm | #

mk,

I hadn't seen the Fox News Boycott. That is awesome. I do love that, where supporters of any other candidate would have lobbied for government intervention into the debate invites, Ron Paul supports hit them where it really hurts -- the market.

Here is a great list of sponsers to boycott and e-mail.
http://finance.google.com/group/google.finance.25639/browse_thread/thread/430decbf176d469a/84a43688bbf98622#84a43688bbf98622

Lost_In_Translation | January 2, 2008, 4:23pm | #

joe,

they could always make the debates longer...i see no problem with listening to 10+ candidates speak on the issues if they're all given enough time.

Bryan | January 2, 2008, 4:26pm | #

Iowan

Next Money Bomb: January 21, to coincide with the birthday of Rev. Dr. Martian Luther King Jr.

http://freeatlast2008.com/

mpp | January 2, 2008, 4:27pm | #

If I was Ron I wouldn't want to be on the debate. He would get two questions and one would probably be about Abraham Lincoln.

iowan | January 2, 2008, 4:27pm | #

thanks, Bryan

joe | January 2, 2008, 4:27pm | #

I hear you, Lost. Once again, I find myself in what I call "FISA Mode."

Give completely ridiculous facts A through N, what is a reasonable solution?

Given that a cable station is going to spend an hour making candidates respond to Gotcha questions about nothing in 30 second soundbites, how much of a support-cutoff for inclusion will maximize the voters' ability to learn something useful?

Dakota | January 2, 2008, 4:27pm | #

iowan | January 2, 2008, 4:16pm | #
Has anyone heard of any impending money bomb?




Yes. For MLK day:

http://freeatlast2008.com/

Reinmoose | January 2, 2008, 4:28pm | #

I always thought it would be nice if they all had to give powerpoint presentations about their policy proposals and the implications of those policies.

iowan | January 2, 2008, 4:28pm | #

Risky choice to go on MLK's birthday.

Saul Tanner | January 2, 2008, 4:29pm | #

Call Saint Anselm College, where Fox will hold the forum, and ask how they can allow Fox on their campus. Fox's decision goes against every ideal the College stands for!

http://www.anselm.edu/Ask+Saint+Anselm.htm

Saint Anselm College: [phone]

sixstring | January 2, 2008, 4:29pm | #

Musing on the Larry King appearance, I find it very delicious that on the day that FoxNews has created a firestorm by excluding Paul, CNN offers him a platform on their premier primetime show on the eve of the caucuses. One network marginalizes him and one legitimizes him. It's going to be a fun 35 days.

sixstring | January 2, 2008, 4:31pm | #

And I'm almost ready to take back those things I said about cnn after the youtube debates.

Warren | January 2, 2008, 4:31pm | #

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this turned out to be the best thing that's happened to the Paul '08 campaign since Dec. 16th.

Reinmoose | January 2, 2008, 4:31pm | #

If I was Ron I wouldn't want to be on the debate. He would get two questions and one would probably be about Abraham Lincoln.

This is likely what would happen. They'd give him a short amount of time and ask him ridiculously disrepectful questions that they would never ask any other candidate.

Warty | January 2, 2008, 4:32pm | #

Does anyone actually watch debates other than politics nerds and old people?

iowan | January 2, 2008, 4:34pm | #

Does anyone actually watch debates other than politics nerds and old people?

Late Fall and early Winter 2007, not many.

Two days before NH, a few more.

Next fall when it doesn't really matter anymore, lots of people.

toddb | January 2, 2008, 4:35pm | #

rp on hannity radio show right now if interested and in your area...

xtrabiggg | January 2, 2008, 4:36pm | #

FOX and ABC are exposing for the voters exactly how biased and influenced by Big Coproate Political pressure the media has been for a while. The ONLY reason to exclude ANY candidate is if he IS NOT RUNNING!!! There should be no criteria in a free and fair election for any type of exclusion. This is a contest of IDEAS and plans for the future of America. The Media in general, and the TV Networks specifically, seem to want to run their election coverage by the rules of their ENTERTAINMENT DIVISIONS! Of course, that's not surprising, since years ago they all gave up any independence in their News operations and folded them into the for-profit Entertainment divisions of the corporation!
Now, we get elections treated as if they were just as important (or less, in fact) than the new season of 'American Idol'. We are not viewing a spectacle, a sporting event or a sitcom here. This is not a popularity contest akin to a beauty pageant or a singing competition. We are now conducting a JOB INTERVIEW for the most important job in this country- perhaps the world. You don't disqualify a job applicant solely on the basis of how many people are rooting for him. You interview EACH person fully, and give them time to make their case. Then, and only then do you decide who is the best person for the job.
How can we allow private corporations to decide the criteria to allow ANY candidate's voice to be heard? Hitler was the loudest voice in Germany in 1933. He had the biggest support, and the most organized political machine. Was he REALLY the best person for the job? Or did his allies in the German Media squelch all opposing views and deny legitimate candidates the opportunity to be heard? Don't laugh... the same forces that censored free speech in Germany in 19333 are at work here in America in 2008! Big corporations who owned the media in Germany didn't allow opposition to Hitler, since he was 'their man' and promised to allow them to continue making a lot of money- no matter what.
The question is now, in America in 2008, do we allow the richest, most powerful corproations in America to decide for us which Presidential Candidates we are ALLOWED by them to hear, where we may see them, and how often we will see the candidates THEY favor (who will promise them continued profits!). Ron Paul talked about fascism coming to America recently, and the Big Money media types pooh-poohed him and laughed about it. Apperntly they feel the joke is on the American people! It may be in a velvet glove, but the iron fist of fascism smashes free speech just as surely as if it were naked and above-the-radar. A smiling face and soothing voice will prove to be the perfect mask for a corrupt and malleable media, which pushes the agenda of it's multinational arms-dealing owners over the will and interests of the American people on a daily basis.
Wake up now, America, to the con job being played on you. Or else wake up tomorrow in a country you don't recognize, to a government you can't get out of your life, and a trust of corproations who own everything you have but your soul..
xtrabiggg
+++++++++++++++++++++=

Warty | January 2, 2008, 4:39pm | #

That reminds me, I need to work on my manifesto.

bryan | January 2, 2008, 4:41pm | #

toddb,

Is there a link to the clip?

joe | January 2, 2008, 4:45pm | #

You just don't see as much WAKE UP AMERICA! as you used to.

I blame the drug companies and the end of the Cold War.

iowan | January 2, 2008, 4:48pm | #

SSRIs do wonders for obsesive/compulsive disorders.

St. John's Wort is fairly effective you want to go over the counter.

Bingo | January 2, 2008, 4:49pm | #

But I thought 9/11 awakened the sleeping giant and we stomped terrist ass? Damned Islamofascists ruining America's afternoon nap.

toddb | January 2, 2008, 4:49pm | #

bryan,
don't know about a link...I was off today and just happened to turn on the radio to catch the latest neocon talking points...just threw out the comment in case he was on locally for others

It's over now, same old stuff, Hannity was reasonable (for him) but pretty much contained it to attacking Paul on his foreign policy/anti war positions. Paul did OK, but sounded kinda tired or at least tired of answering the same neocon attacks on the war issue from Hannity.

toddb | January 2, 2008, 4:52pm | #

by comparison, the interview with Thompson before that was a sickening love-fest...I felt a little queasy...

NAL | January 2, 2008, 4:56pm | #

I always thought it would be nice if they all had to give powerpoint presentations about their policy proposals and the implications of those policies.

Funny, I just mentioned a very similar idea to my wife the other day. Basically, each candidate should be given 10-15 minutes to summarize his/her positions on all the issues that he/she deems important. Then when it's down to 2-3 candidates, they could have a real debate.

James | January 2, 2008, 4:57pm | #

The Republican Party has been for the past 12-20 years a coalition of the dumb and the very smart but mean...Hannity is the former.

iowan | January 2, 2008, 4:58pm | #

Funny, I just mentioned a very similar idea to my wife the other day. Basically, each candidate should be given 10-15 minutes to summarize his/her positions on all the issues that he/she deems important. Then when it's down to 2-3 candidates, they could have a real debate.


The could flash a phone number for each candidate. People could call in and vote at the end of the presentations. We could eliminate one candidate each week.

Never mind.

Stephen Gordon | January 2, 2008, 4:58pm | #

If I was Ron I wouldn't want to be on the debate. He would get two questions and one would probably be about Abraham Lincoln.

What's worse is that Paul would probably answer the question asked, instead of responding something like this:

The Civil War is over, we can't do anything about that now. But right now, our brave boys and girls are dying in a war we CAN stop!

An additional question is why you would ask me this. You didn't ask Giuliani about his mistresses, Romney about his flip-flops, Huckabee about...

Reinmoose | January 2, 2008, 4:59pm | #

Funny, I just mentioned a very similar idea to my wife the other day. Basically, each candidate should be given 10-15 minutes to summarize his/her positions on all the issues that he/she deems important. Then when it's down to 2-3 candidates, they could have a real debate.

Indeed. I also thought it might force them to commit to specific ideas more than the soundbite-format because it will be harder to hide from.

old timer | January 2, 2008, 5:01pm | #

Flash back to H Ross Perot

Warty | January 2, 2008, 5:01pm | #

You just don't see as much WAKE UP AMERICA! as you used to.

I blame the drug companies and the end of the Cold War.

I'm too young to remember much about the Cold War (except that finger painting and Thundercats were pretty cool), but I seem to remember a lot of WAKE UP 'MERCA during the Clinton years.

Taktix® | January 2, 2008, 5:01pm | #

toddb,

What time was it on? Because the rebroadcast that windbag from 6-9 here and there's no way I'm listening to 3 hours of that without either:

A: Being tied down
B: Being heavily intoxicated
C: Kicking the crap out of my radio

Captain Chaos | January 2, 2008, 5:01pm | #

Dear god...please, no power point....please. That program is destroying teaching, speaking, and thought.

Warty | January 2, 2008, 5:05pm | #

Dear god...please, no power point....please. That program is destroying teaching, speaking, and thought.

I give you: The Gettysburg Address.

iowan | January 2, 2008, 5:06pm | #

remember . . . power point leads to Nobels for ex vice presidents . . . . .

Guy Montag | January 2, 2008, 5:07pm | #

Elemenope,

Middling nit -- The conversation was Clinton & Edwards, not Obama.

Yes, I realized that I made the mental substitution on my way home from the office.

True to form, the fits of the Reasonoids are much wilder than those of Democrats.

Edward Tufte | January 2, 2008, 5:08pm | #

hear hear!

toddb | January 2, 2008, 5:10pm | #

Taktix,
I'm on central time, it was on 3:30 central. I don't usually listen, but I'm 95% certain the show runs 2-5 here...so should be around 7:30 for you.

Bingo | January 2, 2008, 5:13pm | #

Warty:

Ahhh, nothing like a PowerPoint presentation to suck the life out of something. I guess we know what Fred's been doing with his spare time.

Warty | January 2, 2008, 5:19pm | #

I guess we know what Fred's been doing with his spare time.

Snorting Viagra and banging his trophy wife? That's what I'd be doing.

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 5:42pm | #

Captain,

PowerPoint presentations do not destroy people...people who make bad PowerPoint presentations do.

As a college student who's had professors who were able to end class early because of all the time they saved by switching to PowerPoint from writing on and erasing a chalkboard, I assert that you can take my PowerPoint from my cold dead hands!

joshua corning | January 2, 2008, 5:46pm | #

but if I ran the GOP I'd be acting like a hostage negotiator right now: "Just give him what he wants!"

What a really really weird analogy...in a hostage situation you DO NOT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT.

Which is no way applicable in a political fight in a liberal democracy...seriously. In a battle of words you let your opponent speak...what else are you going to nail him on?

BakedPenguin | January 2, 2008, 5:59pm | #

Risky choice to go on MLK's birthday.

Especially with that f'n immigration commercial.

That reminds me, I need to work on my manifesto.

Make sure you use lots of exclamation points and all caps so people know you're serious. SERIOUS!!!

Kay Cisarik | January 2, 2008, 6:04pm | #

Fox news has been the laughing stock of network news services over the last 3-4 years. Why would we expect them to suddenly become objective now?

This is a good time slot Fox got for this debate, and they would likely have new viewers that don't usually watch FOX. But I think this move by Fox to choose their own candidates will backfire on them, it is an obstruction of liberty to censure the candidates that don't agree with your network's views and it is not in the public interest. This looks like it may become a case for the FCC.

toddb | January 2, 2008, 6:14pm | #

The smarter play for Fox if they want to marginalize Paul is just put him in the debate and give him another 3.2 minutes of time...then just continue to pretend he doesn't exist during your regular "news" coverage.

This kind of stuff just motivates RP's base and potentially draws new sympathy and interest in Paul.

Pig Mannix | January 2, 2008, 6:14pm | #

Where Have All the Pot Smokers Gone?

Whaaa?

politicalsanity | January 2, 2008, 6:54pm | #

I would be in favor of culling the herd, if it was done fairly and at an appropriate time.

From what I can tell, they are excluding Ron Paul, but including Fred Thompson, who has consistently been polling LOWER than Paul.

The timing stinks, too. Excluding ANY candidate 2 days before an election sucks, but it is even worse in such a key state as New Hampshire.

As such, I can only conclude they are trying to take away the democratic process, or at least unduly influence it.

Ali | January 2, 2008, 7:14pm | #

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO9grvgeW6Q

With Blitzer

trabajador de la clase media | January 2, 2008, 7:25pm | #

That reminds me, I need to work on my manifesto.

Make sure you use lots of exclamation points and all caps so people know you're serious. SERIOUS!!!

You also need appropriate bold tags to draw attention to your points on most of the nouns and verbs of your sentences.

(Alternatively your ModusOperandi could be running ProperNouns together, along with RandomCapitalization; of which I thought, among those that use the LatinAlphabet, only existed in the GermanLanguage.)

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 7:49pm | #

Risky choice to go on MLK's birthday.

Well, if anything it will help cut down on the number of embarrassing white supremacist donations... ;-)

beetlejuice | January 2, 2008, 8:45pm | #

The only fair and appropriate time to do herd-culling is at the primaries.

Eric Dondero | January 2, 2008, 9:28pm | #

91 posts here and not a single one of you mentioned Duncan Hunter.

Hunter has been a Congressman representing the Nation's 8th largest City of San Diego for over 25 years.

He's far more deserving of being in the debates than Ron Paul.

And Hunter won the Texas GOP straw poll back in August.

If Fox allows Paul to be in the debates, how could they possibly exclude Hunter?

joe | January 2, 2008, 9:36pm | #

Hunter's polling, what, 4%?

crimethink | January 2, 2008, 10:10pm | #

I don't think that's the real Dondero.

BakedPenguin | January 2, 2008, 11:42pm | #

trabajador, I actually wrote about proper trolling punctuation here.

I mentioned those two things specifically because Warty had previously posted something to the effect that whenever he wanted to be taken seriously, he used all caps and lots of exclamation points.

MME | January 3, 2008, 2:03am | #

Investors, not just here, but around the world are dumping Newscorp. People are also talking of taking short position of the stock, [where as you don’t] have to own the stock but can make money betting the stock will drop,which will also have the same effect as a sell-off.

If you really want FOX to pay for their antics,this is the way to do it.

Newscorp owns MYSPACE, if you're on MYSPACE start threatening to boycott.

VM | January 3, 2008, 9:21am | #

Baked - translate Trabajador's name... :)

brotherben | January 3, 2008, 10:01am | #

I say let mr. dondero do the transliteration, as he knows 10-45 languages.

TrickyVic | January 3, 2008, 10:57am | #

"""You just don't see as much WAKE UP AMERICA! as you used to."""

That's back when the republicans were not in power. Once they got power, they wanted you to go back to sleep.