Will We See Ron Paul in NH Debates?

The NY Times and others report on how Fox News and ABC is working to keep Ron Paul--the $20 million man--out of its debates in New Hampshire this Sunday; ABC is holding out possibility of inclusion based on results in Iowa and polls, though that's a small crumb for a guy who is massively successful in terms of fundraising and besting ghost candidate Fred Thompson in various surveys. Even Cap'n Ed Morrissey of Captains Quarter, no RP man that's for sure, finds the preemptive Paulophobia off-putting:

It makes little sense to start excluding candidates just before the first meaningful vote gets taken. Raising $19 million in a quarter shows at least some level of significant support, even if limited to the fringes of the GOP and Libertarian parties. Also, if Fox wants to rely on polling, Paul does at least as well as Thompson in Iowa and perhaps better at the moment in New Hampshire. Why not just wait for the results from Iowa to make that determination for both parties, as ABC plans to do?

More here.

reason on Ron Paul here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    The current roster of seven or eight on a stage makes for nothing but the exchange of substance-less soundbites, and provide no insight into the true character and nature of the candidates.

    I think this state would hold true if you whittled the number of candidates in the "debates" down to one.

  • ||

    er, statement would hold true

  • Taktix®||

    and besting ghost candidate Fred Thompson in various surveys.

    I think "undead candidate" would be more fitting here.

    Just sayin'...

  • Elemenope||

    If FOX is really just hatin' for the sake of it, they are going about it in a poor way. I mean, this is a slight that pisses off even non-Paul fans because it just sounds unfair.

  • Zombie Fred Thompson||

    I think "undead candidate" would be more fitting here.



    Zombie Fred Thompson eat brains, but no can swallow your lack of inclusiveness.

  • BakedPenguin||

    And a Ron Paul / Liberty Maniacs banner appears next to the post. I think it will get more click-throughs than carpet humper.

  • ||

    A lot hinges on the Iowa vote. If Ron Paul vastly exceeds the MSM polling numbers, the Fox pundits will have a hard time spinning their decision, and may have to reconsider excluding Paul. If Paul gets close to the MSM polling numbers, then Fox will probably get a pass from the pundits on their call.

    If the average 6-7% turnout in Iowa caucuses from prior years holds for the other candidates, and Paul supporters turn out en masse, it could be a shocker -- Paul could win the thing in a blowout. If the Paul supporters sit on their okoles at home, too, I'd say the "Revolution" is in deep trouble.

  • Nigel Watt||

    I think "undead candidate" would be more fitting here.

    Just sayin'...



    Fred Thompson doesn't have the energy to eat brains.

  • BakedPenguin||

    prolefeed - that's where I think Paul has a huge advantage. His supporters are far more committed than other candidates (really, besides Dondero, have you heard from anyone who is passionate about Rudy Giuliani winning?)

    Paul's had a lot of people donate money to his campaign - If you're going to send a candidate $20, then you're going to get off your ass to vote.

  • ||

    Nothing like just blatantly admitting your bias as a "fair and balanced" media company...

  • ||

    Paulbots

    We're the only candidate-supporters who show any initiative or creativity, so we're compared to robots.

    Sort of like how the one candidate who is against war and torture is called a Nazi.

  • Taktix®||

    I'm still convinced Chris Wallace and Dennis Kucinich are the same person...

  • ||

    The current roster of seven or eight on a stage makes for nothing but the exchange of substance-less soundbites, and provide no insight into the true character and nature of the candidates.

    Because Fox needs that extra 5 minutes of talking time they give Paul every debate to give Giuliani more time to detail his intricate plan to defile the Constitution.

    Yes, limiting the debate would increase the amount of time per candidate, but reducing it by one or two candidates when there is a 5 way tie for 1st is the lamest of excuses. Let me know when Thompson and Giuliani aren't invited and we'll talk.

  • ||

    Faux News never seems to amaze me with their stupidity. Could this be any more obvious of an attempt to censor the one candidate that goes against the establishment line. People recognize this feeble attempt for what it is and will likely realize that Faux News is nothing short of propaganda.

    I firmly believe this bonehead move by Fox will only strengthen the resolve of Dr. Pauls supporters, and possibly open some eyes to the outright media blackout of Ron Paul's message.

    This Revolution is happening!

  • ||

    This tactic didn't work so well the last time it was tried. I'm looking for Paul to hold a protest rally the same day. It will be better attended and get more attention.

  • ||

    "Fair and balanced" Fox has proven how unfair and unbalanced they really are.

  • ||

    I think someone should censure Fox for their censorship!

    I know it's not really censorship - I just wanted to use 'censor' and 'censure' in the same sentence. ;)

  • ||

    tarran,
    Your comment stinks so bad, I'm going to have to light the censer.

  • ||

    I'm a RP supporter, and I actually think getting excluded from the debates would give his campaign a boost.

    If you are a minor candidate complaining that generally the mainstream media ignores you, you look like a petty whiner. If you are candidate polling *fifth* in both Iowa and NH (http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Rep-Pres-Primary.php and http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Rep-Pres-Primary.php), and you are left out of *five-man* debates, it adds tremendous validity to the idea you are being treated unfairly. Whatever their faults, the US public hates unfairness.

    I also think the lotsa-money-raised message is getting a little stale, and this gives his campaign a new kick. With exclusion, RP becomes the legitimate people's candidate that the media doesn't want you to hear.

    Plus, if he is out of the debates, I won't have to watch them...

  • BakedPenguin||

    bonus points for Warren...

  • ||

    Warren,

    Does that even make sense? Sure, but that doesn't mean you needed to write it. I sense you're having a rough morning.

  • ||

    Over at Intrade, the most reliable guessing source, Paul is running at ~7% to win the nom. This is 5th place amongst Republicans. This is better than Edwards' chance of winning the Democratic nom. Also, for outright presidential winner, Paul's (4.5%) running ahead of Huckabee (4%)... though this last one has some confounding factors.

    Actually, though these numbers suggest he should be in a Repub debate of five, it's also clear that his chances of winning look very poor. Nevertheless, I'll probably vote for Paul in November, though I'll probably have to write him in.

  • Taktix®||

    Anyone who defends Faux News now will really have to be drinking the kool aid.

    This move has triggered my conspiracy sensor...

  • ||

    Folks, im reading reports that, uh, Hutton Gibson has endorsed Ron Paul. I would love, love, to see a RP presidency, but all these freaks are making it harder to stick by the man. Guilt by association is weak, but I'm having a hard time being on the same team as H. Gibson and Stormfronts' finest.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945659/posts

  • ||

    If he wants to be free, who cares. The funny thing is that our Politicians are usual such sell-out panderers to one group that "guilt by association" can even be an idea. I'm sure we could dig up the biggest racist in America and ask him who he'd vote for and then vote the opposite, but what sense would that make? What's common between us is freedom and true conservatism.

  • ||

    Joe,
    No one's interested in your two cents.

  • robc||

    Matt,

    This aint a team sport. Im not on any team with any of those people. Im voting for Paul, not for his other supporters. Im not even on the same team with you.

  • ||

    It's not Hutton Gibon or Stormfront that I find a common bond with but the other several million Ron Paul supporters who want liberty, less taxation, and an end to war I'm pretty comfortable sharing a curb with.

  • ||

    Joe,
    No one's interested in your two cents....


    Or maybe they are.

  • ||

    I saw Ron Paul being interviewed by Glen Beck on News Year's day.

    His comments on the Israel/U.S. relationship were excellent. It's his lack of understanding of the Arab enemies that worries me more. And, also, his Israel hating supporters who may not share Dr. Paul's opinion.

  • ||

    Guilt by association is weak, but I'm having a hard time being on the same team as H. Gibson and Stormfronts' finest.

    The problem is not that we're on the same "team" as these guys, but rather the sheeple who get their news from Fox et al. are beginning to think Dr. Paul is on the same team.

    Ron Paul's biggest problem was his initial perception as a kook and despite all the ground he gained on this, the smears will take their toll...

  • ||

    >>>The problem is not that we're on the same "team" as these guys, but rather the sheeple who get their news from Fox et al. are beginning to think Dr. Paul is on the same team.

    Well, yea from R.P's P.O.V. But Im talking about my regular politco conversations with friends/family.

    Them: "So I hear Mel Gibson's dad, Stormfront, and Louis Farrakhan (last ones a joke, for now) have all endorsed R.P. Hmmmmm."

    Me: "Well, see, its counter-intuitive. Israel would actually be stronger if we didnt give her any money and she fended for herself."

    Im not sure im convinced, much less convincing anyone else.

  • ||

    Joe, are you incensed, or just being difficult? Either way, it doesn't give you license, or reason, to blast warren for his nonsense. Are we clear?

  • Edward||

    SEND RON PAUL MORE MONEY!

    Morons for Ron Paul has approved this appeal.

  • ||

    At least with Paul excluded we can hear from the libertarian wing of the GOP. Like Guilani, Romney, and Huckabee.

    And as one poster already said, now with Paul excluded I don't need to watch the debate.

  • ||

    I hope this twists enough peoples' knickers that the protest draws a large crowd, and the establishment will be forced to stop ignoring us.

  • ||

    Well duh FoxNews is a GOP handmaiden. I've known that since it launched its fevered 24 hour propaganda efforts...

    My real bitch against Fox as a network was their amazingly crappy coverage of last nights Sugar Bowl. Missing key events while at commercial or endless shots of the crowd and hey, how about a REPLAY of penalties? Jesus I got so mad I turned off the game...Tools.

  • ||

    Of course nobody needs to tell you of all people that Fox and ABC as private businesses have every right to choose what they broadcast and who to include in debates they air. Why even bring this up? Network TV is only one of the myriad media through which candidates can make themselves heard in today's dynamistic marketplace. Why are you hatin' on dynamisticism? Obviously, Fox/NewsCorp and ABC/Disney are making rational choices based on what they believe will maximize their profits in the medium term. By burying Ron Paul, they promote candidates more amenable to their lobbying. Disney's got further copyright extensions hey want enacted, and your man Paul isn't exactly down with their program. It would be irrational and against their own interests for the media companies in the network televison business to offer him a platform.

    Ron Paul can get his word out through the dynamistic power of the blogs and the YouTubes and a panoply of low-power AM radio stations and he can hire skywriters and he can wear a sandwich board too. And besides, television isn't just about the broadcast channels! We have cable and satellite with thousands of channels. Even if the five remaining major media companies in the US all merged, it wouldn't matter because in today' media landscape we have a dynamistically diverse marketplace of choices. Choice! Isn't that what the book was called?

  • ||

    "It's his lack of understanding of the Arab enemies that worries me"

    Underzog, in what way do you think Ron Paul doesn't understand the "Arab enemies"?

  • ||

    Disney's got further copyright extensions hey want enacted, and your man Paul isn't exactly down with their program.

    The president has nothing to do with copyright extensions, which are a purely Congressional matter, and Dr Paul never talks about that subject anyway.

  • Ali||

    http://libertyposter.org/

  • ||

    Choice! Isn't that what the book was called?

    Sorry, I only have a copy of it's sister publication: Choice! for Uplifting Gormadizers

    Great pictures!

  • ||

    sm,

    Oh, now I see that you were being ironic. It is true that ABC and NewsCorp are private entities, and thus legally entitled to do as they please in this matter, but that doesn't mean they can't be criticized for their actions by other private entities like Reason.

    And no one's saying that RP wasn't going to get his message out if the networks didn't offer him air time. He did it before, he'll do it again if necessary.

  • ||

    Joe,
    No one's interested in your two cents.


    Warren, a humble suggestion.

    joe,
    No one's interested in the two cents your providing.

  • Ali||

    Hey J sub D!

    Long time, no hear!

    People:

    Check this one out:

    http://libertyposter.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/composite41.png

  • Fluffy||

    Shorter Matt:

    "Guilt by association is weak, but I still believe in it."

  • ||

    kohlrabi, in a sense, you're right.

  • ||

    Dynamisticism - n. 1. Belief in Tax Cut Fairies

  • ||

    Faux News has never been "Fair and Balanced" to Dr. Paul. As a result, the Revolution is dumping Fox News stock. If we can raise over 6 million dollars in one day, watch what we can do to a stock. It's already down close to 2% and dropping.

  • LarryA||

    Why not just wait for the results from Iowa to make that determination for both parties, as ABC plans to do?

    Because his campaign scares the hell out of them?

  • ||

    subject: Joe's two sense.

    IMHO Joe is very capable of civil discourse and often gives thought provoking balance to subject matter here. I don't agree with everyones opinions here, but I appreciate and give consideration to almost all posts hereabouts.
    Happy New Year all.

  • ||

    J Sub D, Warren,

    You are one of only a handful that resents joe's posts, even if some of what he writes is nonsense. If you were to ask the average hit and run reader whether joe should be granted license to post here you would find that he or she consents to joe's presence on this board.

    So please dispense with your indefensible put-downs.

  • Lurker Dave||

    Edward wrote:

    "SEND RON PAUL MORE MONEY!

    Morons for Ron Paul has approved this appeal."

    God, you are OBSESSED. You need to go see a shrink.


    This makes my third post here, so I'll be picking a new screenname.

  • ||

    If joe did not exist it would be necessary to invent him. Sadly, I don't think the same could be said of most of us here...

  • jtuf||

    Hmm, there seems to be a demand for more inclusive debates. The big debate providers are not meeting this demand. How about a Reason sponsored debate?

  • beetlejuice||

    brotherben, tarran:

    I agree with your sentiments. I certainly have no problem with joe, even though we would disagree most of the time.

    Edward, on the other hand...

    BTW, I'm the poster formerly known as Lurker Dave. Been following these discussions for a couple years now, and figured it was time to stop lurking.

  • beetlejuice||

    @ jtuf,

    Sounds like a good idea, but would any of the candidates participate? I'm sure Paul would be game, but what about the others?

  • ||

    All,
    I am not trying to censor joe, so there is no need to censure me. The scent your putting out requires me to either fill my censer with incense or travel some distance. But don't accuse me of being incensed. That's just nonsense. I require no license to put in my two cents, however lacking in substance.

  • ||

    Ali and Warren both sent "your" through the intertubez, when they should have sent "you're."

  • Ali||

    joe-

    Ali and Warren both sent "your" through the intertubez, when they should have sent "you're."

    What have I done?

  • ||

    The College of Saint Anselm, where the Fox forum is scheduled, should explain themselves. Allowing a media outlet to censor candidates is a betrayal of their stated ideals of democracy and liberty.

    The students recently held a Mock Primary that was covered by WBZ-TV in Boston, and they gave Ron at five times the votes as Thompson.

    See the results and comment here..

    http://blogs.saintanselmcollege.net/2007/11/28/mockprimaryresults/

  • anon2||

    J sub D,

    To my eyes, Warren's retort was much funnier than your improvement on it. It was subtler and shifted the pun from censor to joes use of the word "sense" twice. As such, it could be considered a triple pun:

    sense -> cents

    "two sense" -> joe weakened the humor by repeating the word

    "nobody's interested in …" -> many people will overlook joe's humor because they're knee-jerk anti-joe

    Keep it up Warren.

  • ||

    Ali,

    Oops, I meant J sub D.

    Since your comments have been unfairly maligned, sincerly offer my apologies.

  • Ali||

    joe- No need for apology.

  • toddb||

    No worries. If RP finishes fourth or fifth in NH and IA with single digit support, then he really was the fringe candidate that the MSM has painted him and it really doesn't matter whether he's in the debate.

    However...if the popular theory (on this board anyway) that there is a groundswell of support on the way and that RP is going to greatly exceed his polls and finish 3rd (or better) in each state comes true....well then we'll be thanking the good folks at Fox for the nice boost. RP will either be invited with apologies and enter the debate floor as the victorious center of attention, or be denied and get 10 times as much attention for getting shafted unfairly.

  • ||

    Warren's post presents an interesting question. How strongly must a person express that he resents joe's comments before he can be accused of censuring joe?

    I've long sensed that people are insensible when it comes to distinguishing between the man and his arguments.

  • ||

    Ali,

    I thought an apology made sense, or I wouldn't have offered one.

    (FYI, we're playing a game around the words "censure" and "censor," by writing other phrases that sound like them. "...sense, or..." "Since your..." "Sent 'your'" Wow, it sounds really fucking lame when i spell it out like thatt.)

  • ||

    All these people? that say Dr Ron Paul isn't electable are the same people? that elected Bush...probably twice (well they voted for him twice but he lost twice, stole the first one and essentially was appointed/stole the second one) I see you idiots with the friggen W still stuck to your car/truck. And this for the decider that has the lowest rating for what he does in the history of the US. W isn't qualified to carry water for Ron Paul. Ron Paul will only come along once in your lifetime lets make this count and send the Bush's of the world to the hell they deserve.

  • ||

    Fox knows 99% of people don't read sites like this... Unless another media giant stands up against them (or of Paul is a shocker in Iowa), nothing will happen. The best possible situation would be if Paul gets 3rd or better in Iowa and Fox still excludes him. Even if that doesn't boost Ron Paul, it'll show all those old people and Bush dragoons that 'news' isn't as cut and dry as they once thought.

  • ||

    To answer your question, Rattlesnake Jake, one can't appease the Arabs in the manner that isolationist Dr. Paul would do.

    We may think withdrawing from Saudi Arabia, as Dr. Paul notes of bin Ladin, will stop Arab Islamo terrorism, but the Arabs consider concession to their demands as weakness. A President Paul may accede to the Arab demands to get out of there, but he and you will be sorely shocked to note that such an action will hurt --not help the U.S. with them.

    To the occidental mind this seems counter intuitive, but that is the way it is with the vast majority of them.

  • dan||

    Oh Underzog, your insight into the backward Oriental mind is amazing.

  • ||

    Have you all noticed how Ron Paul has:

    1. Been excluded from much of the media attention and in articles?
    2. Been the target of articles that are specially formatted to subtly turn him into looking like a joke?

    I believe this is because big business in this country and the powerful are scared of Mr. Paul since they can not control him. Nothing that you look at in his record makes him look like a freak or a joke. There is no dirt. And he can not be bought by big business. Do not be fooled by all of this. It is sad, because we have become a nation it seems where the media and polls are deciding who we elect even before we cast a ballot.(Paul being excluded from debates based on just polling) That is horribly dangerous. And the people being taken by this scam are the middle and lower classes in this country. Wouldnt it be refreshing to have someone in office you could actually trust for once who would try to protect our country for us and our future? We should all look closely at why we would vote for a person like Ron Paul. I personally would because even though I may not agree with everything he says, I do know that what he stands for is what I will get. His actions for years have spoken much louder then all the other candidates words combined! And I will admit I agree with most of his logic since this country is/was created based on what he is supporting. And I know he will look out for "we the people" and our rights...not some big company or world government.

    Big business and big media are also very scared of Ron Paul because he could really screw up their system and control over you and I. And by the way, when they call Ron Paul an Isolationist this is just a negative label on a positive stance. These days Isolationism is no longer refraining from trade with the guy next door or refusing to have a good relationship. Isolationism today is opposing the push for the US to be part of Mexamericanada! I think a good majority of Americans would NOT support that! Just ask Glenn Beck.=-)

    Furthermore, I dont care if you are smart, dumb, poor, or middle class. If you want to keep this country and our standard of living, defenses, opportunity, and constitution in place, you should vote for Ron Paul and Ron Paul only. Mainly because his actions show that this is what he will protect and I honestly believe he will do what he says based on his past actions not his words. Especially when there has been pressure for him to do something different and he has consistently held his ground. How many of the other candidates can you say that about? How many of them will shift based on party beliefs rather then our beliefs as a country and our constitutional rights?

    I really hope this will sink into the minds of whoever reads this. The media is trying to take a good and solid leader and make him look like you would be a freak like all the other people who support him if you also support him. Why do you think they would be working so hard to do that if they were not scared? Do they ever talk about the good hardworking people who are normal upstanding citizens who support him? Trust me, there are plenty of them. The media concentrates on the fringe of his support. Can you imagine if they did that and what those articles would look like for Guliani, Romney, or any of the others? They dont because they are part of the "system" and "on board" where as Ron Paul is not someone they could control. And because of that fact they would not try to aggressively discredit the other candidates or make them into a joke.

    I look at Ron Paul as similar to Abraham Lincoln. Can you imagine a United States without him? One good man like Ron Paul could really change the world if given the chance. The question is how much more are Americans going to take before it is to late and we will no longer have an opportunity to turn the boat around? That scares me also because I feel like we are very close to that point. And I am a normal working stiff like many of you in the middle class...nothing special...have some education...a decent job etc. But I am very afraid without some "tough love" for our government from a man like Ron Paul, we may not even recognize this country 10 years from now if we are still even "A" country. Even if Ron Paul could just do one thing, like get rid of computerized voting machines for instance, this would be a major step in the right direction.(that, however, may end up also being reason he does not get elected)

    And just because the next Non-Isolationist President might say we are "separate" countrys like the EU does with its member countrys now, dont you see how this really just becomes a blurr and for show until we would all be melded into one? We would eventually be like a "state" in our own country with only limited power and rights to control our own destiny. This is not a dream, a joke, or funny. This is very seriously becoming a reality as we speak behind our backs. Just as serious as the goings on in a certain European country were about 70 years ago. This is where I feel we are headed and it scares the heck out of me and it should scare you also. So what can you do? Just do something! Anything x 300,000,000 people=power. That is the true poll and equation in this country! Don't stand by and let this happen…and a vote for Ron Paul would be a good start.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement