Ron Paul dropped from FOX Sponsored Debate

It may come as no shock that Ron Paul has been excluded from the upcoming presidential debate in New Hampshire sponsored by FOX News. They said the “trailer” where they plan to hold the debate was not big enough to fit all the candidates. (However, Ron Paul is a fairly small man, physically.) So they decided to exclude two candidate whose poll showings were not sufficient — yes, all before any real vote is cast. The link below gives the details. The real issue, however, is whether any candidate should be omitted from the debate. After all, the point of having various candidates present is not simply to give people a chance to decide on the candidate to vote for but to raise issues. Is it not newsworthy that the Republican Party has abandoned its traditional concern for individual liberty,  small government and Constitutional limits? Who but Ron Paul will raise this issue? When news organizations show little regard for exposing people to ideas they don’t already know they are not fulfilling their responsibilities. The idea of news is NEW information — not the same recycled garbage about who is running negative ads and so forth.

48 thoughts on “Ron Paul dropped from FOX Sponsored Debate”

  1. If Paul beats any of those invited in Iowa, I hope FOX tries to exclude him. Thousands of people will flock to the protest, generating more coverage that the actual debate (I hope).

    1. I was thinking the same thing. I don’t think it even matters where he places in Iowa, We’ve already seen umpteen debates, being the one “they” don’t want you to see (whether true or not) is likely going to win far more votes than watching Rudy ask him if he’s forgotten about 9/11 yet again.

  2. Reply to stephen: A doctor may be in the business ultimately to make a profit but in order to do that he undertakes certain responsibilities toward the patient. If he does not meet those, it is not wrong to make that known. So too news organizations purport to provide a certain NEWS service. When they fail to do that, I feel free to point this out.

    Reply to baker41: One good reason why Fox News should include Ron Paul? Because they may look like sh-t if enough people complain.

    In general, belief in the market does not equal passivity.

  3. I agree with you that the news organizations are not fullfilling their responsibilities. Years ago I decided to major in journalism, but dropped out after one of my professors (who, btw, was the head of the communications department) was teaching objectivity out of one side of his mouth but out of the other side he stated that you either report according to the political slant of the news agency you worked for or you didn’t work for them. So much for fair and balanced, eh?

    1. the responsibility of a news organization (a corporation) is to turn a profit. nothing more. they are under no obligation to tell you the truth or to present you with any new and stimulating information. lying is not a crime in this situation. it’s the market. if you don’t like it, tune in to another network or news source. if none of them include your candidate, then there’s apparently not a market for them.

      1. I disagree. Lies by tabloid, which every reader knows that is filled by lies is not a crime. Lies by a respected news paper, which always claims every single article in it is truth to their best knowledge is a fraud.

        They can say anything they want as far as they do not claim that what they are saying is true. If they claim knowingly that something is true, when it is a lie, they are commiting a fraud. Fraud is a crime.

        You can sell your used car in any condition no matter how bad it is, if you don’t promise anything to the buyer knowingly untrue. On the other hand, if you state for instance to the buyer that tires were just changed by brand new ones last month, but as a matter of fact they are 10 years old, you are commiting a fraud and crime.

        1. Fox has already been sued it the state of Florida for putting out misinformation. The court ruled that Fox is under no obligation to put out factual information, and that Fox news should only be concidered entertainment.

      2. I also disagree with Stephen. Certain government news agencies (Pravda for example) are known to have a self-serving slant to news. But everybody ‘knows‘ and recognizes that. But news corporations go to great trouble to tell us they are ‘fair and balanced’ with ‘no-spin’. This is the real crime.

      3. Stephen has a point, which more and more people are starting to realize. That is why the old-line “news” organizations are dying. “Faux News” won’t be far behind. And I believe most (intelligent, thoughtful, well-read) people, realize that the major difference between outfits like the War Street Journal, Fox News and Pravda lie chiefly in the language.

  4. Paul outpolls and out fundraises Fred Thomson. Even if they were to base the criteria on polls, Paul should be in the fifth slot at the expense of Thomson.

  5. There is a good chance that Paul could get third in Iowa, even if we go by those “scientific polls” He is well within the margin of error with McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani. It would be quite odd for Fox to exclude a candidate that gets more actual votes in Iowa than three of the candidates that were included in the debate. If Paul gets third or better, Fox would have to include him in the debate wouldn’t they? Wouldn’t that generate enormous backlash? If they still don’t allow him look for Paul’s followers to have a rally of their own in New Hampshire that will outnumber those attending the actual debate. They did it in Iowa, last summer!!!

  6. Please give me one reason why a Neocon run network like Fox News whould make it easy for an anti-war candidate like Ron Paul to spread his message on their show.

  7. An ideal situation would be Paul placing third in Iowa and then declining Fox when they decide they want him.

  8. If candidates presenting the real issues and alternatives are excluded from these choreographed beauty pageants – then no debate will be possible on a national scale through electoral politics. The best alternative is to promote a nationwide boycott of the election – openly proclaiming that presidential elections are a ‘done deal’ which not only exclude the third party candidates but the rank and file members of the major parties. Voting in a sham election will only dignify the hoax and is an insult to citizens. By forming a movement to openly boycott the election – the 50% plus of eligible voters who will not participate can consider their non-action to be an eloquent unmasking to the world of how flimsy new American president’s ‘mandate’ really is. After all a mandate of less than 25% of the potential electorate is pathetic joke . If Ron Paul is excluded – then the Republican’s whole cat-walk routine should become a ‘no-show’ for the people. The Democrats have already shown how profoundly un-democratic they are in picking and financing candidates.

  9. If Fox News insists on eliminating Ron Paul in the debates, their credibility is completely shot.

    They can take that to the bank.

  10. The system is so corrupt what else can you expect? Only the establishment approved candidates will be allowed.

    1. All the more reason there should be a “None Of The Above” slot on all ballots for all elections at all levels.

  11. Robinea is correct in pointing out the well choreographed sham Americans have become accustomed to every four years. The old line, “if you don’t vote, don’t bitch” really ought to be, “if you vote, don’t bitch”. The reality is that by voting, one validates the authenticity of the whole process. When a large percentage of eligible voters go to the polls, FOX executives and the political mandarins let out a sigh of relief, knowing they again succeeded in fooling the American public into believing they participated in the democratic process as envisioned by the founders of the Republic. You can be sure that if a significant percentage of eligible voters boycotted a National election (easy in the internet age), expressing a vote of no confidence, the mood in Washington the next morning would be somber indeed. There, only power is repected and responded to. Not voting, en masse, is a far more effective way of instilling the proper level of fear, hence respect, into OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS.

    1. I would normally agree with you 100%. However, I believe that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote against the establishment. The powers that be have gotten so used to our apathy that they now expect it and use it to their advantage. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against the status quo, it’s not a vote that says I believe in the system, it’s a vote that says the system is corrupt and needs to change.

      I don’t believe in the system and I have not voted in years for exactly the reasons you state. However, this year I will vote for Ron Paul and let them know I still care, just not for their business as usuall garbage.

  12. “We report, You decide…”

    In RP’s case it looks like the Fox has already made the decision for US. Not surprising coming from the BNN (Bush News Network) but with the exclusion of RP they may have shot themselves in the foot by drawing more attention to him and thus end up achieving the polar opposite of what they initially intended.

    Kind of looks like panic at spin control central to me…

  13. I should add that I support the candidacy of Ron Paul, and respect those who are working tirelessly for his campaign. My point is that if the system successfully regurgitates Dr. Paul, it also rejects all of his supporters, branding them in effect persona non grata. Under those conditions, after playing by the rules, it becomes clear that only ideas and candidates declared acceptable to a ruling clique can be considered “serious” presidential candidates, then another course of action in the future would be in order.

  14. “And if anything characterizes (Ron)Paul it is his glibness. What would happen to the millions of Americans who would lose their jobs from the IRS, military and many other cuts, and the inevitable cascading economic impacts on the nation? …Paul has no depth.”

    –Joel S. Hirschhorn

    Nobody ever said the anti-Paul media backlash was going to logical.

  15. Good ol’ Crocks News and its “Hair and Ballast” reporting. You know, you send a kid to school with an apple for the teacher, teach him his three Rs at vast expense and effort, and what do you get? Some dumbass sitting in front of the TV with a 64-ouncer at hand, gobbling up the propaganda du jour.

    Alas, on this foundation Ron Paul has to build a tower.

  16. Why can’t Fox just admit that they excluding Dr. Paul because they don’t like his libertarian views? This stuff about how they can’t fit him in the trailer is ridiculous. Fox news is a multibillion dollar media outfit. They can afford to rent a bigger trailer. The real fear is Fox News’s hold over their viewership. The ascendency of Ron Paul and the rEVOLution movement puts pressure on Fox News to shift from the neoconservative orientation of its programming to one that is more accommodative of the libertarian viewpoint.

  17. I wouldn’t worry about whether fox allows Dr.Paul to take part or not. First of all, they have no credibility at all; secondly, they are the only ones who haven’t figured out that the msm doesn’t matter any more; and lastly this action will only serve to boost support for the Paul campaign. There’s a tremendous amount of anger among the young people of this country. One day it’s going to boil over and when it does , their wrath will be directed against organizations like fox and cnn.

  18. Should we expect any more from FOX ??? This is the bulls–t “War on Christmas” network, and NeoCon Mouthpiece Central. Ron should wear his exclusion like a badge of honor. I am sure the independent minded voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere will see this for what it is; the empire’s media shills fearing the truth. Keep throwing light on the truth, Ron, and keep these creeps on their heels.

  19. We need a real 24 hour cable news station to compete with these 24 hour propaganda and infotainment networks. I hope no one falls for the PSYOPS. We need people to vote for the only real Republican candidate and two Democrat candidates. A Ron Paul vs Mike Gravel 2008 Election would be sweet!

      1. I’d like to see user generated news. People with cellphones taking videos and pictures. Then video blogging. We would all be in the dark if it wasn’t for the internet. I know I would be. The interviews are much better than what you’d find on Fox News:

        I think eventually the technology will be available so someone can turn to something like The Antiwar Network on their televisions and be educated. It doesn’t mean people won’t want to watch the sports style pseudo debates at Fox News. I’m hoping some indie networks develop that lead to real debates without interruptions by arrogant interviewers and buzzers.

  20. The Faux New Propaganda Network seems pretty intent on jumping the shark. They obviously alienated all Dems long ago. Now they are alienating all Repubs except Guiliani supporters. And he’s dead meat on a stick. Hopefully even the sheep have had the blinders removed at this point.

  21. What the hell should we expect from Fox (not) News. They lied us into a war. Think about that for a while! For Fox to pretend that Paul don’t exist means little to us at this point.

  22. If Dennis Kucinich formally bows out of the race, and it looks like he is going to, he has asked his supporters to support Obama. I think that is a pipe dream, and that the average Kucinich supporter is going to cast his lot with Ron Paul. This could really serve to boost Paul’s numbers. If his campaign people are smart, they will work to woo these constituents. Obama, when discussing the possible impeachment of Bush, said that he didn’t support impeachment because you reserve impeachment for “grave and intentional breeches of the President’s authority”. Well, if Obama doesn’t think that Bush has committed such “grave and intentional breeches of the President’s authority”, then what standard can we expect him to hold himself to should he manage to slither into the Oval Office?

    As far as Fox News goes, I see no reason to quibble words here. Fox News’ actions are a blatant effort to manipulate and influence the outcome of a Presidential election. As such, these actions should be considered criminal. Short that criteria, they can correctly and indisputably be called anti-American.

  23. This is the beggining to rigging the election!If the outcome were not what the power that be wanted,they will find way to change that.What the people want no longer count!

  24. I am so sick of seeing Ron Paul on stage during these debates. Therefore, I am glad that he is being excluded. Why should Ron Paul need to lower himself to a debate with these corporate and religious shills? I admit it is a little fun to watch him make the others squirm. However, I feel it might be better if he would distance himself as far from this bunch as possible.

    I know I know, no press is bad press, but come on, Faux news with guoghliany, the huckster and friends?

  25. One bright spot in this affair is the New Hampshire state GOP which came out for Dr. Paul’s inclusion in the debate. In blue or near blue states like New Hampshire, Dr. Paul and the rEVOLution movement may find a lot of allies in the state and local GOP party organizations. The state and local GOP party organizations of the blue states have for years been running Democratic-lite candidates like Rudy Guiliani, Mike Bloomberg, and Mitt Romney (when Romney was running for office in the bluest of the blue states, Massachusetts). Nevertheless, they have been steadily losing ground to the Democrats in elections and in voter registrations. The rEVOLution movement gives these party organizations a new ideological position as well as a young, highly activist base to work with to revitalize these dying GOP organizations. If the huge Internet support for Paulism can be translated into consistent voter support in the non-virtual world, you have a movement that could have as big an impact on the GOP as the religious right did in the 80’s and 90’s.

  26. I dumped the republican party and fox news 5 years ago. Both are bias and self serving to their leaders. Hopefully and prayerfully Dr. Ron Paul will win in New Hampshire. My friends in New Hampshire are astonished at the number of signs and publicity for Dr. Paul, and am told that an “upset victory” is misleading because the good Dr. Paul has been leading in straw polls and there is much interest via the internet.

    “Dr. Paul goes to Washington”.

  27. We need to stay firm and get as many people as possible to vote for Ron Paul in IA, NH and SC. When he gets into the top 3, which he will, the media will come running. Look at what has happened with Huckabee.

    The media (like most Americans) will not support someone perceived as a “loser.”

  28. Actually, this decision is all to the good because Fox News in a short time will be forced to reverse themselves. To begin with, the tiny trailer excuse is pretty weak, and even the New Hampshire state GOP has come out against Dr. Paul’s exclusion. Then, in about 24 hours, Fox News will have to contend with the results of the Iowa caucus. According to the most recent polls, Dr. Paul should place no lower than fifth place, ahead of, one time frontrunner and Fox News debate invitee, Rudy Guiliani. Moreover, a number polls show Dr. Paul in a statistical tie with the other Fox News debate invitees, McCain and Thompson, for third place in Iowa; and Robert Novak for one says the exceptional passion of Paul’s supporters could carry Dr. Paul to a third place finish–an amazing accomplishment when you consider the MSM have largely ignored his campaign to this point. Then add to this scenario the strong possiblity that Dr. Paul’s support really spikes as result of his Iowa finish (if he gains third place, he has a solid claim that he is a first tier candidate and the MSM will have to give him coverage). Even under the most conservative eventuallity where Dr. Paul only places fifth, I don’t see how Fox News could credibly exclude Dr. Paul but include Guiliani when Dr. Paul just beat Guiliani in Iowa.

  29. I believe Fox news just doesn’t like Ron Paul and his views. Bill O’reily was very rude to him. The news should be reported not shaped.

Comments are closed.