freakofthesouth Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS92860+05-Jan-2008+BW20080105?rpc=64 January 5, 2008 3:49 pm EST ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign praises the New Hampshire Republican Party’s decision to pull its sponsorship of the Fox News forum in protest of Fox’s decision to exclude Congressman Ron Paul. “The New Hampshire Republican Party did the right thing by pulling its sponsorship for Fox’s candidate forum,” said Ron Paul 2008 spokesman Jesse Benton. “Fox News’ decision to exclude Congressman Paul is unfair, but it won’t stop Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, peace and prosperity from resonating with the people of New Hampshire.” Today, New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen released the following statement regarding Sunday’s Republican forum on FOX: “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. “While we understand that FOX News continues to move forward it is with regret, the New Hampshire Republican Party hereby withdraws as a partner in this forum.” ### Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Good for them. Paul got 10% of Iowa. That makes him relevant. Not necessarily a threat, but relevant to the discussion. It's also a weird ratings choice. Wouldn't Ron Paul because of his controversial nature get more people to watch? Just watch him implode, say something outlandish, or make the mainstreamers look silly and contrived? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Paul has purchased an hour of air time from 5-6PM to openly answer questions and to lay out his views and ideas in detail. It's going to be on Manchester public access and cspan (I think) as well as broadcast online and on radio. It's certainly not as touted as a Fox Forum, but what else could he do to get past this outrageous act of senseless censorship? I'm very saddened and embarrassed because I was once a die hard Fox supporter and now they appear to be embracing the same policies as a news company that I railed against in the other big networks. This is a long tough road for supporters of the Liberty movement, I can only hope that it has gained enough traction to go well beyond this race, regardless of the outcome for Congressman Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Good for them. Paul got 10% of Iowa. That makes him relevant. Not necessarily a threat, but relevant to the discussion.It's also a weird ratings choice. Wouldn't Ron Paul because of his controversial nature get more people to watch? Just watch him implode, say something outlandish, or make the mainstreamers look silly and contrived? even more so, when we consider that he got 29% of the Iowa independents. NH is 44% I's these days (I heard that somewhere, but cannot verify it's accuracy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I'm not a Paul fan, but this just seems a very odd choice for a News organization moderating a debate to have. Paul would seem to mean more viewers, more viewers mean more ratings, more ratings means more cash. More importantly, a debate with Paul is just a better Bill even if he is a minor player. Yesterday, Richardson played an important role in the Dem debate and had some of the best lines, even though the chance of him winning the nom is almost nil. On the other hand, if one did believe that FOX was not a news organization and just a propaganda wing for the Republican Party this move would make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 On the other hand, if one did believe that FOX was not a news organization and just a propaganda wing for the Republican Party this move would make sense. I really think that there are 2 versions of the GOP now. Con and Neo-Con. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I really think that there are 2 versions of the GOP now. Con and Neo-Con. :2cents: I always thought that was the Satanists and the Luciferians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I always thought that was the Satanists and the Luciferians Nah! Us "Cons" are pretty groovy still! it's the others that have betrayed the party platform of limited government and free market economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I really think that there are 2 versions of the GOP now. Con and Neo-Con. :2cents: You forgot So-Con...it's been that way for a long time. Are you really surprised at the exclusion of Paul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted January 6, 2008 Author Share Posted January 6, 2008 Yeah, it's foolish to think RP doesn't deserve inclusion. Initially, I heard that Fox News stated they had 5 spots for their forum, reserved for the top 5 republican candidates. When RP finished at the 5 spot in Iowa, and Fox still excludes him, it really shows their true colors, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 You forgot So-Con...it's been that way for a long time.Are you really surprised at the exclusion of Paul? to be honest, yes I am a little surprised. I'm still learning how the world of media/politics/money really works. I dont like what I've seen with my somewhat newly opened eyes. It must be that last remnant of hope that there was at least one Network out there that was on my side. I understand now, that such a network doesnt exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Nah! Us "Cons" are pretty groovy still! How can a Con be groovy? Con- taking a negative stance or position Con- an act of committing fraud Con- abreviation for someone found guilty of committing a felony or criminal act You see the Cons almost subliminally know that they are fooling people, robbing people, and are against what's good for the nation Back on the subject. Good For ABC for including all the relevant partners. Interesting, that in some ways, FOX is going to make Paul a bigger story through his exclusion. Although, that will only be true to those paying attention which is a fairly small number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I am glad the GOP did this I do not want ANY media outlet deciding for the public who is and is not relevant. The voters do that with votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 How can a Con be groovy?Con- taking a negative stance or position Con- an act of committing fraud Con- abreviation for someone found guilty of committing a felony or criminal act You see the Cons almost subliminally know that they are fooling people, robbing people, and are against what's good for the nation Back on the subject. Good For ABC for including all the relevant partners. Interesting, that in some ways, FOX is going to make Paul a bigger story through his exclusion. Although, that will only be true to those paying attention which is a fairly small number. LOL! You forgot some though! Con-servation Con-gregation Con-struction but my favorite... Con-stitution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I am glad the GOP did thisI do not want ANY media outlet deciding for the public who is and is not relevant. The voters do that with votes. I didn't think you were that naive,but I'll stop before I get into Ken territory fwiw...I think he should be included....not that my opinion matters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I didn't think you were that naive,but I'll stop before I get into Ken territory fwiw...I think he should be included....not that my opinion matters TWA, you need to call Fred and have him make a statement against Fox in this. It actually could be a beneficial "high road" kind of move for him. BTW, I thought Fred did better than I expected in the debate last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 LOL! You forgot some though!Con-servation Con-gregation Con-struction but my favorite... Con-stitution! Exactly! Why are they anti Conservation, religion, and Infrastructure, And why are they so adamantly determined to destroy the Constitution? I'm just being silly and I should stop now, because while I think that Paul's exclusion isn't a HUGE story, I do think it's an important one. I do think that the Republican Party needs to face its refelection though. They refused to debate before the NAACP They refused to debate before the Urban League They refuse to debate before the internet community (I think they finally did, but I'm not sure) And they refuse to allow members getting a significant vote to be on the stage. Frankly, the other candidates should be demanding that Paul be included. It wouldn't harm them, but it would ingratiate them to many of the Paul supporters eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Exactly! Why are they anti Conservation, religion, and Infrastructure, And why are they so adamantly determined to destroy the Constitution?I'm just being silly and I should stop now, because while I think that Paul's exclusion isn't a HUGE story, I do think it's an important one. I do think that the Republican Party needs to face its refelection though. They refused to debate before the NAACP They refused to debate before the Urban League They refuse to debate before the internet community (I think they finally did, but I'm not sure) And they refuse to allow members getting a significant vote to be on the stage. Frankly, the other candidates should be demanding that Paul be included. It wouldn't harm them, but it would ingratiate them to many of the Paul supporters eventually. Oh Man! Now You are giving me... Con-stipation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I didn't think you were that naive,but I'll stop before I get into Ken territory fwiw...I think he should be included....not that my opinion matters It is naive to believe that votes should determine who is relevant? I am a liberal and I certainly do not plan on voting for paul but I would like to hear what he has to say. That just did not make any sense to me....kicking someone out of a debate before a single vote was cast? Paul did get 10 percent in Iowa compared to Rudy G. with 4% Was Rudy not included in the debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 It is naive to believe that votes should determine who is relevant?I am a liberal and I certainly do not plan on voting for paul but I would like to hear what he has to say. That just did not make any sense to me....kicking someone out of a debate before a single vote was cast? Paul did get 10 percent in Iowa compared to Rudy G. with 4% Was Rudy not included in the debate? yep, Rudy is in :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Exactly! Why are they anti Conservation, religion, and Infrastructure, And why are they so adamantly determined to destroy the Constitution?I'm just being silly and I should stop now, because while I think that Paul's exclusion isn't a HUGE story, I do think it's an important one. I do think that the Republican Party needs to face its refelection though. They refused to debate before the NAACP They refused to debate before the Urban League They refuse to debate before the internet community (I think they finally did, but I'm not sure) And they refuse to allow members getting a significant vote to be on the stage. Frankly, the other candidates should be demanding that Paul be included. It wouldn't harm them, but it would ingratiate them to many of the Paul supporters eventually. Good Point... If they alienate Paul his voters will likely go democrat because he is as liberal a republican as one can be. The GOP alternatives are all status quo..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 yep, Rudy is in :mad: Exactly my point....Fox was predetermining who is relevant for their viewers. I am glad the GOP stepped in The voters can determine that at the polls and Fox or any other outlet can react accordingly. Don't take away anything else from the voters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Good Point...If they alienate Paul his voters will likely go democrat because he is as liberal a republican as one can be. The GOP alternatives are all status quo..... I'm sorry Cav, but I think you are a little in error that he is "liberal", except maybe in just the classical sense. He is very fiscally and socially conservative. Not trying to start an argument, just wanted to clarify a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 If they alienate Paul his voters will likely go democrat because he is as liberal a republican as one can be. OK...you are that naive ...or you use a very old definition of liberals Aside from the single issue anti-war newcomers of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 OK...you are that naive ...or you use a very old definition of liberals Aside from the single issue anti-war newcomers of course unfortunately, that is how the lines are now drawn between conservative and liberal (at least by the GOP and much of the public) Pre-emptive war, debt, and spend, spend, spend = conservative I better stop, I'm getting depressed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.