Critics Blast Fox News’s ‘Ideological’ ‘Censorship’ For Banning Ron Paul From NH Debate
Critics Blast Fox News’s ‘Ideological’ ‘Censorship’ For Banning Ron Paul From NH Debate
Last week, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) revealed that Fox News is excluding him and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) from their New Hampshire debate on Sunday, arguing that “it had limited space in its studio — a souped-up bus.”
The AP did not specify “what types of polls” Fox was relying on “and if there had to be consistent double-digit results.” As Josh Marshall has noted, Paul is beating Thompson by an average of 5 points in New Hampshire polls. Additionally, Paul raised nearly $20 million in the last quarter of 2007 — roughly the same amount as Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).
Bill O’Reilly defended Fox’s decision on Wednesday, saying he’d “do the same thing.” He also revealed that the decision was based on “national poll numbers.” Watch it:
Though O’Reilly noted that “both Paul and Hunter will appear on January 10th in the Fox-sponsored South Carolina debate,” the decision to include Thompson rather than Paul in the New Hampshire debate is drawing particular criticism. Conservatives and pundits say it appears as though Fox is censoring Paul:
“Fox News itself apparently wants to limit the GOP discussion to variations on a neocon theme of perpetual war for perpetual big government.” [Conservative author Richard Viguerie]
“It raises the possibility that this is an ideological decision.” [Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania]
“The Paul snub exposes censorship of competitive voices.” [Libertarian Party director Shane Cory]
“The pivotal debates before the first statewide vote in the 2008 election cycle is not the time to be voting people off the island, no matter how much they may want a more free-wheeling exchange,” [New Hampshire Republican State Chairman Fergus Cullen]
This isn’t the first time conservatives who disagree with Paul’s politics have denied him a forum. In October, the popular conservative blog RedState banned Paul’s supporters from discussing Paul in “any way shape, form or fashion.”
UPDATE: On CNN’s The Situation Room, Fred Thompson said, “I don’t expect that we’re going to be very competitive in New Hampshire.” But he’s still in the Fox News debate.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Snubbing Ron Paul don’t mean nothing. The entire field of GOP candidates are ALL A$$WHOLES.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:05 pmFox is State Sponsored TV-
January 4th, 2008 at 4:13 pmRon Paul is trying to get the antiwar vote from die hard republicans voters
January 4th, 2008 at 4:14 pm“He also revealed that the decision was based on “national poll numbers.†Now that statement is a joke. Like him or not, Paul raised more than the other GOP moron candidates online.
Memo to Fox News: According to last night’s Iowa caucus, Ron Paul, the person that you snubbed, beat Rudy. Enough said.
And why is Duncan Hunter staying in this race? Except for California, the rest of the states don’t know Hunter from a can of paint.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:15 pmFox News=Pravda.
Roger Ailes=Bloated, seaty idealogue.
Bill O’rielly=Dildo merchant
-G
January 4th, 2008 at 4:16 pmCorrection: Like him or not, Paul raised more money than the other GOP moron candidates online.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:16 pmgood! ron paul is a lunatic.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:16 pmDunkin Hunter is hoping to corner the grumpy dinkweed vote.
-GSD
January 4th, 2008 at 4:17 pmFox heard his supporters were Paulestinians and they didn’t want any part of them.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:18 pmRon Paul barely attracts 6% support, less than half of Thompson. He’s not a Republican anyway. He’s a Libertarian.
Comment by good_golly
But, he is running as a Republican – so he is a Republican. The fact that the GOP doesn’t like him, makes him attractive to lots of folks. He also raised some serious money using the internet tubes, too – so obviously somebody thinks he has a shot. Why not allow him a forum in a debate? Maybe they believe he will go “off message” too many times and introduce new ideas to a mostly uninformed audience?
January 4th, 2008 at 4:21 pmNot particularly a Paul fan, but if he is at the 1/10 debate in South Carolina, what I’d dearly love to see is, when he’s finally asked a question or allowed to respond to someone else’s question, that he say something like “thanks for giving me a chance to speak today. Of course, fox news doesn’t really care what I have to say, otherwise I’d have been included in the New Hampshire debate. Many of us know why Fox would be afraid to have me in their new Hampshire debate, but for those that don’t, I urge you to go to my website, where you’ll find out everything abot me and my positions you need to know, to know I am the ideal candidate for these troubled times. Now, since fox news picks and chooses when I’m good for them, I’m going to pick and choose when Fox News is good for me. Right now, it’s not good at all. visit my website, kids, good night!” And then walk off. Any of his supporters who don’t think he’s a hero now, certainly would after that stunt, and the rest of the news services will be unable to avoid mentioning it, or him.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:21 pmThere are only 5 legitimate candiates left for the Republicans (and Ron Paul isn’t one of them)
Comment by a_complete_moron
Mike Huckabee 39,814 34%
January 4th, 2008 at 4:22 pmMitt Romney 29,405 25%
Fred Thompson 15,521 13%
John McCain 15,248 13%
Ron Paul 11,598 10%
Rudy Giuliani 4,013 3%
Duncan Hunter 515 0%
There are only 5 legitimate trolls left for the Republicans (and good_golly isn’t one of them)
January 4th, 2008 at 4:24 pmI cant stand when people call him a lunatic. He has some really good ideas. He talks more in depth on the issues than any dem or rep running. I do not see obama talking about the collapse of the dollar and how to stop it. Until Obama or anyone else for that matter explains their positions on change I will consider them buisness as usual politicians. I use to be a dem but I will be voting for Ron Paul because I am educated on his positions. maybe instead of just going along with the MSM and callin him names you people should do the same. This occupation needs to end period and he is the only person who will end it outright.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:27 pmIs Giuliani going to be in the debate…?.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:27 pmHe got only single digit showing in Iowa. Ron got twice that number in Iowa.
good! ron paul is a lunatic.
Comment by Fan of Man
He is also a liar. He lies by omission. He will not talk about his plans to sell the National Parks, repeal Civil Rights Laws, repeal all labor laws including child labor laws, privatize all water resources (surface and underground), eliminate Social Security and Medicare, disband fire departments, the FAA, the Consumer Protection Agency, FDA, eliminate public schools and public roads, ect.
And no one ever seems to question him on these things.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:28 pmFox News = Fairly Unbalanced
January 4th, 2008 at 4:30 pmI use to be a dem but I will be voting for Ron Paul because I am educated on his positions.
Comment by wreckingcrew
I bet you are almost completely in the dark on Paul’s true agenda. See #18.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:30 pmWe have to remember that Fox is a profit-making enterprise. If they are sponsoring a debate, they are entitled to invite whomever they wish to participate. And if they have a political agenda, they can tweak their debates (and their programming in general) to fit that agenda. Whether we like it or not.
There may, however, be laws regarding giving free air time to some candidates and not others. I confess I don’t know what they are (they may have to do with the amount of support a candidate has), but if Ron Paul is entitled to free air time because other candidates are getting it, Fox will be required to provide Paul with some kind of forum.
That said — I think it’s time that we take political debates away from for-profit sponsors and give them to some neutral party. Whatever happened to the League of Women Voters debates?
January 4th, 2008 at 4:32 pmshoeless you are out of your mind. if you listen to his positions you will understand that you are way off base. yeah, ron paul wants to do away with fire departments…i think you are living in shoeless land and its time for you to wake up and join the rest of us here in real life.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:33 pmRead this carefully. Here is the true Ron Paul.
http://www.rkba.org/libertarian/lp/platform.1992
January 4th, 2008 at 4:35 pmRon Paul supporters: you are welcomed on the Democratic side any time. We share more of your smaller government, less big brother ideals than any mainstream Republican anyways.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:36 pmComment by Southern Man — January 4, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
not fair southie and gg. you’re both losers and no one here bans you from the discussion, right?
January 4th, 2008 at 4:41 pmThis is nothing more than the propagandist network attempting to control the topics of debate – don’t even discuss anything that is contrary to what the leadership wants to discuss – such as opposition to the war, or criticism of Dumbya. No loose cannons allowed, no individuality allowed; the message to the sheeple must remain as ordered.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:42 pm# 18 – Shoeless,
The issue at hand is not whether Ron is a liar, or dishonest….You are entitled to your opinion of Ron Paul.
The issue here is his right to participate in the debate on a major television network fairly.
If Giuliani is allowed..then why Ron isn’t?
It is up to the voters to decide his election’s fate. But for Fox to ‘pick and choose’ is the issue here.
If you think he should be excluded because you think he is liar or lunatic…that’s your opinion…but others might not share this with you.
The issue remains fairness and participation of candidates in the process,so voters can decide.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:42 pmRon Paul would be a domestic disaster as president, but it shouldn’t be up to Ailes or Murdoch to shut him down.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:45 pmone of the major reasons Hitler began his slow descent into unpopularity among the NAZI elites was the fact that he starting turning on his own.
looks like the republiKKKans are turning on their own
January 4th, 2008 at 4:47 pmGoogle these & see why people like Lieberman don’t ‘go away’…
Bilderberg Group
Council on Foreign Relations
Trilateral Commission
You’ll be surprised how many names you recognize, including Clinton, Berger, Di-Fi, etc.
New World Order. Coming to you this decade?
January 4th, 2008 at 4:49 pmSorry about OT, thought I was on the LIEberman thread.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:50 pmWhy the Left should support Ron Paul — http://www.counterpunch.org/goff01042008.html
January 4th, 2008 at 4:50 pmThat’s cuz Ron Paul isn’t a Republican. He’s a libertarian in repukelickin clothing.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:55 pmThe one issue Paul is garnering support on is ending the Iraqi occupation.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:00 pmHis dismantling of the federal government, not such a great idea.
There are only 5 legitimate candiates left for the Republicans (and Ron Paul isn’t one of them), and 3 for the Democrats. Including anyone else is a waste of everyone’s opportunity to hear from the legitimate candidates. In the latest Rasmussen poll, we have John McCain at 18%, Mitt Romney 17%, and Mike Huckabee at 16%. Rudy Giuliani is at 14% and Fred Thompson is at 13%. Ron Paul barely attracts 6% support, less than half of Thompson. He’s not a Republican anyway. He’s a Libertarian.
Comment by good_golly
Who appointed you god of the candidates? National polls mean only one thing and that is name recognition. According to the national polls, Hillary is way out ahead of Obama and Edwards. Iowa proved that a lie last night.
The fact that Ron Paul has raised more money than any other Republiscum candidate makes him a viable candidate in my book. And of course Faux Noise is trying to censor him. They can’t have anyone on the conservative side of the isle going against the party line.
Also, goon_golly, Paul is a registered Republiscum with Libertarian leanings.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:09 pmI have to admit that I gave Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt after A LOT of people close to me expressed their support of him. It was a hard pill to swallow to begin to consider a Republican, but I looked into it and was immediately drawn to his stance on the war, but upon further investigation, I have come to the conclusion that his policies would just be a disaster and would take our country further in the wrong direction than Bush has taken us, as far as privatizing everything under the sun and letting the markets decide everything including the treatment of the environment.
Pure unadulterated Capitalism is not what this country needs right now. It doesn’t work. I really wisht that I could, but I do not share Ron Paul’s view that you can or should trust everyone to their own devices, let alone huge corporations who would take full advantage of the mass de-regulation that he plans. Unfortunately some people can not be trusted and do require certain amounts of regulation, or they will kill directly or indirectly or at least screw over everyone else who gets in the way of their profits. I trust the Government far more than I trust an unfettered market to make life or death decisions for me (and that’s saying A LOT).
That being said, I was interviewed by Fox News a couple of weeks ago, on an issue that I would rather not disclose for personal privacy reasons, but I asked the reporter, on camera, why they don’t cover Ron Paul more often and it was fun to watch him stutter and stammer, then lie and say “uh.. uh… I do”.
I then proceded to declare that Rupert Murdoch sucks Satan’s C*ck and was then (rightfully) completely edited out of the report, except for a quick camera shot of my feet. Still… it was totally worth it for the look on that plastic jackass’ face.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:10 pmAh! Republicans eating their own.
Pass the ketchup! ;o)
January 4th, 2008 at 5:11 pmWhy the Left should support Ron Paul — http://www.counterpunch.org/goff01042008.html
Comment by charlied
So you are saying that the left should support Ron Paul simply because he is against the Iraq war. Why in the world would we do that when all of the Democratic candidates are against the Iraq war to some degree. And we have John Edwards who wants us to bring our troops home in 10 months after he becomes our new President. That is logistically impossible to do, but his heart and mind are in the right place.
There are only two issues where Paul is right and they are the Iraq war and corporatism. The remainder of his views are not views supported by the left.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:13 pmPaul wants to dismantle the FED and teebee wont allow that. Paul is like Andrew Jackson in that regard.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:13 pmI have to admit that I gave Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt after A LOT of people close to me expressed their support of him. It was a hard pill to swallow to begin to consider a Republican, but I looked into it and was immediately drawn to his stance on the war, but upon further investigation, I have come to the conclusion that his policies would just be a disaster and would take our country further in the wrong direction than Bush has taken us, as far as privatizing everything under the sun and letting the markets decide everything including the treatment of the environment.
Thank you for taking the time to do the further investigation. Most Paul supporters haven’t bothered to do that. I have talked to several liberal people know and none of them knew about his libertarian leanings and what they would mean for the US. Once they knew, they all said “what was I thinking?”.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:15 pmWhen the Democrats didn’t want to appear on Fox News it was because they were “afraid” according to the neocon groupies. Well are those groupies spouting about how Fox is afraid of Ron Paul now? Why not?
January 4th, 2008 at 5:20 pmThink Progress calls itself a Progressive Website. So where’s the coverage of Dennis Kucinich being excluded from an ABC Democratic debate on Jan. 5??
Hello? Anybody home? Why the coverage of Ron Paul but no coverage of Dennis? (No coverage EVER may I add).
Kucinich has campaigned intensely in New Hampshire. Censoring him is outrageous. A real Progressive website that supports healthy democratic discussion would not be silent.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:21 pmLeftside Annie; Shouldn’t that be ” Pardon me, do you have any Grey poupon?” (:-D)
January 4th, 2008 at 5:21 pmOh hey, I think the Repukes should allow all of their insane nutjob loser candidates all the air time they want!
If they did, nobody with 2 functioning brain cells would ever vote Republican again.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:22 pmDon’t forget the “Iowans for Tax Relief Forum” where they banned the only candidate willing to end all income taxes and replace them with nothing. Then Paul staged his own rally close by and drew more people than the stupid tax forum. Ha!
January 4th, 2008 at 5:22 pmHo – I wouldn’t waste Grey Poupon on a mere …Republican. ;o)
January 4th, 2008 at 5:22 pm#39 Comment by Leftside Annie — January 4, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
Ah! Republicans eating their own.
Pass the ketchup! ;o)
Eeeooooh! Yuch… I’d rather starve than be poisoned by that glop.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:23 pmThis happens every presedential election cycle. And every time the losers at the bottom get left out, it becomes a story. Now that the candidates have started the selection process earlier this cycle, they should understand that their standings relegate their importance for upcoming dedates. The losers generally go on the attack against the front runners, limiting any real discussion on policies for the final debates.
Comment by Southern Man
That’s an interesting statement since Ron Paul came in 4th last night barely behind Thompson & McCain. So according to your point of view it should be Rudy who should be excluded, not Paul. Also, Paul is polling well in New Hampshire.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:25 pmHey…I’m a critic of Fox News. Why didn’t ThinkProgress quote me?
From Fox News Is Scared Of Ron Paul
Kinda funny…Democrats don’t want to play with Fox – Now Fox doesn’t want to play with some Republicans. Maybe Repubs should join Dems and stay the HELL off of Fox News!
January 4th, 2008 at 5:27 pmMerlin; I prefer Heinz ketchup. Good source of tomato nutrients- a health food.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pmMerlin; I prefer Heinz ketchup. Good source of tomato nutrients- a health food.
Comment by Uncle Ho — January 4, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
I’m with Merlin. Ketchup is nasty. All but the stuff from McIlhenny / Tabasco.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:36 pmgummitch; I tried Tabasco once, it damn near burned out my ENTIRE digestive tract.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:40 pmThat said — I think it’s time that we take political debates away from for-profit sponsors and give them to some neutral party. Whatever happened to the League of Women Voters debates?
Comment by missmolly — January 4, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
I wonder about the same thing. Why are there “exclusive” debates in the first place? It wasn’t long ago that there were fewer debates and they were on ALL the major T.V. and radio networks. Soon they will be “pay-per-views”.
Of course, they ceased being “debates” long ago, so, perhaps it’s a moot point?
January 4th, 2008 at 5:43 pmFor this to be a democracy, the debates should be on
P B S
and every candidate should be present, no matter if he/she has 11% or 10% of a caucus vote.
But that would be too much for people – as long as “their” politicians make it.
For the record, the system of lobby money donors ruling in Washington and the beltway boys (+ hillary) acting like spoiled frat boys who always get what they want needs to stop.
And the system is NOT going to be stopped by:
Obama (business as usual, good speaker).
Clinton (business as usual, pro Iran war, AIPAC dream candidate, decent speaker)
Huckabee (a crazy person).
For the record, I like Gravel, who it was decided long ago by all and sundry is not electable.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:03 pmDennis Kucinich and Ron Paul on TV TONIGHT!
Cleveland Democratic congressman/presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich will be a guest tonight on the PBS show “Bill Moyers Journal,” along with Texas GOP congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul.
The topic will be one of Kucinich’s favorites: “the media’s power to benefit some candidates and disadvantage others.”
The show is on at 9pm eastern, 8pm central.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:11 pm“The Paul snub exposes censorship of competitive voices.†[Libertarian Party director Shane Cory]
Where’s this fooker been? Because FOX “snubs” Ron Paul, NOW they’re exposing censorship of competitive voices? All those so called news programs hawking neocon shite is fine, just don’t “snub” Ron Paul.
When they were just fookin over Democrats it didn’t matter to the Libertarians. When they call dissent against an ill conceived and ill executed lie of a war “treason” it’s hunkey fookin dorey, but don’t “snub” Ron Paul.
Ballocks.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:17 pmTo the folks who have great love for Ron Paul, and for those who are unenlightened, I’d like to highlight something that shoeless linked to.
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
This basically means that you sink or swim entirely on your own merit. Your child was born retarded? Too bad, get rid of him/her or be rich, as no one else will be ‘forced to sacrifice their values’ for your child’s benefit. Your house was destroyed in a disaster? Same thing. Your company laid you off? Nope, you’re on your own. It’s pure selfishness, and it’s being sold to us because we are easily led to believe that there are the teeming hordes of barbarians already within our gates, the welfare queens who suck at the teat of America. For extra populist flavor, we’re also told that they’ll get rid of Corporate Welfare, too…
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
A catch phrase that means very little. The typical libertarian position doesn’t even include the bolded text above. Force is the nature of humans. There’s no way to get around it. However, government exists to use force against those who would use force against others. Good government only uses that force when its necessary, and _always_ uses it when its necessary.
Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
Again, naive BS. This appeals to both social libertarians and fiscal libertarians for obvious reasons. “Oh, they’ll let me smoke weed and have a lover of my own gender and abort any babies I make!” Heck, that appeals to me. Then I dig deeper and I see that they’ll let any two-bit big business grind me into the ground if my name is on the dotted line — ‘Freedom’ strikes again.
In the most basic essence of what this all stands for, Libertarians are in the ‘I’ve got mine, screw all ya’ll’ that the Republican party is famous for. If you Paul supporters manage to get him elected, don’t come crying to me when he closes down your public school…I’ll just tell you, “That’s what Libertarians do.” That said from Canada if there is justice in the world.
However, in defense of Paul, Fox News puts its foot into its mouth again by banning one of its candidates. But then again, no matter how close Republican ideology is to Libertarian ideology in the business place, Libertarians are not Republicans…so in that light, Fox News is just doing what it does best, supporting Republicans.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:21 pmThank you for taking the time to do the further investigation. Most Paul supporters haven’t bothered to do that. I have talked to several liberal people know and none of them knew about his libertarian leanings and what they would mean for the US. Once they knew, they all said “what was I thinking?â€.
Comment by bilbobaggins
Thank you for attempting to reveal Ron Paul’s true Libertarian agenda. So many people think they know this man, and they have no idea what a libertarian even is. Usually, when you first tell them about the Libertarian platform, they get angry and say you are crazy. That’s why I keep this handy.
http://www.rkba.org/libertarian/lp/platform.1992
It is the 1992 Libertarian party platform. Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988, so this obviously reflects his agenda very closely. Read this. Keep the link. Print it out. Everyone who wants to support Ron Paul, and does not understand the Libertarian agenda needs to see this.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:23 pmIf you think he should be excluded because you think he is liar or lunatic…that’s your opinion…but others might not share this with you.
The issue remains fairness and participation of candidates in the process,so voters can decide.
Comment by tarazan
On the contrary, I think Ron Paul should be included in the Republican debates. However, as you can see, many people have no idea where he stands on so many crucial issues. I fault the debate moderators and the other Republican candidates for failing to call him on his extremist Libertarian positions. So far, they have allowed Paul to hide, right out in the open.
Hopefully, if Paul were to become the GOP nominee, his Democratic opponent might ask him about his plans to sell Yellowstone National Park to mining companies, for instance.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:45 pmMy fiance is a huge Ron Paul supporter…car stickers and all. Paul has always rubbed me the wrong way, and I’m not sure why. I can’t find any substantial evidence to guide me either way. I’m a teacher, and I think that public school reform is necessary, and I thing that NCLB needs to be scratched out. But I’m not very politically educated. I just came on the political scene about 2 yrs ago when I realized how F’d the place was due to Bush, and then did my research and saw that the shit hit the fan long ago.
I’m babbling. Where can I get info to show the fiance? I’ve followed some links I’ve seen on this thread, but I need more. (He’s an Alex Jones guy, BTW.)
January 4th, 2008 at 6:53 pmWhere can I get info to show the fiance? I’ve followed some links I’ve seen on this thread, but I need more. (He’s an Alex Jones guy, BTW.)
Comment by snicks
Did you read the 1992 Libertarian platform? That says it all.
http://www.rkba.org/libertarian/lp/platform.1992
It calls for the elimination of:
Civil rights laws
All public lands (no national, state, county, or municipal parks. no public access to lakes, rivers, beaches, or anything else)
Public schools
Public infrastructure (roads, bridges, dams, ect.)
Public mass transportation
Welfare
Food stamps
Medicare
Medicaid
Social Security
Public fire departments
Children’s Health Insurance Program
All environmental protection regulations
Anti-trust laws
Labor laws
Food and drug safety regulations and inspections
ELIMINATION OF ALL OF THESE THINGS IS THE LIBERTARIAN PLATFORM! RON PAUL IS THE STANDARD BEARER OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY!
Ask yourself, “Why isn’t Ron Paul talking about his plans to eliminate all of the above?”
January 4th, 2008 at 7:08 pm“He also revealed that the decision was based on “national poll numbers.â€
Isn’t O’ Reilly forever criticizing Democratic politicians for basing positions and decisioons on poll numbers ????? Must be my memory is leftist propiganda.
(Point of disclosure: Voted for Paul in ‘88, as a “None of the Above” . Won’t do it again. Once was enough . In NY state, but not a NYC Democrat , so am free to use my irrelevant vote for candidates with no chance of winning . )
Paul is performing a useful function, so should be there , regardless of poll numbers . He forces the others to defend the indefensible , making them look like the scary clowns that they are . Murdoch is determined to have a war with Iran (See all of his media .Very consistent content on this) . If people respond positively to Paul, it might remove the aura of inevitability about it.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:54 pmI’m sorry shoeless, but Ron Paul does openly advocate eliminating these programs in a sustainable fashion. He talks about it all the time, what do you think he’s talking about when he’s saying he will eliminate the welfare state. He will do it slowly and in a controlled fashion to avoid crushing those dependent on the programs, his plan is to bring US troops home, and the reduction of spending on this ridiculous and extravagant American foreign policy.
His method of dealing with the environment is to have more property privatized, which will allow individuals to sue those who cause environmental damage to their property.
Ron Paul also wishes to eliminate the highly regressive ‘inflation tax’ brought on by the federal reserve, as well get rid of the corrupt tax system which grossly favors the richest Americans.
The problem with all of those programs is, beyond the fact that government execution is traditionally extraordinarily poor, (think FEMA, the DMV, or the heavily subsidized Post Office) is that at some point, someone was FORCED to pay for those programs even though they didn’t necessarily believe those programs were good ideas. For example, I believe in stem cell research, but I wouldn’t support legislation which would force people to pay for it if they didn’t agree iwht it While in a true free market system, there’s almost always a choice. For the government to force you to do something, its a simple piece of legislation, for a company to force you to do something, it would have to set up a preposterous monopoly. Something which has historically, to the best of my knowledge, has NEVER occurred.
I’m assuming you guys are in the vein of socialist/communism ala Marx, so I’m guessing it will take more than a simple post to turn you. It’s more that I’m trying to point out that there is a strong libertarian streak in America, and many people feel it is a perfectly legitimate method of dealing with many of America’s problems.
Ron Paul is one of the few antiwar candidates you can choose from. He’s one of the few, honest, CONSISTENT politicians left. He does support many platforms that a populist will support.
He wants to end the drug war.
He wants to end corporate subsidies.
He wants to make abortion a state issue.
He wants to get the government out of marriage.
He wants to equalize the tax system, which is currently ridiculously unfair to the poor.
He wants to remove barriers which keep qualified medical professional from performing duties normally only a doctor would be allowed to perform, using the free market to reduce the cost of medicine.
He wants to end the fiat money system, which is extremely skewed to the capital holding individual. Please google the inflation tax for more information.
His defense of freedom of speech, right to privacy, and individual rights are not short of awesome.
He wants to end tariffs which ultimate hurt the consumer and help the producer (proven by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations).
January 4th, 2008 at 9:16 pmPerhaps the biggest gaffe of the 2008 Presidential Election Cycle has already been committed by none other than FOX News.
FOX News owes Ron Paul an apology and an invitation to the N.H. Debate. Anything less would be … “RIDICULOUS”.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:19 pmComment by good_golly — January 4, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
Twice as many Dems in a “Red” state! That’s a number which “counts”. Deal with the inevitable Dem victory, gigi.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:20 pmUm, Shoeless —
Dr. Paul has been elected multiple times as a Republican TX congressman since he ran as the LP presidential candidate, and ya know what – none of those “bad things” you list have happened since. Give us a break.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:31 pmDr. Paul has been elected multiple times as a Republican TX congressman.
Comment by Mr. Underfoot — January 4, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
Which is why he doesn’t stand a chance in heck. I doubt another Texas Republican will ever be prominent, again, after Bushco.
Right or wrong, he won’t be able to deflect the “guilt by association”.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:43 pmI just talked to my step dad and he said everybody in wisconsin where he lives likes ron paul
January 4th, 2008 at 10:17 pmUm, Shoeless —
Dr. Paul has been elected multiple times as a Republican TX congressman since he ran as the LP presidential candidate, and ya know what – none of those “bad things†you list have happened since. Give us a break.
Comment by Mr. Underfoot
Um, Underfoot,
Dr. Paul has only been a Congressman. As such, he hasn’t been able to enact the bad things he wants to do.
Look, I’m not trying to talk anyone out of supporting Ron Paul. I just want everyone to know what they are supporting.
If you support the selling of our National Parks and forests to mining and lumber companies, then support Ron Paul.
If you support the selling of our public waterways and water rights to private interests, then support Ron Paul.
If you support the selling of our public roads to private interests, then support Ron Paul.
If you support the elimination of our public schools, fire departments, Social Security, Medicare then support Ron Paul.
If you support the repeal of all civil rights and labor laws, then support Ron Paul.
If you support the elimination of all environmental and consumer safety standards, then support Ron Paul.
Unlike Ron Paul, I just want everyone to be aware of what they are supporting, when they support Ron Paul.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:39 pmUm.
I like Ron Paul, although I’m not currently a supporter because I’m focusing my energy on a candidate I think has a better chance of winning.
But a couple of points.
1. I am rather baffled by the claims that vast swaths of Ron Paul supporters don’t know he is a libertarian. He’s very open about it. I’ve seen at least a half dozen interviews where he’s been asked if he wants to get rid of the IRS, FDA and so forth and he always responds with an enthusiastic yes. Anyone with enough political knowledge to understand what a libertarian is will instantly identify Paul as one as soon as they start reading about his policies and platforms. Are we talking about people who only have watched him in the televised debates and are supporting him based on no further research whatsoever? I can indeed imagine those people being surprised to find out he’s a libertarian, but then again I imagine such people spend a lot of time being surprised in general and have long settled any qualms they feel about drifting aimlessly through this world.
2. Libertarians are not crazy monsters who will shut down public services the first chance they get. Generally speaking, Democrats are for liberal (open) social policies and conservative (restricted) economic policies. Republicans are for conservative (restricted) social policies and liberal (open) economic policies. People who look at the big picture see that as humans we are ultimately striving for openness and freedom in all things, thus at some point in the future, with luck, we will have open social and economic policies. That’s the destination, though, not the next step, as any sensible libertarian (including Ron Paul–he’s brought this up in interviews many times, in fact) knows.
Here’s a link to a site with recent, relevant information on
The idea of libertarianism is somewhat different than the (15-year-old) platform of the Libertarian political party–much like the difference between believing in the idea of democracy and being a member of the Democratic political party (15 years ago).
Here’s a link to relevant information.
http://www.cato.org/
“The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato’s work has increasingly come to be called “libertarianism” or “market liberalism.” It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.
The market-liberal vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, they recognize that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is–or used to be–the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.
Market liberals have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We reject the bashing of gays, China, rich people, and immigrants that contemporary liberals and conservatives seem to think addresses society’s problems. We applaud the liberation of blacks and women from the statist restrictions that for so long kept them out of the economic mainstream. Our greatest challenge today is to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.”
January 4th, 2008 at 10:49 pmTo Shoeless;
Appears that shoes aren’t the only thing you are lacking.
An obscure website related to firearms with the 1992 Libertarian Platform? That’s the best you could come up with? I’m surprised you didn’t offer a link to the Democratic-Republican platform of 1800 as well to back your “theory”. I thought this site was called “Think Progress”!?!?!? And to think that Paul and his supporters (present company included) are called “kooks”…sheesh.
“Look, I’m not trying to talk anyone out of supporting Ron Paul. I just want everyone to know what they are supporting.”
If one is supporting Dr. Paul, then one is in support of freedom, liberty, an end to an empirical governemnt that in no way resembles what the Founders had in mind nor our collective ideals of what America has and should stand for.
A supporter for Ron Paul also chooses hope instead of fear…fear of the “turists”…fear that we cannot possibly take care of ourselves or our fellow man…that we must have government to “give us” what we need, to include:
“Civil rights laws
All public lands (no national, state, county, or municipal parks. no public access to lakes, rivers, beaches, or anything else)
Public schools
Public infrastructure (roads, bridges, dams, ect.)
Public mass transportation
Welfare
Food stamps
Medicare
Medicaid
Social Security
Public fire departments
Children’s Health Insurance Program
All environmental protection regulations
Anti-trust laws
Labor laws
Food and drug safety regulations and inspections”
For every one example you can provide of how your party, your candidate, your governemnt has provided the above so adequately for you and us all, I’m certain others can counter at twice the rate with examples of how government has failed and will continue to fail – because these are not basic to the beliefs which created and fostered the growth of this Republic and more importantly it is NOT the governments purpose to “give” the blessings of liberty – only to secure them. WE THE PEOPLE…remember that from your history lessons?
For Snicks, if you seek evidence to why there is a “Ron Paul Revolution” I would suggest a re-read of the “Declaration of Independence” and place it in the context of some of the issues we Americans face today – taxation without proper representation, inexcusable behavior from an oppresive tyrant, trampling of individual liberties and freedoms given to us by God, not by governments. If you seek evidence as to what a Ron Paul administration would look like, further suggest a re-read of that “quaint” “outdated” “god-damned piece of paper” know as “The Constitution For The United States of America” – it’s all right there.
Shoeless, my fellow countryman (or countrywoman), while I may strongly disagree with you, I admire the courage of your convictions and support your right to your express your belief.
In the cause of freedom,
Brutus
January 4th, 2008 at 11:46 pmfuzz,
I see that you understand the Libertarian agenda, and you cannot figure out why many others who are new Ron Paul supporters do not.
The fact is, they do not understand the Libertarian platform, and Ron Paul is not putting it forward in any meaningful way.
A case in point. Earlier in this very thread, I tried to point out several issues from the Libertarian platform. A person, who had been unwittingly duped into supporting Ron Paul had this to say:
shoeless you are out of your mind. if you listen to his positions you will understand that you are way off base. yeah, ron paul wants to do away with fire departments…i think you are living in shoeless land and its time for you to wake up and join the rest of us here in real life.
Comment by wreckingcrew
Now, this person obviously had never seen the Libertarian platform, and told me I was crazy to suggest that Ron Paul wants to do away with the Fire Department.
Unlike this person, I have read the Libertarian Party Platform. I quote from Section III. Part 9.
9. PUBLIC UTILITIES
We advocate the termination of government-created franchise privileges and governmental monopolies for such services as garbage collection, fire protection, electricity, natural gas, cable television,
January 4th, 2008 at 11:54 pmtelephone, or water supplies. Furthermore, all rate regulation in
these industries should be abolished. The right to offer such
services on the market should not be curtailed by law.
Is Fox News playing politics by denying Ron Paul to participate in the New Hampshire Debate?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1441
.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:00 amApologies to all for my previous typos.
Shoeless:
Let’s try some reason.
Fire departments are not granted under the US Constitution.
Fire departments would be a state and/or local matter.
“Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Therefore, Ron Paul as President of the United States could not “do away” with the Fire Department.
Last time I’m gonna wrestle with you.
Brutus
January 5th, 2008 at 12:09 amAn obscure website related to firearms with the 1992 Libertarian Platform? That’s the best you could come up with?
Comment by Brutus
How strange that you criticize my obscure source for the 1992 Libertarian Platform and then go on to defend that very platform.
Look, you can’t fool me on this, because I used to be a Libertarian. That’s why I know so much about you and your agenda. I was a fool back in the ’80s. Then I finally started to decode the Libertarian’s lofty words about defending the Constitution and individual rights.
I welcome an open debate on the Libertarian platform. I just don’t want people to be fooled as I was.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:12 am“I cant stand when people call him a lunatic. He has some really good ideas.”
Once he stops being a lunatic people will stop calling him a lunatic.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:13 amOK, couldn’t resist…
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/03/opinion/03tierney.html
Talks about how Ben Franklin “invented” the idea of the fire department…
“Ben Franklin Had the Right Idea for New Orleans
By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: September 3, 2005
Why is New Orleans in so much worse shape today than New York City was after the attacks on Sept. 11?
The short answer is that New York was attacked by fire, not water. But then why are urbanites so much better prepared to cope with fire than with flooding? Mostly because they learned to fight fire without any help from the Army Corps of Engineers or the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
For most of history, fire was far more feared than flooding. Cities repeatedly burned to the ground. Those catastrophes occurred sporadically enough that politicians must have been tempted to skimp on fire protection – like levee maintenance, it was a long-term investment against a calamity that probably wouldn’t occur before they left office.
But urbanites learned to protect themselves through two innovations Benjamin Franklin introduced to America. He started a fire department in Philadelphia, as well as its first fire insurance company. Other cities followed, often with the firefighters organized by insurance companies with a vested interest in encouraging public safety.
Their customers had a vested interest, too, because they had to pay higher premiums if they lived in homes or neighborhoods that were prone to fire. As fire insurance became a standard requirement for homeowners, they and their insurance companies kept pressure on politicians to finance firefighting and tighten building codes.
As a result, the risk of a fire leveling a city like New York is lower than ever. Although the number of fires has dropped so much that experts routinely advise cities to close firehouses, voters’ fondness for the stations makes local politicians loath to close any.
But as we’ve learned this week, few people seem to care passionately about maintaining levees or preparing for a predictable flood. They’ve left that to Washington, which promised to hold back the waters and absolved coastal dwellers from worrying about hurricanes.
Starting in the 1960’s, the federal government took over the business of insuring against floods. It offered subsidized insurance to people in flood-prone areas, encouraging seaside homes that never would have been built otherwise. Even at bargain rates, most people went without flood insurance – only about a third of the homes in New Orleans carried it.
People don’t bother to protect themselves because they figure – correctly – that if disaster strikes they’ll be reimbursed anyway by FEMA. It gives out money so freely that it has grown into one of the great vote-buying tools of the modern presidency. Bill Clinton set a record for declaring disasters, and then President Bush set the single-state spending record in Florida before last year’s election.
Now it’s New Orleans’s turn. Since Washington didn’t keep its promise to protect the city, the federal government should repair the damage and pay for a new flood-control system. But New Orleans and other coastal cities will never be safe if they go on relying on Washington for protection. Members of Congress will always have higher priorities than paying for levees in someone else’s state.
The federal government has a role in coordinating flood control among states and in organizing outside disaster relief, but the locals should fight floods much the same way they fight fires. Fifteenth-century Dutch burghers didn’t have the financial or technological resources of today’s Louisianians, but they managed to hold back the sea without the Army Corps of Engineers.
Here’s the bargain I’d offer New Orleans: the feds will spend the billions for your new levees, but then you’re on your own. You and others along the coast have to buy flood insurance the same way we all buy fire insurance – from private companies that have more at stake than do Washington bureaucrats.
Private flood insurance has come to seem quaint in America, but in Britain it’s the norm. If Americans paid premiums for living in risky areas, they’d think twice about building oceanfront villas. Voters and insurance companies would put pressure on local politicians to take care of the levees, prepare for the worst – and stop waiting for that bumbling white knight from Washington. ”
Brutus
January 5th, 2008 at 12:17 am“I wonder about the same thing. Why are there “exclusive†debates in the first place?”
The fairness doctrine would take care of this issue quite nicely. I am thinking Paul wouldn’t support it though.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:18 am“Where’s this fooker been? Because FOX “snubs†Ron Paul, NOW they’re exposing censorship of competitive voices? All those so called news programs hawking neocon shite is fine, just don’t “snub†Ron Paul.”
I actually looked into it and, yes, he IS against the fairness doctrine. Sucks to be him. I am not throwing a pity party for him any time soon.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:21 amShoeless:
The “foolishness” as you call it, my friend, was believing in party over principle. The principle being that this is a constitutional republic…not a “one-size-fits-all” democracy. The system “works” only if we ALL are involved…ACTIVELY…not just one party, one message. E PLURIBUS UNUM.
Farewell friend.
Brutus
January 5th, 2008 at 12:21 amFire departments would be a state and/or local matter.
Comment by Brutus
Of course. Why then, does the Libertarian Party put this in their NATIONAL platform?
9. PUBLIC UTILITIES
We advocate the termination of government-created franchise privileges and governmental monopolies for such services as garbage collection, fire protection,
You are obviously a real Libertarian, and you know why. It’s because you want exactly what your party platform says. You know you can’t disband local fire departments from the federal level. Your goal is to rework our entire governmental system from top to bottom. In the end, you want to do away with even local government services, including the Fire Department. Your Party Platform lays it all out.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:22 am“Dr. Paul has been elected multiple times as a Republican TX congressman since he ran as the LP presidential candidate, and ya know what – none of those “bad things†you list have happened since. Give us a break.”
Excuse me if I don’t want the country to fall further down the Texas hole. Texas is one big sh!thole and the big reason is the politicians there.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:24 am“I just talked to my step dad and he said everybody in wisconsin where he lives likes ron paul”
Must be northern WI. I never had much faith in their common sense.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:27 am“2. Libertarians are not crazy monsters who will shut down public services the first chance they get.”
What??? That is one of the largest libertarian platforms!!!
January 5th, 2008 at 12:28 amThese twisted, greedy people have been around for a while. However, they didn’t organize into a political party until the early ’70s. President Dwight Eisenhower identified the forerunners of those who would become the Libertarians back in 1954. Ike thought that the American people would never be dumb enough to support these sick, rich pricks. As usual, it turns out that Ike was correct. So, they began to talk in lofty code words about the Constitution in order to hide their true agenda. Ron Paul even went so far as to become a Republican in order to hide his Libertarian platform. He has now perfected his rhetoric so that millions of Americans support him with no clue about the awful things he wants to do to our country.
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”- President Dwight Eisenhower
January 5th, 2008 at 12:32 am“President Dwight Eisenhower identified the forerunners of those who would become the Libertarians back in 1954. Ike thought that the American people would never be dumb enough to support these sick, rich pricks. ”
Well, he was right about those retarded Paulites (there are about 5 really loud ones). He was wrong in that the Republican party wouldn’t skew that way.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:39 amRon Paul supporters: you are welcomed on the Democratic side any time. We share more of your smaller government, less big brother ideals than any mainstream Republican anyways.
Given how popular Paul is with white supremacists and anti-government militia types, you might want to rethink that invitation.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:13 amGiven how popular Paul is with white supremacists and anti-government militia types, you might want to rethink that invitation.
Comment by Jeremy Henderson
Many progressives support Ron Paul because they do not understand the inherently racist nature of libertarianism, and Ron Paul certainly isn’t going to educate them about it. When they Libertarians about individual rights in relation to discrimination, it is code for the repeal of Civil Rights Law. White supremacists are obviously aware of this basic principle of libertarianism, and they correctly see in it their long cherished goal of a return to Jim Crow, whites only lunch counters, and darkys to the back of the bus.
Once again, from the Libertarian Party Platform:
Section I, Part 18 DISCRIMINATION.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:51 amConsequently, we oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, including discrimination in employment, housing, and privately owned so-called public accommodations. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever.
funny how they want to ban the 5th place guy in Iowa and allow the 6 and 7th place guys in Iowa. Seems Fox is out of Step with its party.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:32 pmts a sad thing when we have come to the point that the Republican party that is hosting the primary has no say in who gets a say in the primary…everyone should think very hard about this and being a moderate Republican I believe Ron Paul to be in the right and I will vote for him
January 5th, 2008 at 4:15 pmeveryone should think very hard about this and being a moderate Republican I believe Ron Paul to be in the right and I will vote for him
Comment by woogerbear — January 5, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Moderate ?
Comment by Kilo
I don’t know Kilo. Do “moderate” Republicans favor a return to the Robber Baron Era of the 1890’s? Ron Paul apparently does.
Thank you for providing this information.
CORPORATE POWER
– He would repeal significant portions of antitrust law, including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others.
H.R.1247:
To ensure and foster continued patient safety and quality of care by exempting health care professionals from the Federal antitrust laws in their negotiations with health plans and health insurance issuers.
H.R.1789: To restore the inherent benefits of the market economy by repealing the Federal body of statutory law commonly referred to as “antitrust law”, and for other purposes.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:32 pmTo hell with Ron Paul. The real outrage was the exclusion of Dennis Kucinich from the ABC debate. His opinions and positions ae so much more in line with the American opinions. Out of Iraq, now. Universal single-payor not for profit medical care. Even if he has not chance of winning — a premise that I don’t accept — just having him there makes the other candidates discuss these views.
January 6th, 2008 at 6:58 pm