"Fair and Balanced" Fox has "no room" for Ron Paul at debate?

[K8-EEE]

What a JOKE! If anybody had any doubt that they are just the BushCo War-For-Profit propaganda wing, I guess that proves it. Ron Paul has tons more support and energy in his campaign than poor old Fred!

[pinkpops]

1. Have they cut him? Who is in and who is out ?

[kitty44]

2. FOX decides.

Can anyone really believe we live in a democracy?

[milkyway]

3. Yep, they kept him out because he doesn't support the illegal invasion and

doesn't faithfully regurgitate Karl's talking points. Only propagandists are allowed on a propaganda outlet. By any objective measure, Paul should be there over a few of the other repugs. It's a wonder Fox is letting Huckabee participate.

[Naturyl]

23. Yes, you're right.

For all I care, Ron Paul can go pound sand. But you summarized the reason for his exclusion perfectly - "Only propagandists are allowed on a propaganda outlet."

Fox hates Ron Paul with a passion because he is a Republican who won't promote their neo-con talking points. Personally, I think RP's libertarian views are every bit as bad, but it's great to see the Republican machine hitting some obstacles.

[peace13]

4. They axed Kucinich without so much as a whimper

from this board. Glad we can feel for Ron Paul. The media has this campaign by the balls. The only way to correct it is for all candidates to refuse to debate unless all are included. Unfortunately the Fortune 500... I mean the top three Dems are not big enough people to insist that the right thing be done. This election has turned into an entire joke. Hope Obamba is more of a man than I think he is and that he will do the right thing if he gets into office. Peace, Kim

[kitty44]

5. thanks for saying what needs to be said

if the top 3 candidates on either side made a stink about anything, FOX and CNN would cave.

[MADem]

9. Why the hell would they? I mean, really? Who'd expect them to act against their own interests?

"Golly, let me INSIST that a guy who spends half his available time on the stage ripping ME a new asshole appear on stage with me at this debate!!! Wow, won't it be SWELL to share scarce, free tee vee time with some clown who doesn't have a prayer of winning, and who will TAKE TIME AWAY FROM ME?"

Any candidate who would PUSH for someone who can't even get three percent of the vote, or even ONE percent of the vote, to clog up the process and take time away from the other candidates needs to have their head examined.

It doesn't make sense to advocate against one's self-interest.

[peace13]

10. We have to secure the election process.

At some point in time moral people do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Go figure.

[MADem]

12. Don't expect ANYONE competing for scarce air time to get "moral."

It's just not going to happen. No following, no air time.

And the only way it's "the right thing to do" is if you aren't serious as a candidate and know you can't win anyway. If you're competitive, you want to have as much face time with the American public as possible.

There's no charity in politics, certainly not amongst contenders.

[peace13]

15. I don't understand why you are not concerned that

the process has been stolen. If it is because you are happy with the leader then have at it. Don't cry when your candidate is denied coverage. Too late. About the 'following'. If you refer to Kucinich then you will also note that he had very few minutes of time on earlier debates and was actually cut out of the news pictures of the event. Go figure. Once again it is a circle game. Kucinich ranks top on many progressive polls. He has been axed by the media. You can not deny that. Peace to you and yours, Kim

[MADem]

21. Stop assuming. I'm not "happy with the leader" -- fa chrissake, what a clueless remark.

If I ruled the world, every day would be the first day of spring.

But I don't rule the world. I just live in it, and understand how it works.

Kucinich, if he'd raised a shitload of money, or even gotten three or four million FIVE DOLLAR contributions, would have been taken seriously. I have news for you--VERY FEW PEOPLE are prepared to vote for Kucinich. The bozos who 'support' him are all either broke or cheap--no one sends him money. And really, since he spends it on trips to Lebanon and Syria, instead of practical things like an office in Iowa so he'd qualify to participate in the debate, or maybe an ad or two, well, who in their right mind WOULD send him money?

I don't know ANY polls where Kucinich "ranks top." Maybe polls of people who don't ever shave and live in communes, but not ordinary bastards, disdained by the "progressive elite" who are just trying to pay the bills and raise their kids in the face of rising costs and not enough cash--you know, ordinary schmucks.


Money talks, bullshit walks. That's the system. Wishing, hoping, and hectoring people who see how it works ain't gonna change it.

[peace13]

22. Kucinich has come in first in several progressive polls.

You may want to check, just because you don't know doesn't make it so. Tolerance is a virtue. Peace, Kim

[MADem]

26. Well, these progressive poll responders aren't VOTERS, apparently

Heck, he'd probably come in first in a kindergarten poll, since he's closest to their size.

But these 'polls' you tout don't translate into electoral votes. He wasn't "viable" ANYWHERE in IA, and I don't think he'll do too well in NH, either.

Reality bites, but it is what it is. Peace backatcha.

[Naturyl]

25. "It doesn't make sense to advocate against one's self-interest. "

Really? Are you sure you're with the right party (assuming you're a Democrat)?

I don't know if you got the memo, but "advocating against our own self-interest" is a big part of what Democrats do. For example, we often support raising taxes even though most of us pay taxes. We support spending money on programs that don't directly benefit us, just because other people need what those programs offer. We support sensible regulations even when they mean it will more trouble for us. Etc, etc, etc.

Of course, there are always ways to re-define "self-interest" to make it fit, but your statement just struck me as very odd.

[MADem]

6. That wasn't the Fox debate, that was the Facebook/ABC debate.

Fox is using different criteria apparently.

Facebook/ABC seemed to be using fundraising as a marker. Not positive about that, but that's how it looked. Either that, or polling--you had to hit that three percent marker, which DK isn't doing.

[KharmaTrain]

13. How About Kucinich's Poor Showing In Iowa

Sorry...I don't hop onto this DK pity party. He had 4 years in anticipation of this presidential run...could have built off his showing in '04 and let everything go. Unlike Edwards who kept an organization going in Iowa and other states. He never had a real Iowa campaign operation and is barely negligable in the polls.

Kucinich was part of every other debate until the other night...he had plenty of time to speak his issues, exposure to get them heard. While he added a valuable voice to the earlier debates, the primaries are now down to a few weeks...people have to make up their minds and want to focus on the top candidates...one who stand a legitimate shot at being the next President.

Allowing Kucinich or Gravel to participate in debates at this point...with their neglible showing far outweighs their influence on both the Democratic party and this process. Now if DK were polling strong (above 10%) in any upcoming primary state, I'd call for his inclusion, but as far as I'm concerned, his campaign is over. A valiant effort that I applaud, but time to move on.

[gratuitous]

7. Fox likes their racism cloaked and code-worded

Paul's just a smidgen too "out there" for them. I applaud Fox's total lack of convictions, morals or conscience.

[onenote]

8. has fox indicated what criteria it used for deciding who is in/out of their debate

ABC announced its criteria (in advance) and applied them consistently to the Democratic field. If Fox had used the same criteria as ABC, I'm pretty sure Paul would've qualified; I'm assuming that they had different criteria, but haven't seen anything specific as yet.

[K8-EEE]

14. No, not that I can find....they just are not including him.

Does anybody know what their "official" reason is?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

11. And the NH GOP, to their credit, pulled their cosponsorship due to this.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2008/01/nh_gop_drops_sp.html

[peace13]

16. That was a great move.

What one would expect the party to do.

[lovuian]

17. the Networks Anti War Agenda Fox kicking out Ron Paul

just proves it

He has money and is quote viable

this proves Kucinich being kicked out of ABC's debate was the first step of the Agenda

Ron Paul is next ...

there is an agenda out there make no buts about it

[Deja Q]

18. While FOX has the right to do what they want,

'fair and balanced' highly implies every running candidate should be given time. By blocking any candidate, especially one as unique as Ron Paul, eyebrows will be raised.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

19. Well the problem is they have not given any reason, and Paul outpolled Giuliani in IA, and is

neck and neck with him in NH.

At least ABC listed their objective criteria for candidate exclusion at the outset of last night.

[RiverStone]

20. Is there something the FCC can do to censure Faux?

Oh shit, the FCC works for Shrub. Never-mind.

[Mr_Monday]

24. Conservatives get a taste

of their own medicine. A sobering experience for them, I should say. From how they treated Hannity, I assume they didn't like the taste of disenfranchisement.