Ron Paul Excluded from Fox Debate!!!!
Bill
Ron Paul Excluded from Fox Debate...
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/01/ron_paul_excluded_from_fox_debate/
John A. Weeks III
"Bill" <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course TV has to make a decision. They cannot have a debate
with 50 or 70 candidates at one time. So, they have to set
some kind of guideline or standard. They picked 10%. Ron
Paul is only polling at 3%. Now then, you can argue what
the standard should be. In fact, I think 10% is too high.
I'd advocate 5%. That, however, still leaves a minor candidate
like Ron Paul out of the mix. The bottom line is if Ron Paul
wants to be in the top tier of candidates, he needs to go out
and round up a little more support from the potential voters.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
Doug Miller
>
>Ron Paul Excluded from Fox Debate...
So what? They have to draw the line somewhere -- they can't include everybody.
And right now, Ron Paul is polling behind Undecided.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Elmo
> In article <5u1t9jF...@mid.individual.net>, "Bill" <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Seems TV is deciding which candidates we see on the tube...
>>
>> Ron Paul Excluded from Fox Debate...
>
> So what? They have to draw the line somewhere -- they can't include everybody.
> And right now, Ron Paul is polling behind Undecided.
>
He also has raised more money than several of the people they included.
(Or so I was told by the fervant Ron Paul supporter who is a few doors down from here.)
I think that there's a hidden rule that in order to be a "valid" contender, your name can't be Ron Paul.
And not just on Faux News either.
Ms. Katie ("I'm just WONderful") Couric read a new item which noted Ron Paul's record-setting day of raising money (Tea Party Day) and immediately went into a segment where she asked the same question of all the candidates from both parties. Only Ron Paul wasn't included, and Mike Gravel wasn't included, and several others from both parties were not included.
Maybe the rule is that if you don't weasel, waffle, shilly, shally, shimmy, shake or spin, then you can't be a serious contender.
--
"The career politicians are keeping the elevator at the penthouse
floor and not sending it down for the rest of us." - Kinky Friedman
Doug Miller
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <5u1t9jF...@mid.individual.net>, "Bill"
> <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Seems TV is deciding which candidates we see on the tube...
>>>
>>> Ron Paul Excluded from Fox Debate...
>>
>> So what? They have to draw the line somewhere -- they can't include everybody.
>> And right now, Ron Paul is polling behind Undecided.
>>
>And ahead of several of the people they included.
Which ones would those be?
>He also has raised more money than several of the people they included.
Which ones would those be?
>(Or so I was told by the fervant Ron Paul supporter who is a few doors down
> from here.)
Not exactly an unbiased source, that.
Bert Hyman
news:DJPej.2810$se5....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
> In article <5u1t9jF...@mid.individual.net>, "Bill"
> <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Seems TV is deciding which candidates we see on the tube...
>>
>>Ron Paul Excluded from Fox Debate...
>
> So what? They have to draw the line somewhere -- they can't include
> everybody. And right now, Ron Paul is polling behind Undecided.
Wait a minute... Somebody will be right along to tell us that the
polls are rigged.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
Dave
>
> Maybe the rule is that if you don't weasel, waffle, shilly, shally,
> shimmy, shake or spin, then you can't be a serious contender.
>
You're close. If you don't weasel, waffle, shilly, shally, shimmy, shake or
spin, then you aren't newsworthy. If you aren't newsworthy, then you can't
increase ratings. Thus you can't be included in any debate. -Dave
Ann
> Seems TV is deciding which candidates we see on the tube...
"Since the 1970s, debates have also been considered on-the-spot news
events and therefore exempt from the [FCC] equal time law. This has
enabled stations or other parties arranging the debates to choose which
candidates to include in a debate."
Elmo
> In article <flgjbh$1702$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, Elmo <ElmoHa...@noSpam4U.org> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>> In article <5u1t9jF...@mid.individual.net>, "Bill"
>> <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Seems TV is deciding which candidates we see on the tube...
>>>>
>>>> Ron Paul Excluded from Fox Debate...
>>> So what? They have to draw the line somewhere -- they can't include everybody.
>>> And right now, Ron Paul is polling behind Undecided.
>>>
>> And ahead of several of the people they included.
>
> Which ones would those be?
>
>> He also has raised more money than several of the people they included.
>
> Which ones would those be?
>
>> (Or so I was told by the fervant Ron Paul supporter who is a few doors down
>> from here.)
>
> Not exactly an unbiased source, that.
>
I have found him to be reliable in most things political -- even if he is a Ron Paul supporting Libertarian nutcase. The kind that stands on street corners to get enough signatures so he can appear on the ballot. In 2004 he got about 15% of the vote running against the "unopposed" Republican that holds the Congressional seat.
--
"The essence of the liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held
but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are
held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any
moment lead to their abandonment. This is the way opinions are held in
science, as opposed to the way in which they are held in theology."
Bertrand Russell
Doug Miller
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <flgjbh$1702$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, Elmo
> <ElmoHa...@noSpam4U.org> wrote:
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> In article <5u1t9jF...@mid.individual.net>, "Bill"
>>> <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Seems TV is deciding which candidates we see on the tube...
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Paul Excluded from Fox Debate...
>>>> So what? They have to draw the line somewhere -- they can't include
> everybody.
>>>> And right now, Ron Paul is polling behind Undecided.
>>>>
>>> And ahead of several of the people they included.
>>
>> Which ones would those be?
>>
>>> He also has raised more money than several of the people they included.
>>
>> Which ones would those be?
>>
>>> (Or so I was told by the fervant Ron Paul supporter who is a few doors down
>>> from here.)
>>
>> Not exactly an unbiased source, that.
>>
>
>I have found him to be reliable in most things political -- even if he is a Ron
> Paul supporting Libertarian nutcase. The kind that stands on street corners
> to get enough signatures so he can appear on the ballot. In 2004 he got about
> 15% of the vote running against the "unopposed" Republican that holds the
> Congressional seat.
>
candidates are trailing Ron Paul in the polls, or in fundraising?
Doug Miller
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <flgjbh$1702$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, Elmo
> <ElmoHa...@noSpam4U.org> wrote:
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> In article <5u1t9jF...@mid.individual.net>, "Bill"
>>> <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Seems TV is deciding which candidates we see on the tube...
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Paul Excluded from Fox Debate...
>>>> So what? They have to draw the line somewhere -- they can't include
> everybody.
>>>> And right now, Ron Paul is polling behind Undecided.
>>>>
>>> And ahead of several of the people they included.
>>
>> Which ones would those be?
>>
>
Giuliani 20.4%
McCain 17.2
Huckabee 17.0
Romney 14.6
Thompson 11.2
Paul 4.2
clams_casino
>In article <flgjbh$1702$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, Elmo <ElmoHa...@noSpam4U.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <5u1t9jF...@mid.individual.net>, "Bill"
>>>
>>>
>><billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Seems TV is deciding which candidates we see on the tube...
>>>>
>>>>Ron Paul Excluded from Fox Debate...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>So what? They have to draw the line somewhere -- they can't include everybody.
>>>And right now, Ron Paul is polling behind Undecided.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>And ahead of several of the people they included.
>>
>>
>
>Which ones would those be?
>
>
>
For a start, he's pulled ahead of Rod Speed.
clams_casino
>>>
>>>
>>>
>I just checked at foxnews.com --
>
There's a misspelling there - as someone pointed out, the correct
spelling is fauxnews.com
Elmo
But I did see a MSM story that said RP had raised 19M in the 3rd
quarter which was more than any other candidate. And that he was
polling 4th in Iowa which puts him ahead of someone.
--
In Isaiah Berlin's typology of leaders, Bush isn't merely
a hedgehog who knows one thing rather than many things.
He's a delusional hedgehog who knows one thing that isn't so.
tal...@not.com
<billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Seems TV is showing more boobs lately.
This is great news. I love boobs, and women do too.
One thing you'll never hear Dolly Parton say is "I got to get this off
my chest".
Doug Miller
You cared enough to complain that he's polling ahead of other candidates who
were invited -- but you don't care enough to find out which ones?
>But I did see a MSM story that said RP had raised 19M in the 3rd
>quarter which was more than any other candidate. And that he was
>polling 4th in Iowa which puts him ahead of someone.
The only candidates that puts him ahead of are the ones who haven't been
campaigning in Iowa -- Giuliani's written Iowa off completely, isn't even
trying there.
Elmo
--
"...the 12-step group meeting in the basement is usually a more
authentic use of the building than the congregation meeting upstairs."
The Slacktivist
Doug Miller
Are you ready to retract that claim yet?
Elmo
If it suits you to call that a retraction, then be pleased with yourself.
Bill
because they have been keeping him off of TV. I told him of Ron Paul's
views. He now likes Ron Paul. (This is my brother's decision to make.)
So let the people hear what the man has to say!
Ron Paul Leads in Polls of People Who Have Heard Him Speak...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/haman1.html
Elmo
And that is the main point. When views from outside the box are not hidden, they get a fair evaluation. Most will be rejected in the long run. If the views are threatening to the "in" group they have to go into attack mode which usually makes the attacker look bad. It's easier and less expensive to simply repress dissent.
--
The real USA PATRIOT Act was passed in 1791.
It's called the Bill of Rights.
Doug Miller
I'll be happy to regard that as an acknowledgement that you have no idea
whether it's true or not.
Doug Miller
>Ron Paul Leads in Polls of People Who Have Heard Him Speak...
That's not a large enough group to make the polls statistically valid... <g>
Doug Miller
>And that is the main point. When views from outside the box are not hidden,
> they get a fair evaluation. Most will be rejected in the long run. If the
> views are threatening to the "in" group they have to go into attack mode which
> usually makes the attacker look bad. It's easier and less expensive to simply
> repress dissent.
Oh, fer cryin' out loud. Just because the guy isn't getting any traction in
the polls doesn't mean he's being "repressed". The simpler -- and likely more
accurate -- explanation is that people *are* hearing his views, and don't like
them.
clams_casino
>Note I visited my brother over Christmas. He had not heard of Ron Paul
>because they have been keeping him off of TV. I told him of Ron Paul's
>views. He now likes Ron Paul. (This is my brother's decision to make.)
>
>So let the people hear what the man has to say!
>
>
>
>
His wife makes great fish sticks.
Nicik Name
"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
news:DJPej.2810$se5....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> In article <5u1t9jF...@mid.individual.net>, "Bill"
> <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Seems TV is deciding which candidates we see on the tube...
>>
>>Ron Paul Excluded from Fox Debate...
>
> So what? They have to draw the line somewhere -- they can't include
> everybody.
Nicik Name
> In article <fljai8$11n8$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, Elmo
> <ElmoHa...@noSpam4U.org> wrote:
>
>>And that is the main point. When views from outside the box are not
>>hidden,
>> they get a fair evaluation. Most will be rejected in the long run. If
>> the
>> views are threatening to the "in" group they have to go into attack mode
>> which
>> usually makes the attacker look bad. It's easier and less expensive to
>> simply
>> repress dissent.
>
> Oh, fer cryin' out loud. Just because the guy isn't getting any traction
> in
> the polls doesn't mean he's being "repressed". The simpler -- and likely
> more
> accurate -- explanation is that people *are* hearing his views, and don't
> like
> them.
WAKE THE F UP.....tell your friends