Ron Paul Supporters Lash Out At Fox News

Cable Channel Invited Just Five Candidates To GOP Forum In New Hampshire This Weekend

(AP)  ABC and Fox News Channel are narrowing the field of presidential candidates invited to debates this weekend just before the New Hampshire primary, in Fox's case infuriating supporters of Republican Ron Paul.

The roster of participants for ABC's back-to-back, prime-time Republican and Democratic debates Saturday in New Hampshire will be determined after results of Thursday's Iowa caucus become clear.

Fox, meanwhile, has invited five GOP candidates to a forum with Chris Wallace scheduled for its mobile studio in New Hampshire on Sunday. Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson received invites, leaving Paul and Duncan Hunter on the sidelines.

The network said it had limited space in its studio - a souped-up bus - and that it invited candidates who had received double-digit support in recent polls.

In a nationwide poll conducted Dec. 14-20 by The Associated Press and Yahoo, Thompson had the support of 11 percent of GOP voters and Paul was at 3 percent.

Paul was tied with Thompson for fifth in New Hampshire in the most recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, each with the support of 4 percent of likely voters. Among all New Hampshire voters, Paul led Thompson 6 percent to 4 percent, but that was within the poll's margin of error.

Jesse Benton, Paul's spokesman, said it was a "big mistake" not to include his candidate, especially given Paul's recent success in fundraising. He said the campaign has been trying to reach Fox News to explain the decision, but its calls had not been returned.

"There very well might be some bias," Benton said. "Ron brings up some topics that aren't very popular with Fox News, as in fiscal responsibility and withdrawing from the war in Iraq ... that does leave us scratching our heads a little bit about whether it was deliberate. Based on metrics, I don't see how you can possibly exclude Dr. Paul."

Some livid Paul supporters are distributing e-mails calling for a boycott of Fox advertisers.

A Fox representative did not immediately return calls for comment about the complaints.

Paul has been invited to a GOP forum that Fox News is sponsoring in Myrtle Beach, S.C., on Jan. 10, Benton said.

To participate in ABC's Saturday night debate, Republican and Democratic candidates must meet at least one of three benchmarks: place first through fourth in Iowa, poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys, or poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys.

ABC News anchor Charles Gibson said the criteria were actually quite inclusive. He defended the network taking the initiative in effectively narrowing the field at a point when no actual voters had cast a ballot, except for Iowa caucusgoers.

"You will have had a year's politicking," he said. "You will have had, I think by count, about 641 debates. You will have had national polls and state polls and one state's vote. I think that's pretty indicative."

Gibson said ABC explained the rules for participation in a conference call with all the campaigns and "nobody said, 'How dare you!'"

Gibson is moderating both debates, each 90 minutes long, with a brief intermission between the two.

[wardoglrs]

American pie. You''ve been warned and now the time has come for you to tast the blood of your own brothers that you find so sweet to drink from there dead soul''s. Go to the gas pump, The blood of your brothers cry out loud but cannot be heard.Have a nice day :{

[slpdisk]

RUPERT MURDOCH who owns FOX and lives in Australia is dictating our politics. Does anybody see something wrong here? FOX+RUPERT MURDOCH =Censorship

[hwy71so]

Huckabee''s a Preacher
McCain exPOW with a lesbian daughter
Clinton''s a female
Romney''s a Mormon
Obama''s a black
Thompson''s an actor
Edwards is a former "also ran"
and Guiliani has 9/11 and New York.

Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Richardson, Biden, and the others just don''t have the media appeal these "top contenders" have.

Well, I''m supporting Hunter till he''s done or raising his right hand. Whichever comes first. He''s got a good record in government, has a strong family life, and served honorably in Vietnam. He''s got some really good ideas that I think are winners. Duncan Hunter''s 2008

[homespunlady]

Posted by Hwy71So at 11:30 AM : Jan 02, 2008

Thanks for the "ah ha moment".
I''ll admit I don''t know much about Hunter''s platform but you just gave an interesting angle as to why Paul has been ignored EXCEPT for inflammatory comments concerning his "followers".
He''s not likely to be set up for those "gotcha" articles so he''s too "boring" for the new MSM tabloid style. ;-))

Gee, and I thought it was just "sour grapes" because he was too straightforward to join those smoke filled back room deals the lobbyists keep using to get their way. "MEDIA MOGULS" need to feel reassured they''ll stay in control of American thought - that''s their power, wealth and income.

Sheesh, the NET has caused ENOUGH damage encouraging things like this commentary. Their WORST nightmare is an intelligent, logical and thinking population.

[gunownerdan]

Ron Paul is not a prostitute like the rest of the candidates. Only prostitutes get a fair shot from the mainstream corporate-owned media.

[hwy71so]

The person Huckabee was talking to was a Democrat. I''ve heard him claim it over and over as well as his support for Hillary. Try watching instead of just making an assumption.

And yes, the media wants either Hillary or Obama. Why? Because they would make history as neither of the other candidates will just in them being who they are. Its job security for the media.

That skinny guy, I don''t know his name since I don''t watch Fox much (maybe 10 minutes a week), has backed Hillary anytime her name was mentioned the few times I''ve watched. The other guy, the more plump one, seemed to be more open minded toward Huckabee, yet not quite supporting him.

What does this have to do with Ron Paul? Simple, the media likes a juicy story. What does Ron Paul have to offer the media? Nothing. He''s a doctor from Texas that''s served in congress; end of discussion. What does Hillary have? "She". Huckabee? Preacher. Tabloid. That''s what the media is after. They want the juice. They don''t want real news. If they were to support reality, Duncan Hunter would be one of the leading candidates today. He''s got the best platform and has the most to offer.

[simonsez40]

Fox has liberal reporters? Fox is the most Religious and Pro-Bush news organization - I refuse to ever watch Fox because they love some Bush and Right Wing conservatives.

[hwy71so]

Did any of you see when the two Fox reporters were trying to twist Huckabee''s words and even put words in his mouth? Hannety and something or other like that. A couple of typical liberal reporters trying to distort the truth just like the rest of the media.

People, you can NOT trust the media to present the candidates to you in an unbias light. Research them on the web as well as other sources.

The media wants Hillary.

[hwy71so]

Hmm, Ron Paul - Ross Perot, Ron Paul - Ross Perot, R.P. - R.P...

[homespunlady]

bud28dy I Missed your repeated name-calling and desperate deliberate attempts at creating an uproar to draw attention to yourself - I have a life and several people outside these commentaries to help and take care of.

I consider Rude name-calling an indicator of a certain lack of informed knowledge, poor communication skills, and limited social ability so I won''t participate in it with you.

Glad to see from one of your final rants that we at least agree on the Bush/Cheney Administration being a disastrous fiasco for this nation.

If my observations concerning the teetering US economy are too frightening to you Please avoid reading the recent commentary that former Fed Chairman Greenspan and any number of top economists and international bankers are making - you might mislabel them as "Paulbots" also.

Personally, I''d LOVE to see ANY form of Fiscally Responsible plan to AVOID what is getting to be an OBVIOUS economic downturn for this nation out of ANY of the other candidates but so far all I''ve seen is smoke and mirrors avoidance of the subject.

No other candidate seems to take our Economy seriously enough to give it more than a sound-byte''s worth of mention and then there''s no substance to back their remark.

They keep handing out exorbitant spending promises with NO explanation as to how to pay for all of it. In my book that''s called a fraud or "con job".

If you have any information that refutes that observation I would enjoy reading about it.

[bud28dy]

OK, "Veteran",even though I know it will just infuriate you more I think I''ll fill u in on a few more things.

I voted against Bush and Cheny in both elections and consider them both to be one of the worst things that have ever happened to America. I know you have a vivid imagination but I didn''t voice support for either one of them in any posting I have ever made anywhere, anytime.

So let''s see- so far youv''e incorrectly labeled me as a neocon, a flag supporter, a Bushie, anti-gay, Bible loving, and an Iraq War supporter. So far you''re 0-6. And the amazing thing is I have not voiced an opinion on any of those subjects in any of my posts in here, so obviously you''re just grasping at labels. I''m sure you have more in your little box.

Instead of just trying to label me, how about address the only point I''ve made here -- which is that Paul''s supporters are some of his own worst enemies. You quite obviously fall in that category. So instead of ranting about flag burning and Bushies and ***, how about try to stay on subject?

Now I am going to do what everyone else apparently has long since done and abandon this blog. You Paulbots have once again succeeded in alienating everyone around you. Have fun.

[bud28dy]

LOL. Now veteran71 thinks I''m a flaming neocon Bushie. Wow!!! Maybe I''m hiding under your bed too along with all of the other boogeymen in your head. BTW I served for seven years in the military and also don''t support the Iraq War. I''m also gay and an agnostic, so there goes the flag burning, bible, gaay marriage argument. But don''t let that diminish your hysteria. I hope for Paul''s sake you are not on the streets spouting this kind of nonsense at his rallies or his negatives will rise any further.

On a serious note -- I will assume that you are a veteran. Buddy go get some help at the VA. You''re very angry for some reason and you know talking to somebody might help. And the VA is free. I''m sorry my postings get you all agitated so I won''t personally respond to you in the future because I don''t want to make it worse. Good luck.

[classicdoc]

bud28dy--we get some abuse too, y''know! Catch you later. --Doc

[goldenkee]

How to fix an election 101 by msm.

[bud28dy]

Hey classicdoc --

You are the first Paul supporter I''ve seen in any blog who is calm, rationale, and in control of himself. Too bad more supporters aren''t like you, which I think would help Paul greatly in his campaign. The rants by supporters like Veteran 71 just posted is a perfect example. Is anyone going to read that and a) vote for Paul and b) think this guy isn''t several fries short of a happy meal? OMG the Criminal Fascists are here !!!!!!!! Unfortunately his type is the prevalent one online.

[classicdoc]

bud28dy--I''ve heard that it''s mostly the new Paul supporters who are a bit rowdy, and they tend to settle down after awhile. Of course, new supporters keep flocking to the cause, and a lot of them are young. As a 60-year-old whole voted for Paul in ''88, I''m kinda settled. Anyhow, on Paul as an obstructionist--well, standing up for what''s right also means standing against what''s wrong, no? After all these years I''ve come to the conclusion that we''re better off the less Congress does. That may have something to do with why the 90s weren''t so bad. With gridlock between Clinton and the Republicans, we didn''t get too many new spending programs, the economy straightened out, debt got paid down.... Maybe the best thing Paul could do, after bringing home the troops, is veto every spending bill so the only spending that gets through is agreed to by a supermajority.

[Netterz]

The Media gives comment and support to the candidates who spend the $$$ to buy there time, promote there rants, raves and faces, and alienate the others who dont want to give them millions for a few moments in a 2 yr campaign process, which personally to me, is insanely far too long. Simply put, media advertise what sells, & will cast unfavorable shadows on the ones who refuse to spend there campaign $ on biased (bought&paid for) media outlets. Any smart voter would ignore all the media frenzy, do there own research on what each candidate has acomplished, what positions they have consistantly stood for, what there actual TRUE past says. The garbage that gets tossed out there now, is the same lies and garbage that ALWAYS gets told to get elected.

[bud28dy]

Hey tuckerndfw --

Nice to see another voice of reason on here. I didin''t know a great deal about Paul when I went to a street fair here in LA in Sept. Several candidates had booths where they were calmy talking to people who stopped by. However, the Paul supporters walked through the crowd, basically getting in people''s faces. Folks who did stop and chat and raised questions about Paul''s positions were loudly called socialists, etc. One older woman asked about Paul''s wanting to abolish Social Security -- amazingly the supporters response was that she should rely on friends and stop mooching off young people like him. Needless to say they alientated far more people with their methods than they won over. Their rants in all of the blogs are essentially of the same tone and character. Unfortunately Paul''s message is being ruined by his messengers. I have no doubt they are largely responsible for his 45% unfavorability rating.

Case in point -- just look at the rabid postings which this will engender.

[bud28dy]

It''s the types of postings Ron supporters are making on here that have hurt Paul so much. His negatives are at 45% and his positives only 23%. That number is amazing considering that he has not been vetted or criticized by the media (in fact they''''ve ignored him as they well should), and he has also been ignored by his fellow candidates. The other candidates never mention him much less criticize him. That means the only info the public is getting about him is from the candidate and you folks, which is probably the most favorable info possible. And yet with no one publicly saying bad things about him, 45% of the population has a negative opinion. In other words Paul''''s own positions and the unfortunate manner in which many of his supporters have been rabidly presenting his case has hurt him tremendously. The same thing happened to Howard Dean. His own supporters were often his worst enemy.

BTW, I posted this several times to counter a previous poster who posted his over and over hoping to wipe all negative Paul comments off the first page.

[bud28dy]

It''s the types of postings Ron supporters are making on here that have hurt Paul so much. His negatives are at 45% and his positives only 23%. That number is amazing considering that he has not been vetted or criticized by the media (in fact they''''ve ignored him as they well should), and he has also been ignored by his fellow candidates. The other candidates never mention him much less criticize him. That means the only info the public is getting about him is from the candidate and you folks, which is probably the most favorable info possible. And yet with no one publicly saying bad things about him, 45% of the population has a negative opinion. In other words Paul''''s own positions and the unfortunate manner in which many of his supporters have been rabidly presenting his case has hurt him tremendously. The same thing happened to Howard Dean. His own supporters were often his worst enemy.

BTW, I posted this several times to counter a previous poster who posted his over and over hoping to wipe all negative Paul comments off the first page.