Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Fox loses GOP Debate Support

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: fossten

Fox Loses GOP Debate Support

Saturday, January 5, 2008 3:11 PM

The New Hampshire Republican Party dropped their affiliation with a Republican debate sponsored by Fox News tomorrow night because they have limited the number of candidates that can participate, according to a report in Boston.com.

“The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary serves a national purpose by giving all candidates an equal opportunity on a level playing field," said Republican chair Fergus Cullen. "Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national figures."

The Fox debate is excluding Texas Congressman Ron Paul even though he polls higher in New Hampshire and has raised significantly more money, and is campaigning more in New Hampshire than Fred Thompson who is invited.

"We look forward to presenting a substantive forum which will serve as the first program of its kind this election season," David Rhodes, vice president of Fox News, said in a statement.

***

Yes, Fox, we know you hate Ron Paul. I hope it was worth it to you to exclude a man who received 10% of the vote in Iowa while including a man (Giuliani) who received 3%. Yes, I know, national polls and all that, but it shouldn't be up to the media to decide who is a viable candidate. Fox has joined the MSM IMHO.

Posted by: Joeychgo

It'll be interesting to see what happens to FOX after the election.

Posted by: Calabrio

It wasn't about hating Paul. It was a decision based on national polling numbers. And, like it or not, Ron Paul only averages about 4% support in national polling. Even in New Hampshire, he's averaging single digit support.

Ultimately, you have to ask, how many people do you want to be on the stage. I'd argue that the FOX debate tonight was infinitely better than the earlier debates with ten guys speaking in sound bites, and I think it was even better than the ABC debate last night, which had six people over crowding the stage.

The Fox debate included Republicans who were polling more than 10% nationally. You just have to draw the line somewhere. And the "forum" was more interesting, we learned more about the candidates, and it was simply more relevant that the debates the preceded it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

It'll be interesting to see what happens to FOX after the election.

They'll continue to be the highest rated cable news network. I don't understand what you foresee that might be an interesting change?

Posted by: fossten

Well, that's ONE way to look at it. I suppose you're closed minded to the idea that Fox actually is PREVENTING a viable candidate (raised 20 million in 4th quarter and obtained 10% in Iowa caucuses) from being heard. And in case you've forgotten how elections work, POLLS don't count. VOTES count. And Iowa's vote count CLEARLY SHOWS Ron Paul getting MORE VOTES than Giuliani, who was NOT EXCLUDED from the forum. This flies DIRECTLY in the face of Fox' motto, "Fair and Balanced." It isn't up to the media to decide who's a viable candidate, it's up to the people of this country. And Fox is acting like the MSM by making electoral decisions. They have a right to do this legally, but they've forfeited any credibility with me (and countless others) by going against their motto in this situation.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Well, that's ONE way to look at it. I suppose you're closed minded to the idea that Fox actually is PREVENTING a viable candidate (raised 20 million in 4th quarter and obtained 10% in Iowa caucuses) from being heard.

Quote:

And in case you've forgotten how elections work, POLLS don't count. VOTES count.

Votes haven't been cast in any primaries yet. And while polls don't count, they are a tool. Real polling, unlike the casual polling you've linked to in the past, is usually very accurate.

Iowa is not representative of the rest of the country. First of all, it wasn't a primary, it was a caucus. Because of this, it provides an advantage to candidates who have excited and passionate support, due to the aggravation of the caucus process. This was ideal for Paul, but you're not going to see that kind of support in any of the primaries in states of significant size.

Quote:

And Iowa's vote count CLEARLY SHOWS Ron Paul getting MORE VOTES than Giuliani, who was NOT EXCLUDED from the forum.

Do you really think that Ron Paul has more support than Rudy nationally? Nationally, Rudy is at 20.8% while Ron Paul is at 3.6% Rudy is even slightly ahead of Paul in the New Hampshire polling as well.

Regardless, the standard set was NATIONAL polling numbers. All the Republicans with double digit national support were asked to participate.

That's not a conspiracy, that's just a reasonable thresh hold that enabled them to have an interesting debate.

Besides, Paul participated in the Saturday night debate, I don't think it benefit him any.

Quote:

This flies DIRECTLY in the face of Fox' motto, "Fair and Balanced." It isn't up to the media to decide who's a viable candidate, it's up to the people of this country. And Fox is acting like the MSM by making electoral decisions. They have a right to do this legally, but they've forfeited any credibility with me by going against their motto in this situation.

Explain how this wasn't "fair or balanced?"
Why weren't you outraged that Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich were excluded from the ABC debate on Saturday?

They drew a line. An average of 10% support in the national polls. It made for a more interesting, more relevant debate.

You can certainly argue that Paul should have had a seat up there tonight. But his exclusion wasn't because some organization was trying to silence his voice. The fact of the matter is, Paul isn't a viable candidate and there's a finite amount of time and space afforded to the candidates. I'd rather have more time to hear the viable candidates speak then the one's who aren't viable.

And if they bump Fred Thompson before the next debate, I'll still feel the same way.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

No, it's not an issue of whether I'm close-minded or not, it's simply a matter of being reasonable. Ron Paul has 4% support. That is NOT a viable candidate. Even in New Hampshire, he's only averaging 8% support.

Votes haven't been cast in any primaries yet. And while polls don't count, they are a tool. Real polling, unlike the casual polling you've linked to in the past, is usually very accurate.

Iowa is not representative of the rest of the country. First of all, it wasn't a primary, it was a caucus. Because of this, it provides an advantage to candidates who have excited and passionate support, due to the aggravation of the caucus process. This was ideal for Paul, but you're not going to see that kind of support in any of the primaries in states of significant size.

Do you really think that Ron Paul has more support than Rudy nationally? Nationally, Rudy is at 20.8% while Ron Paul is at 3.6% Rudy is even slightly ahead of Paul in the New Hampshire polling as well.

Regardless, the standard set was NATIONAL polling numbers. All the Republicans with double digit national support were asked to participate.

That's not a conspiracy, that's just a reasonable thresh hold that enabled them to have an interesting debate.

Besides, Paul participated in the Saturday night debate, I don't think it benefit him any.

Explain how this wasn't "fair or balanced?"
Why weren't you outraged that Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich were excluded from the ABC debate on Saturday?

They drew a line. An average of 10% support in the national polls. It made for a more interesting, more relevant debate.

You can certainly argue that Paul should have had a seat up there tonight. But his exclusion wasn't because some organization was trying to silence his voice. The fact of the matter is, Paul isn't a viable candidate and there's a finite amount of time and space afforded to the candidates. I'd rather have more time to hear the viable candidates speak then the one's who aren't viable.

And if they bump Fred Thompson before the next debate, I'll still feel the same way.

Rant and rave and protest all you want. But you're off topic. The New Hampshire GOP disagrees with you. That's good enough for me.

You: Polls>Votes, especially when it's Ron Paul.

Greta Van Susteren:

Ten per cent is not insignificant - that's a huge number. Here you have a candidate that 10 per cent of the people caucused in his party really want him and it's not like he's an insignificant player. He didn't just drop in yesterday to the process, he has been running for president for a long time, and certainly many of the issues he's raised are rather provocative and certainly stimulate the debate; that's not a bad thing.

Posted by: fossten

More "raving lunatics" who disagree with Fox' decision:

Joseph Farah from WND

John Sununu

Richard Viguerie

Cliff Kincaid

Bob Barr

Fergus Cullen
New Hampshire Republican Party
January 3, 2008

Dear Fergus:
We, the undersigned present and past New Hampshire House Republican State Representatives, respectfully request that unless Fox News agrees within the next 24 hours to invite Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter to participate with the other candidates at their Forum on Jan 6, 2008 you:

1) Pull all Republican cooperation from the Fox Forum,

2) Ask the candidates included to back out, and

3) Go public with a formal press conference denouncing of the exclusionary anti-representational policies of Fox News

Sincerely,

Hon. Paul Ingbretson
Hon. Al Baldasaro
Hon. Howie Lund
Hon. DJ Bettencourt
Hon. Jason Bedrick
Hon. Moe Villeneuve
Hon. Dan Dumaine
Hon. Andrew Renzullo
Hon. Duncan Chaplin
Hon. Laurie Boyce
Hon. Paul Hopfgarten
Hon. Lynne Ober
Hon. Steve Hellwig
Hon. Paul Mirski
Hon. William O'Brien
Hon. Jordan Ulery
Hon. Pamela Manney
Hon. Dan Itse
Hon. Bob Boyce
Hon. Mike Harrington
Hon. Nancy Elliot
Hon. Bob Mead

Ron Paul, Fox News, & Me

Dear Customer,

Because Overstock advertises on Fox channels, Overstock has been receiving calls and email messages about Fox News decision to exclude Dr. Ron Paul from the upcoming January 6 forum in New Hampshire, a decision that seems especially rank given the fact that in yesterdays Iowa Caucus Dr. Paul out-polled Mayor Giuliani by a factor of 2.5:1. I always enjoy hearing from our customers, particularly those who display political commitment of any flavor, and I thank them for their calls and emails.

In October Dr. Paul came to Utah, and he and I visited for an hour in my office. After that meeting, I gave him the largest donation I could under federal law: it is rare to meet a politician who understands the Constitution, and rarer still to meet one who thinks it binds the government meaningfully (I would give Dr. Paul more were there not now a federal blackout on free speech known as "McCain-Feingold"). In a television interview last week I stated that, while for the first time in my life I felt there are several candidates qualified to be president, my #1 choice would be Dr. Paul.

That said, I believe that pulling Overstocks advertising from Fox would represent an inappropriate conflation of my personal politics with my corporate responsibilities: thus, fellow supporters of Dr. Paul, my answer to you is, "no." However, I have contacted Fox and told them that, as a major advertiser, I believe it is unconscionable of them to exclude Dr. Paul from participating in this forum on January 6, thus denying our polity the opportunity to make an informed choice.

Respectfully,

Patrick M. Byrne, Ph.D.

CEO, Overstock.com

Posted by: Calabrio

I never said you had to be a lunatic to disagree with the decision of Fox.
You just have to be a lunatic to think it's some kind of organized effort to suppress the vote of Ron Paul.

My point is, they drew a line- 10% national support. Paul doesn't meet that threshold. He didn't place in the top four in Iowa. He doesn't poll high nationally. And he isn't even at 10% support in New Hampshire.

You can disagree with the decision to bump him, but to attribute it to some kind of bias, or organized effort to suppress his voice, is absurd.

But I'll ask you, how many people should they have had at the Sunday forum (a day after the six person debate on ABC). You do have to draw a line at some point. Those massive 10 person "debates" were a waste of the viewers time.

And ultimately, you have to come to terms with the fact Ron Paul isn't going to win the nomination or win the Presidency. And that's what these debates are about. They aren't made to express new ideas, or to introduce the public to different or more accurate theories of government. I wish we did have those things on network TV, or that the general public was actually interested in it. But they aren't. These debates are to help aid voters...

And the only people upset with the decision to bump Paul are the handful of very motivated, very noisy Paul supporters.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

I never said you had to be a lunatic to disagree with the decision of Fox.

You do throw that word around quite a bit, especially in a collectivist fashion.

Quote:

You just have to be a lunatic to think it's some kind of organized effort to suppress the vote of Ron Paul.

And THERE'S the word! We have a winner, Johnny!

Suppress the VOTE of Ron Paul? I never said that. I said it's an effort to suppress the EXPOSURE of Ron Paul. You cannot make the case that Fox likes and approves of Ron Paul. I can make the case that they are biased against him. This is evidence piece number one. Fox' bias shows up in other areas, as well, such as the Frank Luntz scandal. (He's caught on video offering to bet a RP supporter a THOUSAND BUCKS that Ron Paul won't win 20
% of the vote in NH) But hey, don't let facts get in your way. Feel free to erect any phony straw man you like, it's your modus operandi these days.

Quote:

My point is, they drew a line- 10% national support. Paul doesn't meet that threshold. He didn't place in the top four in Iowa. He doesn't poll high nationally. And he isn't even at 10% support in New Hampshire.

Oh, so now it's TOP FOUR? Huh. And Rudy was...where? Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If you're counting votes, Rudy should be omitted as well.

And by the way, a Rasmussen poll showed Ron Paul tied for third with 11% in NH, and Rudy's trailing Ron Paul. Facts problems again, eh?

Quote:

You can disagree with the decision to bump him, but to attribute it to some kind of bias, or organized effort to suppress his voice, is absurd.

And yet, many other more reputable sources than YOU say this. You are the one who is absurdly and blindly defending Fox. And you offer no evidence to support your assertion. They exercised their prerogative, and the NH GOP disassociated itself from Fox. That speaks volumes, whereas you sound like a tiny, whiny chirp.

Quote:

But I'll ask you, how many people should they have had at the Sunday forum (a day after the six person debate on ABC).

All of them should have been invited.

Quote:

You do have to draw a line at some point.

Who says that and why? I disagree, especially when one of the candidates EXCLUDED actually more than DOUBLED the votes of one of the candidates who was INCLUDED.

Quote:

Those massive 10 person "debates" were a waste of the viewers time.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that's for sure. If you think the nasty, childish bickering between Mitt and Huck over who raised taxes more was revealing and thoughtful, I've got a bridge to sell you. That forum was subpar in the eyes of many. Same old repetitive questions, same old talking point answers, with some personal jibes thrown in.

Quote:

And ultimately, you have to come to terms with the fact Ron Paul isn't going to win the nomination or win the Presidency.

And yet you still can't select a candidate.

Your blatant hatred of Ron Paul is manifested to everyone every time you troll in one of my threads concerning him.

Quote:

And that's what these debates are about. They aren't made to express new ideas, or to introduce the public to different or more accurate theories of government.

Well, you're wrong as usual. Debates are designed to allow candidates to publicly answer questions about their positions. This is to expose viewers to their ideas so voters can make better decisions. Voters can't select someone they don't see. It's biased for a TV network to DECIDE who gets to be heard and who doesn't. But don't worry, Ron Paul was on Jay Leno that same night, so it'll all work out to his benefit. Fox will not benefit from their decision.

Quote:

I wish we did have those things on network TV, or that the general public was actually interested in it. But they aren't. These debates are to help aid voters...

And you just contradicted yourself - see your quoted portion right above mine.

Quote:

And the only people upset with the decision to bump Paul are the handful of very motivated, very noisy Paul supporters.

Wrong again. See my post above yours. No less than the NEW HAMPSHIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY was upset about this. You just keep banging that head against the wall, though. It's amusing.

Posted by: Calabrio

Results in Iowa aside, Gulliani is the front runner in this race, he leads all of the national polls. To exclude the FRONT RUNNER from the debate or forum isn't evidence of bias, it simply reasonable. I don't honestly think I need to explain this to you, though you seem to refuse to acknowledge it. Do you honestly think that Ron Paul has more national support than Rudy?

Paul did better than expected in the Iowa caucus. And he's raised quite a bit of money. You can make a very reasonable argument to say that he did deserve a place at the forum. But you can make an equally strong argument supporting the decision to omit him.

The fact that you seriously think that there is an organized effort to suppress the exposure of Ron Paul is absurd. It's not necessary. He doesn't appeal to most voters, this is demonstrated by his SINGLE DIGIT SUPPORT. Paul's not suffering from a lack of exposure, it's a lack of interest.

You threw an "owned" into your last post.
Perhaps you should do a little more research before misusing that "smiley face."
New Hampshire Polling Data
Paul IS NOT at 11% in New Hampshire. Tuesday, January 8 he's averaging 7.6% support, in 5th place BEHIND Rudy but ahead of Thompson. Even Rasmussen has him at 8%, not 11%.

And the national numbers don't appear to support your claim either:
National Numbers
Paul is at 3.3% nationally.

I guess I could add the "owned" smiley face, but I always thought it made you look stupid, so I'll refrain.

And for the record, I have no hatred of Ron Paul. I just don't want him to be President, and I don't think he has a chance of being President either. I think his foreign policy is silly, I think his campaign has been irresponsible, but I don't hate Paul at all. I've REPEATEDLY said, I'm glad he has national prominence now and I hope he uses his exposure to influence people long after the election ends. However, I have grown tired of his rabid, poorly informed, noisy, conspiracy minded followers.

And regarding these televised debates, you have to acknowledge that they have a finite amount of time. The idea is to present the candidates who have a chance of actually winning to the public so that the voters better understand them. That's what the audience wants. We don't have the luxury of letting everyone up there to speak endlessly. There are issues of time, space, and interest. The premise that every possible candidate should be there, to speak as long as they want might work in the utopia that Paulestinians think he'd be a good President, but in the real world, that doesn't work. And a six to ten person debate is boring, no one gets to speak. Do you think the ten man debates earlier were productive? I don't. They weren't even worth watching.

Good luck with your conspiracy theory though. I'm sure it's critically important to Rupert Murdoch and Robert Ailes to silence and prevent the fringe candidate with 4% support from becoming President.

Posted by: MonsterMark

It was a terrible decision.

Ron Paul is like your old drunk uncle who won't shut up but gets your attention and makes sense sometimes.

The best candidate for the Republicans was also excluded. Duncan Hunter. Go figure. Too conservative even for Fox.

I think all the candidates that pass the threshold for being a Presidential candidate (state registrations, blah, blah, blah) should get equal time. How else do you break out like Huckster did the last couple of weeks?

They never Duncan a shot. Too bad too. He was the best candidate.

Posted by: fossten

Even Rush today is implying that the Fox forum was a failure. He even referred to the discussion afterwards between Chris Wallace and Brit Hume as a "postmortem."

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Paulestinians

Spoken like a true collectivist.