Ron Paul Being Excluded From Debate

A press release from Paul’s Web site:

According to the New Hampshire State Republican Party and an Associated Press report, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul will be excluded from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be broadcast by Fox News on January 6, 2008.

“Given Ron Paul’s support in New Hampshire and his recent historic fundraising success, it is outrageous that Dr. Paul would be excluded,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul has consistently polled higher in New Hampshire than some of the other candidates who have been invited.”

Snyder continued, “Paul supporters should know that we are continuing to make inquiries with Fox News as to why they have apparently excluded Dr. Paul from this event.”

He raised more money than any Repupblican candidate last quarter, indicating he has a lot of support at the grass roots. That he should be excluded at this point, I believe is unfair. Captain Ed agrees:

However, since we’ve muddled through this long, it makes little sense to start excluding candidates just before the first meaningful vote gets taken. Raising $19 million in a quarter shows at least some level of significant support, even if limited to the the fringes of the GOP and Libertarian parties. Also, if Fox wants to rely on polling, Paul does at least as well as Thompson in Iowa and perhaps better at the moment in New Hampshire. Why not just wait for the results from Iowa to make that determination for both parties, as ABC plans to do?

Agreed. I’m with Ed in that I would like to see a more substantial debate, and having 9 people on the stage dilutes any meaningful discussion beyond sound bites. At least ABC has decided to wait until after the debate. Properly so. My guess is that FoxNews is more interested in seeing candidates favourable to them on the stage than being Fair & Balanced™. But what else is new?

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






62 replies
  1. 1
    ThymeZone says:

    As much as I think Paul is a certfiable lunatic and represents only a fringe candidacy …. as insignificant as I think it is that he snookered people out of all that money … as completely unelectable as he is, and as much as I love to see anything that fucks up the Republican power structure or annoys Faux News as much as he does and therefore caution that my view must be taken with that grain of salt ….

    I agree, let him play.

    What’s more important, though, is that some reasonable and sane rules for particpation be set forth in the beginning of a campaign, and then adhered to. Otherwise the whole thing looks rigged and unfair. Which it is, but we don’t want to look that way.

  2. 2
    Jake says:

    My guess is that FoxNews is more interested in seeing candidates favourable to them on the stage than being Fair & Balanced™. But what else is new?

    As much as I really couldn’t give a fuck if I tried about the GOP, I have to agree this is really stupid. Why exclude Paul (who gives the GOP fits) but allow Huckabee (ditto)?

    I also recall FuxNews screaming that the Democratic candidates were a bunch of fraidy cats because they refused to participate in one of their debates. Looks like someone else is a-scared. “O noes, don’t let him in. He’ll talk about teh Constitutions!”

    Call it Act XVII in the Continuing Saga of the GOP Meltdown.

  3. 3

    Who else is being excluded from the debate? Don’t get me wrong–Paul has certainly demonstrated that he deserves a spot in the debate, if only because of his fundraising–but it will be particularly egregious if Duncan Hunter or Alan Keyes is there and Paul is excluded. He certainly has as much right to be there as Fred Thompson does.

  4. 4

    Just found the answer to my own question. The invitees were Giuliani, Thompson, Huckabee, Romney and McCain. And the NH GOP has said they’d rather include more candidates than fewer.

  5. 5
    Bobzim says:

    I thought this was a hoax. I got wind of this from Surber who also got hoaxed. Unless this is some sort of Jamil Hussein or David Shuster/Marsha Blackburn Merry-Go-Round of Gotcha!

  6. 6
    Kynn says:

    Boo hoo, poor Ron Paul!

    I love how Michael D. spins it* as if Paul specifically were the one excluded, but it takes Incertus to actually do the real legwork, and see that plenty of other candidates (such as Keyes or Hunter) who aren’t going to be there either.

    Yeah, yeah, Michael D. is all about fairness — which is why he posted a poll giving us the following choices:

    a list of Democrats
    ( ) Some Republican
    ( ) Ron Paul

    Hey, Michael, when you gonna start doing your homework before posting instead of just slapping up the first thing you come across on some right-wing site for idiots?

    * Okay, to be fair, he’s not clever enough to spin it, but just regurgitate what he’s fed.

  7. 7
    LiberalTarian says:

    Maybe they should invite Obama. Of late he seems to think Democrats suck, what with all their unionizing and progressive ideals. I can’t for the life of me understand why he is courting Republicans *now*, instead of waiting until he’s won the primary. The latest shots he’s taken at organized labor (because he couldn’t wrangle an endorsement from them) seems pretty far off the beam. He’s showing me he is another person who will say/do anything to win and damn the long-term interests of the left. I thought we were looking for change from Obama? He seems to be promising another GW Bush term–what’s good for him, not what’s good for the country. You would think he would commit to his next presidential run rather than leaving scorched earth behind, unless of course, he’s decided that this is really it.

    Or he straight up changes parties in the next 4 years, which seems likely to me and something someone would do if they were willing to do *anything* to be president. If you are willing, as a Democrat, to call unions “special interests,” then you could really go for the whole enchilada as a Republican. He is trying really hard to prove to conservatives that he won’t repudiate them, trying to court “Obama Republicans.” Maybe he ought to just go ahead and go on over to the dark side.

  8. 8
    Horselover Fat says:

    There do not appear any objective criteria to justify F. Thompson in but R. Paul out. Blatantly rigged.

  9. 9
    Robert Johnston says:

    As much as I think Paul is a certfiable lunatic and represents only a fringe candidacy …. as insignificant as I think it is that he snookered people out of all that money … as completely unelectable as he is, and as much as I love to see anything that fucks up the Republican power structure or annoys Faux News as much as he does and therefore caution that my view must be taken with that grain of salt ….

    I agree, let him play.

    Well, while letting him play is great for the Democrats, for all those reasons you give it’s terrible for having an actual debate. Paul will eat up screen time better given to other candidates who might actually win, and other candidates will spend time attacking Paul rather than discussing whatever drivel passes for Republican “policy” these days. Republican voters would be less informed about the candidates who might actually become their nominee for having Paul in the debate, and it would be nice if the purpose of primary debates were to inform primary voters.

  10. 10
    Robert Johnston says:

    I can’t for the life of me understand why he is courting Republicans now, instead of waiting until he’s won the primary.

    The best case scenario is that he’s courting New Hampshire independents, doesn’t really believe the crap he’s spewing, and will quit this nonsense after NH when closed primaries take higher precedence.

    I’m not at all optimistic that the best case scenario holds.

  11. 11
    Michael D. says:

    Kynn: You’re such a fucking idiot and you really are the highlight of my day sometimes because of that. If you read the linked article, it’s fairly explanatory that Paul wasn’t the only one excluded. He is the only one excluded who raised any significant amount of money though, which is why I am surprised he was excluded. Stop being a fucking moron. You are really a clueless human being.

  12. 12
    Horselover Fat says:

    Paul is a serious possibility for a third party run. Which makes him, like, someone whom people might actually get the option to vote for in the general. If informing voters is a consideration.

    Unlike Thompson, unless Grandpa Fred gets a VP slot.

  13. 13
    F. Frederson says:

    Whatever makes Faux Nooz look bad to its own audience is good by me.

    Go Faux!

  14. 14
    Xyrus says:

    Ron Paul is crazy? Can you explain how you arrive at this conclusion?

    Is it because he believes in the constitution? Because he believes the US should stop being the world police? Because he believes in personal liberty and states rights over the behemoth Fed? Because he believes we should address our problems at home FIRST? Because he believes in a balanced budget and reducing/eliminating our national debt? Because he believes in a small limited government, as intentioned by the founding fathers?

    Perhaps I’m crazy as well, since all of these make perfect sense to me.

    ~X~

  15. 15
    myiq2xu says:

    Maybe they should invite Obama. Of late he seems to think Democrats suck, what with all their unionizing and progressive ideals. I can’t for the life of me understand why he is courting Republicans now, instead of waiting until he’s won the primary.

    It seems like Obama has been listening to Old Weird Harold Ford and wants to run as a Republican-lite.

    I forget, how did that work out for Harold?

  16. 16

    This blatant attempt to influence the election is laughable. In yesterdays thread about Iowa, TZ and others expressed concerns about Iowans having major influence over who gets the nomination of the major parties. The media (OK, I know we can debate about Fox News being a news or fiction channel, but some of our fellow Americans do watch) is now making a blatant attempt to effect the aspirations of a legitimate candidate.

    Cap’n Ed and Michael D. are absolutely correct when they write that a few votes should be cast before any weaning process begins. This interesting and telling development, solidifies my belief that Fox News is in fact a propaganda mouthpiece for the Republican leadership. They intersperse a few crumbs of factually correct news and a substantial portion of nonsense, gibberish and sexed up trash. Calling that load of dung Fair & Balanced™ requires one to “dig through the shit pile to find a few bits of corn,” as it were.

    Again, I say this blatant attempt to influence the election is laughable. Ron Paul supporters are a dedicated and motivated lot and this misstep gives the candidate more visibility in the blogosphere, and that is precisely where political junkies of all stripes hang out and they are precisely the people most commited to voting in primaries and caucuses. Fox doesn’t understand, or doesn’t care that the paradigm for nominations is shifting, and the political blogosphere plays an increasing and important part in that process.

    I do not contend that bloggers are the only drivers in the early part of the nomination process, but their influence is undeniable and quite effective.

    Fox News is either out-of-touch or a bunch of arrogant pricks … What will Fox do when RP comes in third or fourth in Iowa?

  17. 17
    Kynn says:

    Gosh, Michael, you’re so upset and angry that I gave you shit for reposting a Ron Paul press release! Why are you so mad about this?

  18. 18
    TheFountainHead says:

    Or Obama is just making sure that he gets every single independent voter who might otherwise vote for Edwards if it weren’t for his populist nonsense, OR, it might be that he needs to show the Democratic base the fact that he can and does win Republican votes. Something their favorite Queen Clinton can not do.

  19. 19
    Delia says:

    He [Paul] is the only one excluded who raised any significant amount of money though, which is why I am surprised he was excluded.

    You’re surprised he was excluded, Michael? Surprised in the real sense or in the rhetorical sense?

    I suppose this is definitive proof that the Goopers aren’t all about money, and really care that one of their own threatens to challenge their fascist imperium world-view, and moreover, raises tons of cash from the plebs while doing so, even if generally speaking, he’s something of a nutcase on other issues.

  20. 20
    bob says:

    As though any of the crap spewed by these assholes could be classified as “debate”.

  21. 21
    Kynn says:

    PS:

    If you read the linked article, it’s fairly explanatory that Paul wasn’t the only one excluded.

    Which linked article?

    You quoted the entire press release from the Paul campaign, and you linked to Cap’n Ed.

    Ed is the one who actually linked to, and quoted, anything resembling the truth, while you uncritically regurgitated only the Paul campaign spin (and the parts of Ed’s post that support it).

    If you wanted to be thought of as an insightful thinker, you’d do a little more research and linking. Instead, you’re giving us a campaign’s press release and a link to Cap’n Ed — who, it appears, is better at this blogging thing than you are.

    Meanwhile, can you explain to me why your poll had two choices, “Some Republican” and “Ron Paul”, for people who aren’t voting Democratic?

    PS: I know I’m not a fucking idiot. So, sorry.

  22. 22
    Davis X. Machina says:

    Lawyers, Guns and Money calls Fox “Gosteleradio”, which more or less sums things up.

  23. 23
    myiq2xu says:

    Actually, getting locked out of the debate is the best thing for RoPaul.

    Very few people besides political junkies really watch debates anyway, and every candidate is so scripted that they are unlikely to change many minds.

    OTOH – Getting frozen out plays right into RoPaul’s insurgency narrative. He isn’t part of the establishment, he’s challenging it. He wants to be perceived as an outsider.

    He will get more publicity and this will energize the Paultards.

    FAUX News would have been better off to invite everybody and let RoPaul be just another face in the crowd.

    s/ The Notorious myiq2xu

  24. 24
    Johnny Pez says:

    before any weaning process begins

    ITYM “winnowing”.

    Otherwise, the images get really disturbing.

  25. 25
    Robert Johnston says:

    Actually, getting locked out of the debate is the best thing for RoPaul.

    Without a doubt. Which is why even though I think the FOX News decision is the right one from the point of view of having a better debate, it was absolutely the wrong one from the point of view of FOX as an arm of the Republican party. FOX got the news decision right here, but it really blew the politics, which, when you think about it, is a quite amazing and unique event.

  26. 26
    Kynn says:

    He raised more money than any Repupblican candidate last quarter…

    Actually, we don’t know this at all yet. The rest of the Republican campaigns haven’t released their figures at this point.

    It may be true, or it may not be true.

    Getting frozen out plays right into RoPaul’s insurgency narrative. He isn’t part of the establishment, he’s challenging it. He wants to be perceived as an outsider.

    Yup. They’re thrilled to not be invited. “It shows they’re afraid of Ron Paul.”

  27. 27
    Johnny Pez says:

    Fox News is either out-of-touch or a bunch of arrogant pricks

    I vote for B.

  28. 28
    before any weaning process begins

    ITYM “winnowing”.

    Thanks, JP. A brain fart that I blame on Michael D’s Fair Tax. Its the only logical answer.

    /Fox News logic

  29. 29
    jrg says:

    Republican voters would be less informed about the candidates who might actually become their nominee for having Paul in the debate, and it would be nice if the purpose of primary debates were to inform primary voters.

    I’m not sure if I agree 100% with this. Would realistic debate get dragged down because of Paul’s presence in the debate? Perhaps, but it also seems like a good idea to have a Republican around that openly questions theocracy and cowboy foreign policy.

  30. 30
    Laertes says:

    All I’m hearing from the “exclude paul”-bots is off-topic whining, exemplified by the risible Kynn carping about the poll here from the other day.

    Has anyone actually made a case for excluding him? Since he’s polling higher than Thompson, who is invited, what possible justification is there for regarding Paul as a less viable candidate than Thompson?

  31. 31
    myiq2xu says:
    Fox News is either out-of-touch or a bunch of arrogant pricks

    I vote for B.

    I would say “D” – All of the above

    (Because choice “C” is “Run by dipshits”)

    s/ The Notorious myiq2xu

  32. 32
    Laertes says:

    The actual reason, of course, is that FOX is a GOP propaganda organ, and “dissident” republicans like Ron Paul aren’t welcome because they buck the party line too much.

    We’re all, I’m sure, 100% clear on that. I’m not asking for the REASON why FOX is doing this. I’m just asking if any of the FOXbots here have any kind of fig leaf they’d like to put on.

  33. 33
    myiq2xu says:

    Actually, many candidates (especially front-runners) dread debates because they are a double edged sword.

    Yes, you get a chance to shine in comparison to the other candidates, but you also get a chance to stumble and fall, perhaps permanently.

    Reagan torpedoed Carter with his line “There you go again,” and then four years later defused questions about his age and possible advancing senility with his joke about not making an issue of Mondale’s “youth and inexperience.”

    Dukakis blew his debate with Poppy Bush on the first question, Clinton outshone Bush and Perot, Quayle was destroyed by the line “You’re no Jack Kennedy” and Gore was ridiculed for sighing too much and looking too smart.

    RoPaul would rather not get asked tough questions, and FAUX News will grill him like he was a Democrat if they get the chance.

  34. 34
    PeterJ says:

    Fox News have decided that they rather have a democrat in the White House 2008 since it will give them higher ratings, especially now since their golden boy Giuliani is tanking.
    So they are doing whatever they can to make Ron Paul run as an independent.

    The Daily Show and The Colbert Report goes back on air soon, and for the same reason they will attack democrats.

  35. 35
    RSA says:

    My guess is that FoxNews is more interested in seeing candidates favourable to them on the stage than being Fair & Balanced

    That would be my guess, too. How would it affect Fox News ratings if there were someone on stage who wants to get out of Iraq and is anti-PATRIOT act, is pro-narcotic legalization, and doesn’t care overly much about gay marriage at the federal level–and the moderator can’t cut off his mike? Ratings hell is what.

  36. 36
    Laertes says:

    FoxNews is more interested in seeing candidates favourable to them on the stage than being Fair & Balanced

    FOX News is more interested in a poke in the eye with a sharp stick than in being Fair & Balanced.

  37. 37
    myiq2xu says:

    Fox News have decided that they rather have a democrat in the White House 2008 since it will give them higher ratings, especially now since their golden boy Giuliani is tanking.

    FAUX News is a major part of the GOP Ministry of Propaganda. While we often make fun of the intelligence of Greater Wingnuttia (or rather, the lack thereof) the guys at the top aren’t stupid, just evil.

    They realize that their party is in trouble and will need several miracles and a couple of plane wrecks to win next November. They also realize that they do better running “against” than running “for.”

    It was hard to blame things on the Democrats when they controlled everything, although Lord knows they tried. But if they suck it up, they can ride out the losses that are inevitible and start positioning themselves for 2010 and 2012.

    Meanwhile, they will seek to obstruct efforts to roll back the changes they made under the Cheney Bush Administration.

    s/ The Notorious myiq2xu

  38. 38

    Would realistic debate get dragged down because of Paul’s presence in the debate?

    Absolutely not. What other Republican has stood firmly against the power grab by this Administration? Not one of the Republicans has expressed much concern about torture, warrantless wiretaps, and general abrogation of the 4th Amendment. Ron Paul is the one candidate who forces Republicans to express an opinion on these critical constitutional matters.

    I am not a Ron Paul supporter, and I DO NOT want him to be President. He’s an evolution denying gold bug, with a radical anti-abortion stance that precludes me from supporting him. But–I do want these important issues in the spotlight. Now. It is for the same reason that I really like Chris Dodd on the other side. If he were not in the race I don’t know if the Democrats would voice any strong opposition to the power grab by the Current Occupant. OK, maybe they would talk the talk. Walk the walk? Unknown.

    The two most important issues facing us are:

    (1) Iraq, and the prosecution of the so-called War on Terror
    (2) Expansion of Presidential power

    All other issues pale in comparison. Nothing–and I include illegal immigration in that “nothing”–threatens us as immediately as these two issues. What other Republican has openly challenged the Administration? McCain, has done so timidly, but then did his best Arlen Specter/Lindsay Graham imitation and voted with the Former Cheerleaders team. Take Ron Paul out of the equation and you have a bunch of Daddy State proponents.

    As much as I some Democrats that think they know better how to spend my money, I despise the Daddy State Republicans for a power grab to defend me from all the “brown people.” I can always make more money, but I can’t buy Liberty.

    So yeah, Ron Paul, should be included. If substantial, policy driven debate is warranted (and it is) then a few of the Bush Clones shoud be eliminated first. If the Republicans are looking for a choir singing the same song then barring Ron Paul from the debate is the way to go. Democrats are lacing up the gloves as we sit here a read and the Republicans are already on the ropes.

    Ron Paul might be the lone voice of sanity, oddly enough,in a field of Republicans stuck in the World According to Bush. But don’t listen to me. I’ve been afflicted with BDS since I found out through some old Army buddies that SF teams were being stood down and pulled out of Afghanistan in December ’01 to be outfitted for a “new mission.” Nuff said.

  39. 39
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Let him debate. Positions in government are open to all citizens who desire to run for them. Thus they all deserve the same coverage just to keep a level playing field. That will never happen though. Hell, if you only watch the news on TV, the average citizen would be hard pressed to name all of the candidates who are running for President. Faux excluding Paul is the poster child of how corporations are using their control of media to influence the outcome of elections (and just about everything else).

    All media engages in this, each having their own goal in mind. Some are small goals, and are usually confined to the small fry in media. Some goals are large, and are the domain of the big media. For example, there is no such thing as the ‘liberal’ media as almost all media is used to exploit the public in one way or another. Most media outlets are not actually informative, unless you can say that being spoon fed one side of an issue is informative. They just play the popularity game, trying to control what is popular. When they are unable to or lose control of the message, then they jump on the bandwagon and attempt to get their hands on the reins. Got to get that wagon back in to the ruts!

    Communications media and political parties have one way of maintaining control, being divisive. The old ‘divide and conquer’ strategy. The majority of the American public are sheeple who go to their favorite news troughs or party watering holes, gorging themselves with the garbage that they are told is good food until they are bloated, and then crapping all over so everyone can see how smart they are and how good the chow is.

    I intend to spend/waste much less time discussing things with stupid people on blogs. There are plenty of people on blogs who are capable of real discussion, who are not immediately dismissive of someone because of who or what they do or do not support. I support the right of any candidate who wants to run for office, and I support their non-toxic supporters. If someone wants to call me names for not liking their candidate or party (for example, you idiots with your ‘Hillary Hater’ label), I will ignore them until they can learn to communicate instead of bleating like the sheeple they are.

    The internet is good for learning about things that interest you. You can read many opinions, do some research and then come to your own conclusion about something that interests you. Then when you read or watch the news, get some political mailing or are reading something on the net, you are able to compare the reality you know to the one that whoever is trying to feed you.

    More people are coming to the above realization and are becoming true independents. They ‘get it’, and are tired of getting it (usually in the rear). The faster we can kill the corporate media and the party system in politics, the better. An informed public is one that will watch out for what their real interests are, not the ones that they are spoon fed.

    We need fewer sheep, and this is happening as the parties are both shrinking because people are discovering that the two major parties are little more than a double headed nickel. They keep calling ‘heads’ on the flip, and we are stuck with tails. Or more accurately, stuck the tail end.

    Enough of my first rant of the new year. Have a happy rest of the new year! ;)

  40. 40
    STEVEinSC says:

    The main threat Fux News and its gang see in Ron Paul is one thing and one thing only: his opposition to “War Without End” and George’s Iraq adventure in particular. Paul represents a break in the solid GOP front and a place for many conservatives to rally who are suspicious of the motives for the war. Fux and gang are not just the GOP’s Ministry of Propaganda, they are PNAC/AIPAC’s Ministry of Propaganda.

  41. 41

    Meanwhile, can you explain to me why your poll had two choices, “Some Republican” and “Ron Paul”, for people who aren’t voting Democratic?

    I’d wager that Michael D. considers the rest of the Republican field to be little more than carbon-copies of one another as regards policy and electoral ethics. Ron Paul is at least somewhat different.

  42. 42
    Laertes says:

    Meanwhile, can you explain to me why your poll had two choices, “Some Republican” and “Ron Paul”, for people who aren’t voting Democratic?

    Can you explain to me why that demands an explanation? Your whiny and aggrieved tone is coming through clearly enough, but the actual substance of your complaint is far from obvious.

  43. 43
    myiq2xu says:

    Meanwhile, can you explain to me why your poll had two choices, “Some Republican” and “Ron Paul”, for people who aren’t voting Democratic?

    Can you explain to me why that demands an explanation? Your whiny and aggrieved tone is coming through clearly enough, but the actual substance of your complaint is far from obvious.

    RoPaul really isn’t a Republican, especially not by today’s standards.

    He really believes in smaller government, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and the Constitution.

    He’s also a rascist and lunatic, which is the only thing he has in common with today’s GOP

  44. 44
    Kynn says:

    He’s also a rascist and lunatic, which is the only thing he has in common with today’s GOP

    Don’t forget homophobic.

  45. 45
    myiq2xu says:
    He’s also a rascist and lunatic, which is the only thing he has in common with today’s GOP

    Don’t forget homophobic.

    Perhaps I misspoke. It appears RoPaul might be a mainstream Republican after all.

    I guess the real question is whether he sucks dick or not.

    If he does, he is.

    s/ The Notorious myiq2xu

  46. 46
    Scofield says:

    Wow. It seems in every single discussion about the election someone has to be a big dummy and say that Ron Paul is a racist. There is nothing he has said that would every be considered racist. If you’ve done your research, you’d know that.

    If it’s that newsletter in the early 90’s, look that up, it’s been debunked. Sorry.
    If it’s the Don Black donation he kept, get over it. It was $500 from an individual Ron Paul shares no views with (except maybe state’s rights, but what state today would allow its laws to roll back to 1860 anyhow?) Hillary gets way more than that from way more evil people (special interest groups), and she gladly keeps it.
    If you really think he meets up with Nazis on a regular, wrong again. This information is for the taking; I don’t need to link it.
    If you’ve something else that makes him sound racist, let’s hear it.

    And what about him makes him a lunatic? People I’ve met who think that he’s “crazy” are under the impression that he wants to dismantle every federal program on the first day (something I would consider crazy), which is

    a.) not at all part of his campaign
    b.) impossible anyway.

    Ron Paul is for keeping the federal government out of our lives. I guess some people who need the government to make sure their okay want that sort of thing.

    Ron Paul isn’t crazy, or racist, and he should definintely be allowed to be part of the Fox Forum. Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes? They have no support, grassroots or otherwise. Paul atleast has the obvious and very diverse grassroots support. But anyone who has been paying attention knows that Ron Paul has a legit shot in placing in atleast the top 4 in NH and Iowa, and that Fred and Rudy are just about toast.

    So yes, please, someone, give me a good reason for excluding Paul, and do it without calling him a lunatic or a racist. Because then, not only would you be wrong, but you’d also have to prove to me that Thompson, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain and Romney are completely sane and not racist. Good luck.

  47. 47
    The Other Steve says:

    He’s also a rascist and lunatic, which is the only thing he has in common with today’s GOP

    Most importantly he votes consistently for a massive Federal bureaucracy of abortion hunters.

  48. 48

    […] Update: Over at Balloon Juice, Mike D. sheds a bitter tear on behalf of his libertarian boy toy.  That’s understandable, since he’s a total nutjob.  Perverts of a feather flock together. […]

  49. 49
    Psycheout says:

    Calling that load of dung Fair & Balanced™ requires one to “dig through the shit pile to find a few bits of corn,” as it were.

    Spoken like a true liberal. Thanks for the grotesque analogy, you pervert.

    Has anyone actually made a case for excluding him?

    He’s a nutjob. I hope that helps.

  50. 50
    Psycheout says:

    The actual reason, of course, is that FOX is a GOP propaganda organ, and “dissident” republicans like Ron Paul aren’t welcome because they buck the party line too much.

    No, I’m pretty sure it’s because he’s a nutjob polling in the single digits. But do keep spouting those black helicopter conspiracy theories. Be sure to tie your coat at the back, since it’s cold this time of year, you mad tin foil hatter.

  51. 51
    demimondian says:

    Hmm. Psicko, I have a serious question for you. Which of the Republican candidates isn’t a nutjob?

  52. 52
    Laertes says:

    “He’s a nutjob. I hope that helps.”

    Got news for ya buddy: Your entire party is nutjobs. But Paul at this point appears to be a more promising candidate than Fred Thompson, and nobody’s excluding Thompson.

    Got anything else? Or are we just back to “we only like fake mavericks like McCain. The real thing makes the rest of our guys look bad, and we can’t let that happen”?

  53. 53
    myiq2xu says:

    Hmm. Psicko, I have a serious question for you. Which of the Republican candidates isn’t a nutjob?

    Which of the Spears sisters isn’t a virgin?

  54. 54
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Which of the Spears sisters isn’t a virgin?

    Fixed?

    On another note, Thomas of RedState fame, has written a GBCW diary of a sort. It is a pretty funny read, but even better is his no-holds barred assessment of the current crop of Repub Prez wannabees. All in all, reading a Repub meltdown can be entertaining at times. Plus it is a great way to kick off the new year!

    Thomas seems like he loves what he believes more than what reality is dealing him. Bites, eh? ;)

  55. 55
    Cyrus says:

    Well, while letting him play is great for the Democrats, for all those reasons you give it’s terrible for having an actual debate. Paul will eat up screen time better given to other candidates who might actually win, and other candidates will spend time attacking Paul rather than discussing whatever drivel passes for Republican “policy” these days

    I’m not even sure he has no chance. Sure, he’s not the candidate I’d bet on for the Republican primary, but it’s not that far out. Remember that he’s the only candidate who represents Republicans who oppose the status quo of the Bush administration. Limited government extremist ideologues, isolationists, anti-Semites who might see the war as being on Israel’s behalf (troll protection: I’m not saying Ron Paul is an anti-Semite himself, only that he is obviously the candidate for them), and people who have realized what a clusterfuck things are but refuse to vote Democrat for some reason… Ron Paul is their guy. Those groups might not make up a majority of Republicans, but the rest of the party is getting split three or four ways between all the other “double Gitmo” candidates.

    But Ron Paul is opposed by the party money and the party establishment? Maybe. But someone also said upthread that the party probably expects to lose in 2008. If it’s Ron Paul who takes the fall, it might hurt them less than a candidate who actually does represent the GOP. I dunno.

    And what about him makes him a lunatic? People I’ve met who think that he’s “crazy” are under the impression that he wants to dismantle every federal program on the first day (something I would consider crazy), which is

    a.) not at all part of his campaign
    b.) impossible anyway.

    Please provide a link to someone saying he would successfully do all that, and/or would try to do it on the first day. However, do you seriously doubt that he opposes the existence of the IRS, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy and the Federal Emergency Management Administration? He couldn’t literally get rid of them all, but he could obviously underfund them, staff them with people like Brownie, etc. Ample reason to oppose him, even if he won’t literally abolish those agencies.

    Ron Paul is for keeping the federal government out of our lives. I guess some people who need the government to make sure their okay want that sort of thing.

    Ron Paul has no problem at all with government getting involved in your life, it just can’t be the federal government. Why should I consider that an intelligent position? More importantly, though, read up on his votes on abortion and get back to us.

  56. 56
    b-psycho says:

    do you seriously doubt that he opposes the existence of the IRS, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy and the Federal Emergency Management Administration

    Considering what the activities of those departments consist of — especially the last two — it amazes me how anyone can defend their existence.

    This pseudo-left statist narrative that the government is wonderful as long as it’s controlled by “the right people”, and the only reason its bloated, corrupt, and at times downright evil is because right-wingers genuinely want a smaller government and are taking the scenic route to such is a delusional load of horseshit. FEMA didn’t get Brownie because Bush secretly agrees with Ron Paul & his supporters about its usefulness, he got the position because he was a loyalist, a pal, that’s what politicians do.

    Democratic mainstreamers can dream all they want about handing the controls of the State to a legion of mythical selfless Servant-Gods who have no interest of their own and would never slack off, lie to anyone, or game the system, it’s not going to happen. Political power, the ability to use force to pursue an agenda allegedly on the behalf of other people, inherently attracts scumbags, deal with it.

    BTW: before anyone barks, no I do not support Ron Paul.

  57. 57
    Scofield says:

    Ron Paul has no problem at all with government getting involved in your life, it just can’t be the federal government. Why should I consider that an intelligent position? More importantly, though, read up on his votes on abortion and get back to us.

    I’m not sure making abortion completely federally legal and even sometimes federally funded is an intelligent position, either. I’m all for it, but not everybody. I know my own parents would have heartattacks if any of their taxes went towards paying for anyone’s abortion, and I respect that, which is why I respect Ron Paul’s position. I’ll do whatever I can to make it legal wherever I live. Politics should be more localized anyway. The federal government is not and never will be a moral compass. I know state government’s aren’t either, but they are a closer representation of the people in that area’s position.

    His position on abortion is about the only thing I disagree with him on, and it’s one I can look past and still support him. And yes, I know how he feels about dismantling all those government programs, but he’s no idiot. He has said time and time again he won’t try to do that, but he will work towards not needing them, which is something I am all for. I seriously doubt Ron Paul would employ the chronyism techniques that Bush lives by. We’re just gonna have to disagree there, Cyrus.

    The fact of the matter is there is no other presidential candidate in either field that even grabs my attention. I don’t believe in universal health care, I don’t believe in the Patriot Act, and I don’t believe in the “Culture War” that the evangelicals are waging. Ron Paul just makes the most sense.

    also,

    Please provide a link to someone saying he would successfully do all that, and/or would try to do it on the first day.

    These were in-person discussions. I don’t spend much time on the internet, but Ron Paul’s run has me on here a little more. Wish I could provide a link, but believe me, people believe this. Maybe not on the first day, but when they hear what he’s personally against, they instantly think that that’s the basis of his entire campaign.

  58. 58
    Cyrus says:

    FEMA didn’t get Brownie because Bush secretly agrees with Ron Paul & his supporters about its usefulness, he got the position because he was a loyalist, a pal, that’s what politicians do.

    It worked fine under James Lee Witt, even though he was a Clinton loyalist.

    And yes, I know how he feels about dismantling all those government programs, but he’s no idiot. He has said time and time again he won’t try to do that, but he will work towards not needing them, which is something I am all for. I seriously doubt Ron Paul would employ the chronyism techniques that Bush lives by.

    There are more possibilities other than “left-wing technocratic ideal” and “government by incompetent cronies.” (Maybe I was too glib in my original comment.) Sure, Paul won’t completely defund FEMA or sign an executive order abolishing it in his first term. He’ll just appoint an executive director who doesn’t believe it should exist, thinks we’d get by just fine without it, and therefore is probably less experienced with what FEMA does than someone else would be. Those aren’t as bad as getting rid of it completely, but they aren’t good either.

    I link to this article relatively often, but that’s just because it’s relevant so often. To greatly summarize, expecting someone who fervently believes in small government to manage a bureaucracy is like expecting a vegan to cook a beef bourguignon.

    Also, I’m very curious how you could “work towards not needing” a number of those agencies, like the Department of Energy. This is an honest question, and maybe somewhat naive as well. I realize it hasn’t been around forever, but aspects of what it does have been around since the development of nuclear power, according to Wikipedia. We could get rid of the Department of Energy and give its responsibilities to a different agency, but what would be the point? Or we could certainly make cuts or take unrelated offices like the Office of Cyber Security out of the Department of Energy or get rid of them entirely. But state governments have enough problems without trying to fund nuclear research and regulate nuclear power, and I sure as hell wouldn’t trust the free market with that.

    Or the IRS. I know nobody likes paying taxes, but in the real world, government revenue has to come from somewhere, and toll roads and national park entrance fees probably won’t do it. We could substantially shrink the IRS — I’d love to do that myself. But the best way to do that would be to get rid of all the loopholes and write-offs and exemptions. Since the majority of those benefit corporations and/or wealthy people, somehow I doubt there will be serious reform in that area.

    Politics should be more localized anyway.

    Why do you say that?

    The federal government is not and never will be a moral compass. I know state government’s aren’t either, but they are a closer representation of the people in that area’s position.

    Being a closer representation is often insufficient. The Civil Rights Act, for example.

  59. 59
    Birdzilla says:

    screw fox news I DONT WATCH ANY OF THOSE DARN NEWS SHOWS THEIR TOO LIBERAL

  60. 60
    Richard Bottoms says:

    MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. “According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery.”

    REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the–that iron, iron fist..

    MR. RUSSERT: We’d still have slavery.

    REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

    Fuck Ron Paul.

  61. 61
    Scofield says:

    Please give me one reason politics shouldn’t be more localized. Local politics excites and empowers people. It allows us to be in even more control of our immediate surroundings. That’s why Ron Paul’s ideas inspire so many people. He reminds citizens that they’re actually the ones in power, and that they are the government, and that the White House is actually supposed to work for them.

    Besides, why should Maine and Hawaii, for instance, have to live by all the same laws? It doesn’t make any sense to me. We’re 50 different states spanning almost 4 million square miles…we all have to have to the same energy plan? the same marriage laws? the same abortion laws? The same drug laws?

    And why trust the federal government over the free markets for anything? That seems to be the big divider here for most people. You either trust the free markets or you trust a distant central government bureaucracy. The former makes me feel much more comfortable than the latter.

    Our country doesnt need another bandaid. it needs the bandaid pulled off, and it needs to heal. I believe a freer market and less reliance on goverment safety nets (and less government in our lives in general) will help heal this country and everyone in it immensely in the long-run.

  62. 62
    Cyrus says:

    Please give me one reason politics shouldn’t be more localized.

    You’re saying the pretty big honking reason both Richard Bottoms and I already gave doesn’t count? Fine: economies of scale. My state recently passed a law requiring the smallest rural school districts to consolidate. It may not actually be unpopular, but it’s controversial. Some people won’t like it because their extended family will no longer make up six percent of the voters in the district all by themselves, and some people won’t like it because there’s a chance that their kids will have a longer bus ride in the morning and some people won’t like it just because “we’ve always had our own school!”

    But consolidation means that the music teacher who works part-time at three different schools might not have to deal with three separate employers and paychecks, and resources can be traded or loaned between schools with far less paperwork, and schools only have to pay the salaries for one or two business managers instead of five. And it probably couldn’t have been done without state-level regulation because agreements between schools would require majority votes in each of several different districts (something like this was tried recently) and therefore can be defeated by a majority of any one town — which is a minority of the people who would be affected, maybe a small minority, so it’s not nearly as democratic as it might sound.

    Besides, why should Maine and Hawaii, for instance, have to live by all the same laws? It doesn’t make any sense to me. We’re 50 different states spanning almost 4 million square miles…we all have to have to the same energy plan? the same marriage laws? the same abortion laws? The same drug laws?

    It seems like you’re conflating two different issues here. Energy plan, maybe some parts of drug laws — I don’t think those should be standardized across the country. Same with public transportation, for example; it would be entirely unreasonable to require or try to create the same public transportation infrastructure in Idaho as in New York City, or even in New York State. But marriage laws and abortion laws and in some ways drug laws are basic freedom issues. Morality and individual rights don’t have much to do with whether your neighbors like what how you use them. In a practical sense, sometimes stuff like that has to be federalized, but if miscegenation laws (for example) are unfair and tyrannical in Illinois, then they are unfair and tyrannical in South Carolina too.

    And why trust the federal government over the free markets for anything? That seems to be the big divider here for most people. You either trust the free markets or you trust a distant central government bureaucracy. The former makes me feel much more comfortable than the latter.

    Again, if you’d rather leave nuclear research and regulation and other equally big issues up to the free market, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. First of all, it’s exactly the kind of thing the federal government exists for, even under a minimalist view. Nuclear power is an interstate issue, both because of the interstate power grid and because the area affected by any significant disaster would be larger than any one state. And sure, I realize that there are been problems even under government regulation. But do you really think things would be better with less oversight and accountability?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Update: Over at Balloon Juice, Mike D. sheds a bitter tear on behalf of his libertarian boy toy.  That’s understandable, since he’s a total nutjob.  Perverts of a feather flock together. […]

Comments are closed.