Excluding Paul

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Fox News is excluding Paul from an upcoming NH debate. Not a wise move, IMHO. He can use this as a basis to go third party later, e.g. "The Republican party excluded me. I had no choice."

NH GOP to FOX: Don't chill the debate

by Jason George

CONCORD – In light of FOX News' planned cut-off of Republican Ron Paul from an upcoming presidential primary campaign debate, New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen released the following statement regarding weekend debates:

“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all serious candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.

“Therefore, the New Hampshire Republican Party calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.

“The New Hampshire Republican Party has notified FOX News of our position, and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6.”

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics...hill_the_d.html

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Personally, I don't have a problem with them trimming the field a little to focus on the truly viable candidates, but I think it shouldn't happen until at least one or two primaries/caucuses have been completed. It's too early to exclude someone when we haven't even had the first vote yet.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Personally, I don't have a problem with them trimming the field a little to focus on the truly viable candidates, but I think it shouldn't happen until at least one or two primaries/caucuses have been completed. It's too early to exclude someone when we haven't even had the first vote yet.

It needs to be based on some objective criteria. Paul is currently the hottest fundraiser in the Republican field and polling ahead of Thompson and others in NH.

[otterinbham 0]

My ardor for Paul has cooled a bit in the past week. Nevertheless, I think he's a signficant and important voice, and is enjoying a great deal of momentum. In a campaign where, so far, candidates are coming out of nowhere, it's way too early to discount anyone. After all, McCain was written off as dead in the water two months ago. Now look at him.

On the Democratic side, I think it's a two candidate race at this point (Edwards is fading fast). Dodd and Richardson, as much as I like them, don't seem to have any traction.

[WarEagle007 1]

My ardor for Paul has cooled a bit in the past week. Nevertheless, I think he's a signficant and important voice, and is enjoying a great deal of momentum. In a campaign where, so far, candidates are coming out of nowhere, it's way too early to discount anyone. After all, McCain was written off as dead in the water two months ago. Now look at him.

On the Democratic side, I think it's a two candidate race at this point (Edwards is fading fast). Dodd and Richardson, as much as I like them, don't seem to have any traction.

Edwards has seen an unbelievable surge in Iowa this past week and a lot of people are starting to say he has a strong shot at taking it.

[otterinbham 0]

My ardor for Paul has cooled a bit in the past week. Nevertheless, I think he's a signficant and important voice, and is enjoying a great deal of momentum. In a campaign where, so far, candidates are coming out of nowhere, it's way too early to discount anyone. After all, McCain was written off as dead in the water two months ago. Now look at him.

On the Democratic side, I think it's a two candidate race at this point (Edwards is fading fast). Dodd and Richardson, as much as I like them, don't seem to have any traction.

Edwards has seen an unbelievable surge in Iowa this past week and a lot of people are starting to say he has a strong shot at taking it.

Good point. Which is why no candidate should be exclused from the early debate.

[WarEagle007 1]

My ardor for Paul has cooled a bit in the past week. Nevertheless, I think he's a signficant and important voice, and is enjoying a great deal of momentum. In a campaign where, so far, candidates are coming out of nowhere, it's way too early to discount anyone. After all, McCain was written off as dead in the water two months ago. Now look at him.

On the Democratic side, I think it's a two candidate race at this point (Edwards is fading fast). Dodd and Richardson, as much as I like them, don't seem to have any traction.

Edwards has seen an unbelievable surge in Iowa this past week and a lot of people are starting to say he has a strong shot at taking it.

Good point. Which is why no candidate should be exclused from the early debate.

They may have done it because Ron Paul is hardly a Republican. Specifically, his policies on defense and international relations go completely against traditional conservative views.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

My ardor for Paul has cooled a bit in the past week. Nevertheless, I think he's a signficant and important voice, and is enjoying a great deal of momentum. In a campaign where, so far, candidates are coming out of nowhere, it's way too early to discount anyone. After all, McCain was written off as dead in the water two months ago. Now look at him.

On the Democratic side, I think it's a two candidate race at this point (Edwards is fading fast). Dodd and Richardson, as much as I like them, don't seem to have any traction.

Edwards has seen an unbelievable surge in Iowa this past week and a lot of people are starting to say he has a strong shot at taking it.

Good point. Which is why no candidate should be exclused from the early debate.

They may have done it because Ron Paul is hardly a Republican. Specifically, his policies on defense and international relations go completely against traditional conservative views.

Paul's been a Republican for years and his policies on defense and international relations are actually more in line with traditional conservative views than the neocons.

Guiliani is pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Is he a Republican?

[WarEagle007 1]

My ardor for Paul has cooled a bit in the past week. Nevertheless, I think he's a signficant and important voice, and is enjoying a great deal of momentum. In a campaign where, so far, candidates are coming out of nowhere, it's way too early to discount anyone. After all, McCain was written off as dead in the water two months ago. Now look at him.

On the Democratic side, I think it's a two candidate race at this point (Edwards is fading fast). Dodd and Richardson, as much as I like them, don't seem to have any traction.

Edwards has seen an unbelievable surge in Iowa this past week and a lot of people are starting to say he has a strong shot at taking it.

Good point. Which is why no candidate should be exclused from the early debate.

They may have done it because Ron Paul is hardly a Republican. Specifically, his policies on defense and international relations go completely against traditional conservative views.

Paul's been a Republican for years and his policies on defense and international relations are actually more in line with traditional conservative views than the neocons.

Guiliani is pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Is he a Republican?

Since when do "traditional conservatives" believe in completely removing the U.S. from the international arena by reverting to isolationist policies? This isn't the 1910s...

I'm a Republican and I'm not opposed to civil unions.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I can't abide Giuliani's views on torture, much less his abortion views. I don't care if he's a Republican or not.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

My ardor for Paul has cooled a bit in the past week. Nevertheless, I think he's a signficant and important voice, and is enjoying a great deal of momentum. In a campaign where, so far, candidates are coming out of nowhere, it's way too early to discount anyone. After all, McCain was written off as dead in the water two months ago. Now look at him.

On the Democratic side, I think it's a two candidate race at this point (Edwards is fading fast). Dodd and Richardson, as much as I like them, don't seem to have any traction.

Edwards has seen an unbelievable surge in Iowa this past week and a lot of people are starting to say he has a strong shot at taking it.

Good point. Which is why no candidate should be exclused from the early debate.

They may have done it because Ron Paul is hardly a Republican. Specifically, his policies on defense and international relations go completely against traditional conservative views.

Paul's been a Republican for years and his policies on defense and international relations are actually more in line with traditional conservative views than the neocons.

Guiliani is pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Is he a Republican?

Since when do "traditional conservatives" believe in completely removing the U.S. from the international arena by reverting to isolationist policies? This isn't the 1910s...

I'm a Republican and I'm not opposed to civil unions.

It's not the 1910s. And you didn't say Neo-conservative.

The Old Right emerged in opposition to the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt. By 1937 they formed a Conservative coalition that controlled Congress until 1964. In 1939-41 they were non-interventionist and opposed entering WWII. The Old Right's "America First" attitude was organized by the America First Committee. Later, most opposed NATO and US military intervention in the Korean War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Right_%28United_States%29

These folks consider themselves traditional conservatives:

http://www.amconmag.com/

[otterinbham 0]

Actually, I think this is Fox deciding to exclude a candidate whose views don't agree with its editorial board.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Actually, I think this is Fox deciding to exclude a candidate whose views don't agree with its editorial board.

That's how it appears.

[WarEagle007 1]

My ardor for Paul has cooled a bit in the past week. Nevertheless, I think he's a signficant and important voice, and is enjoying a great deal of momentum. In a campaign where, so far, candidates are coming out of nowhere, it's way too early to discount anyone. After all, McCain was written off as dead in the water two months ago. Now look at him.

On the Democratic side, I think it's a two candidate race at this point (Edwards is fading fast). Dodd and Richardson, as much as I like them, don't seem to have any traction.

Edwards has seen an unbelievable surge in Iowa this past week and a lot of people are starting to say he has a strong shot at taking it.

Good point. Which is why no candidate should be exclused from the early debate.

They may have done it because Ron Paul is hardly a Republican. Specifically, his policies on defense and international relations go completely against traditional conservative views.

Paul's been a Republican for years and his policies on defense and international relations are actually more in line with traditional conservative views than the neocons.

Guiliani is pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Is he a Republican?

Since when do "traditional conservatives" believe in completely removing the U.S. from the international arena by reverting to isolationist policies? This isn't the 1910s...

I'm a Republican and I'm not opposed to civil unions.

It's not the 1910s. And you didn't say Neo-conservative.

The Old Right emerged in opposition to the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt. By 1937 they formed a Conservative coalition that controlled Congress until 1964. In 1939-41 they were non-interventionist and opposed entering WWII. The Old Right's "America First" attitude was organized by the America First Committee. Later, most opposed NATO and US military intervention in the Korean War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Right_%28United_States%29

These folks consider themselves traditional conservatives:

http://www.amconmag.com/

Good point, but at the same time I think you're going to be hard-pressed to find Republicans who believe we should completely eliminate our international military presence. Ron Paul quite literally said in a debate that since Osama bin-Laden wanted us out of Middle East, we should have given in to his demand and left, as well as leaving our other major international bases. I don't think I really have to elaborate on the incredibly harmful effects of this policy. When he said that in that particular debate, the crowd met it with very strong boos as well as every candidate to answer the question behind him pretty much talked about how ridiculous that is. Even Hilary Clinton said in a speech that she sees the necessity in the U.S. keeping bases in Iraq long term. Now, she's more than likely changed her views since she said that a few months ago, but still, somewhere inside her she recognizes the need for U.S. presence in every major region in the world.

For me specifically, I work for the Department of Defense and I'm fairly confident that Ron Paul being elected President would see the end of my line work within the DoD because my office works heavily with folks in our bases abroad.

Also, I could go find something that says exactly the same about the democratic front-runners this year. It's just the way politics has been this decade, very polarizing. All major races start this way though, you play to the left or right strong at the beginning to get the nomination, but once you get the nod from the party, you campaign back towards the center to capture the swing vote.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Good point, but at the same time I think you're going to be hard-pressed to find Republicans who believe we should completely eliminate our international military presence. Ron Paul quite literally said in a debate that since Osama bin-Laden wanted us out of Middle East, we should have given in to his demand and left, as well as leaving our other major international bases. I don't think I really have to elaborate on the incredibly harmful effects of this policy. When he said that in that particular debate, the crowd met it with very strong boos as well as every candidate to answer the question behind him pretty much talked about how ridiculous that is. Even Hilary Clinton said in a speech that she sees the necessity in the U.S. keeping bases in Iraq long term. Now, she's more than likely changed her views since she said that a few months ago, but still, somewhere inside her she recognizes the need for U.S. presence in every major region in the world.

For me specifically, I work for the Department of Defense and I'm fairly confident that Ron Paul being elected President would see the end of my line work within the DoD because my office works heavily with folks in our bases abroad.

I suspect your job is secure. The Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul wing of the Republican party is a minority, but it is there. You can embrace them, or they might bolt. Ron Paul has raised more money that Buchanan ever did. He has struck a cord with some folks.

[otterinbham 0]

Well, I think there are profound differences between Paul and Buchanan. Buchanan has always had a protectionist and interventionist bent in his economic views (Maybe a holdover from his days with Nixon). What's more, I think Buchanan looks upon government as a sculptor of morality. Paul does none of these things. He believes the role of the federal government is to stay out of the markets and out of people's private lives as much as possible. Plus Buchanan comes across as an angry brawler, while Paul comes over as somebody's reflective grandfather.

[Wishbone 0]

Actually, I think this is Fox deciding to exclude a candidate whose views don't agree with its editorial board.

BINGO! Foxnews is the mouthpiece for the neo-cons.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Well, I think there are profound differences between Paul and Buchanan. Buchanan has always had a protectionist and interventionist bent in his economic views (Maybe a holdover from his days with Nixon). What's more, I think Buchanan looks upon government as a sculptor of morality. Paul does none of these things. He believes the role of the federal government is to stay out of the markets and out of people's private lives as much as possible. Plus Buchanan comes across as an angry brawler, while Paul comes over as somebody's reflective grandfather.

There are profound differences between them. I couple them in regard to this area of agreement:

Since when do "traditional conservatives" believe in completely removing the U.S. from the international arena by reverting to isolationist policies?

They both have very similar views in regard to foreign policy.

[otterinbham 0]

Well, I think there are profound differences between Paul and Buchanan. Buchanan has always had a protectionist and interventionist bent in his economic views (Maybe a holdover from his days with Nixon). What's more, I think Buchanan looks upon government as a sculptor of morality. Paul does none of these things. He believes the role of the federal government is to stay out of the markets and out of people's private lives as much as possible. Plus Buchanan comes across as an angry brawler, while Paul comes over as somebody's reflective grandfather.

There are profound differences between them. I couple them in regard to this area of agreement:

Since when do "traditional conservatives" believe in completely removing the U.S. from the international arena by reverting to isolationist policies?

They both have very similar views in regard to foreign policy.

Good point. However, I would offer that the two probably would have two completely different approaches to the same end. I think Patrick Buchanan is far too bellicose to really participate in a national debate, while Ron Paul represents a more reasonable side.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

They may have done it because Ron Paul is hardly a a hardy Republican. Specifically, his policies on defense and international relations go completely against traditional conservative neo-conservative views.

Fixed that for ya.