NH GOP Objects to Fox Censoring Ron Paul

MANCHESTER, NH -- Texas Congressman Ron Paul is the Republican national Republican party bosses and their amen corner in the media love to hate. And they hate him so much that they are undermining an essential argument for New Hampshire's preeminent position in the presidential nominating process in order to deny Paul a place in the last debate before Tuesday's first-in-the-nation primary

That GOP insiders and their media acolytes despise Paul is no secret.

Paul has an unsettling habit of exposing the intellectual and political vulnerabilities of Republican frontrunners like former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He also has a mass appeal – as evidenced by his remarkable fund-raising, his unexpectedly strong finish in Thursday's Iowa caucuses and his solid position in New Hampshire polls – that scares Washington insiders who view the GOP as an extension of their special interests.

So it is perversely understandable that national Republican operatives approve of Fox News's decision to exclude Paul from Sunday's GOP debate.

In a move even more heavy-handed than that of ABC News, which cobbled together arbitrary rules to prevent Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich from joining Saturday night's Democratic debate, Fox announced on December 27 that Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson had been invited to join the last debate before Tuesday's vote.

Paul was not welcome, announced Fox's political commissars, who also excluded California Congressman Duncan Hunter.

A week later, Paul beat Giuliani in the Iowa caucuses. New Hampshire polls suggest there is a very good chance that Paul will beat both Giuliani and Thompson – who many observers expect to end his candidacy in short order -- in Tuesday's primary.

Yet, national Republican operatives and their allies at Fox have been steadfast in rejecting appeals from Paul backers and non-aligned observers to rethink the decision to exclude a candidate whose opposition to the war in Iraq and defenses of civil liberties has made him a hero to college students and others not usually attracted to the Grand Old Party.

The stance proved too much for the New Hampshire Republican Party, which on Saturday disassociated itself from the Fox debate. The local Republicans are concerned about maintaining their state's credibility as a place where campaigns start on a level playing field.

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

That's not merely an honorable position. It's a practical one. With more and more objections being raised to the special status of first-caucus-state Iowa and first-primary-state New Hampshire when it comes to presidential politics, the elimination of that level playing field – even if it is done by national partisans and their media allies – undermines the last real argument for allowing two small states to maintain their definitional role in selecting party nominees and presidents.

Comments (21)

1. Fox's (News Corp)share price is following its credibility as a news source. They're both in a nose dive.

   Posted by gao xia en at 01/06/2008 @ 05:52am

2. New Hampshire, the Live Free or Die state, has for the NHGOP, become the Speak Free or Goodbye state. It's a very honorable position. Fergus Cullen is a hero.

   An Arkansas Republican

   Posted by Skipper1946 at 01/06/2008 @ 09:46am

3. "...undermines the last real argument for allowing two small states to maintain their definitional role in selecting party nominees and presidents." ---Posted by John Nichols at 01/06/2008 @ 09:40am

   Well, Mr Nichols, you just go ahead and get started on trying to end the first-place status of Iowa and New Hampshire....

   Start now, and I'm sure in four years, it'll be farther along than impeachment is now!

   Posted by Mask at 01/06/2008 @ 09:54am

4. Thank you John Nichols for being honest about the bias expressed by some of the national mass media against Ron Paul and his positions. There is not nearly enough mention of how the conventional national mass media especially television is controlled by a consortium of powerful special interests and how unfair and unbalanced news reporting has become on many of these outlets (i.e. Fox News). There is seemingly little to no mention of how support for the war and an US interventionist by the media props up the rating of these media corporations and their net worth. Furthermore, seldom mentioned is how the war and US foreign policy has increased this media's profits or how some media owners have other interest and profits to protect in related war industries. Particularly the military industrial complex which has been busily siphoning away the wealth of the middle class helping to undermine the dollar's value and the financial strength of this country by escalating our national debt during this Iraq debacle and current US foreign policy strategy.

   Maintaining an interventionist foreign policy today only serves the needs of special interest concerns such as American oil companies and those from military industrial complex and mass media consortiums. Unless you are a major stockholder in one of these concerns then it does nothing for you. In respect to the national interest of the United States, all it does is make us look like the bullies of the world, which is why we are now loathed all around the planet and dramatically increase the national debt. In contrast to the era before WWII, when The United States had a noninterventionist foreign policy, most all countries and peoples admired the US. We can still have the strongest military in the world and have better national security if we are meddling in other people's affairs all around the planet.

   Wake up people elect Dr Paul, bring the troops home and put them on our border!

   David Douglas

   Posted by Georgia_Boy at 01/06/2008 @ 10:58am

5. , bring the troops home and put them on our border!

   David Douglas

   Posted by GEORGIA_BOY 01/06/2008 @ 10:58am | ignore this person

   first half yes, second half emphatically NO.what will they do at the border, shoot Mexicans coming in? this is not an issue to be addressed with lethal force, or any other force.

   Posted by brannigan at 01/06/2008 @ 11:36am

6. , bring the troops home and put them on our border!

   David Douglas

   Posted by GEORGIA_BOY 01/06/2008 @ 10:58am | ignore this person

   first half yes, second half emphatically NO.what will they do at the border, shoot Mexicans coming in? this is not an issue to be addressed with lethal force, or any other force.

   Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/06/2008 @ 11:36am

   uh, that's the canadian border he's talking about.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/06/2008 @ 11:43am

7. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/06/2008 @ 11:43am | ignore this person

   it's not all about you.

   Posted by brannigan at 01/06/2008 @ 11:51am

8. Ron Paul gets mentioned in a headline, a rash of Paulites show up on the blog. They grace us with their presence long enough to reap RESE like doses of spam and then disappear. Back into the cyber void remeniscent of Ron Paul's chances for presidency.

   Troops on the borders, bad idea. Fence, even dumber. Actually enforcing the laws already on the books, well there's a novel idea.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 01/06/2008 @ 12:37pm

9. it's not all about you.

   Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/06/2008 @ 11:51am

   heheh.

   that's funny.

   the other night you suggested i take my canadian fingertips elsewhere; i believe to the "molson blog" is where you wanted to send me.

   well, since molson and COORS have amalgamated*, i can see that my presence here is needed more than ever.

   imagine that, an american upset over foreign intervention!

   "the foolishness of american exceptionalism" -- Posted by BRANNIGAN sometime recently.**

   "get your canadian butt outta here" -- Posted by BRANNIGAN sometime recentlier.***

   *The 2005 members of the board of directors of the company are: Francesco Bellini, John Cleghorn, Peter Coors, Melissa Coors, Charles Herington, Franklin Hobbs, Leo Kiely, Gary S. Matthews, Andrew Molson, Eric Molson, David O'Brien, Pamela Patsley, and Sanford Riley.

   **slightly paraphrased to avoid looking for actual quote

   ***slightly paraphrased to avoid looking for actual quote

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/06/2008 @ 12:44pm

10. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/06/2008 @ 12:37pm

    It happened the last time Paul was headlined in a "Nation" story....they show up, starting whooping up for RP (who I like, don't misunderstand...but he's not going to win the GOP nom and would be a simple spoiler as an Indie)....

    and then the thread dies and they scurry away again.

    Posted by Mask at 01/06/2008 @ 12:45pm

11. Frost, it was a humorous aside. your defensiveness over the undeniable fact that you are an outsider looking in. this was incidentally accompanied by several compliments on your posts.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/06/2008 @ 12:47pm

12. we don't need troops on any of our borders. that would also violate the posse comitatus.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/06/2008 @ 12:49pm

13. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/06/2008 @ 12:47pm

    está bien.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/06/2008 @ 12:59pm

14. MASK, yep, yep, and yep. Total agreement here.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/06/2008 @ 1:18pm

15. >>>Actually enforcing the laws already on the books, well there's a novel idea. >>>Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/06/2008 @ 12:37pm

    Fritzthecat, I am glad you agree with Ron Paul that the rule of law (our Constitution) is important and should be enforced. Your message on this forum shows that the message of liberty and following the Constitution is spreading.

    Thank you!

    Posted by JohnMcG at 01/06/2008 @ 1:22pm

16. NWS is a hot air balloon: it rises because of the heat it produces and captures with the thin fabric of public perception. When we strip away the layer of public perception, we see nothing underneath but hot air. Viewers are the fabric keeping NWS afloat; we are seeing increasing evidence that what Fox peddles as news is nothing more than libel, fraud and propaganda. Without its artificial layer of public perception, NWS stock is worth no more than the value of its physical assets: practically nothing.

    Posted by Zephram Stark at 01/06/2008 @ 3:14pm

17. Thank you for your column about the attempts to censure Ron Paul. As you well know, this is happening to Dennis Kucinich also. The sad part is that these two gentlemen were right about Iraq from the start. Both voted against the Iraq War resolution and the Patriot Act. Both political parties and many of their members are rejecting them. If any one is an 'agent of change' is is them for speaking the truth when to question Bush's war plans was to bring hatred toward you. I will both of them well.

    Posted by tommy paine at 01/06/2008 @ 10:10pm

18. This is typical of the stranglehold the MSM has on ALL issues that need to be debated in full view of the American viewing audience. Since when has the media been given the "right?" to decide for the viewing audience, just who should be allowed to participate in these debates? If time is a restraint, then there should be NO DEBATES,especially since most are just controlled "sound bites," where most candidates just repeat their talking points, very seldom actually DEBATING!!!

    Either give ALL candidates an equal opportunity to participate, or just call it what it really is; an opportunity for the "Chosen Ones" to get FREE POLITICAL ADVERTISING!!

    Posted by revdr72741 at 01/06/2008 @ 11:41pm

19. Posted by REVDR72741 01/06/2008 @ 11:41pm

    Amen, brother (or sister - whichever applies)!

    The media gets licenses from the government (nominally, we the people), and as such, should have no say in the manner in which the political process proceeds. The networks should be forced to give equal time to each and every candidate during "debates"; and each candidate should be able to run adds free of charge (say 30 minutes per month per candidate) in order to minimize the impact money has on the process and to ensure that no candidate is ignored.

    Will it ever happen? Not likely. That doesn't mean that Americans shouldn't demand their rightful control over the airwaves.

    Posted by Turk33 at 01/07/2008 @ 08:23am

20. ...it'll be farther along than impeachment is now!

    Posted by MASK 01/06/2008 @ 09:54am

    Washington Post

    Why I Believe Bush Must Go

    Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse.

    By George McGovern

    Sunday, January 6, 2008

    http://tinyurl.com/2lo4jt

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/07/2008 @ 12:35pm

21. As a liberal anti-war Democrat, I have always been impressed with Ron Paul's courage to stand up against the majority when Congress was goose-stepping to the Bush Adminsitration's war drum-beat. I really like the man. Now it is fashionable for our over-the-edge ultra right wing neighbors to support Mr. Paul. I am tickled. I am even more tickled that the right wing's beloved FOX noise is not allowing Paul to speak. It will be so much fun to listen to the tortuous verbal machinations of the right-wingers to reconcile anti-war Ron Paul and their rigid right think, and then to reconcile their support of Paul and lack thereof by their beloved FOX. Personally, I hope President Obama offers Paul the Secretary of Treasurery position.

    Posted by from_ Idaho at 01/07/2008 @ 11:09pm