Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: The Revolution will not be televised

  1. #1

    The Revolution will not be televised

    Fox News has decided not to invite Ron Paul to the New Hampshire debates this week due to his lack of support

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    more fodder for the Paulistinians to use as an excuse when their cult hero goes down in flames....

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2301944]Fox News has decided not to invite Ron Paul to the New Hampshire debates this week due to his lack of support[/QUOTE]

    Are they inviting St. Rudy of 9/11 who managed a whopping 3%??

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2301944]Fox News has decided not to invite Ron Paul to the New Hampshire debates this week due to his lack of support[/QUOTE]

    When is the New Hampshire debate?

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2301944]Fox News has decided not to invite Ron Paul to the New Hampshire debates this week due to his lack of support[/QUOTE]

    And yet Thompson and McCain will be there... sorry Ham, doesn't add up

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Parsippany, NJ
    Posts
    3,669
    Why is Fred Thompson going to be there?

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,941
    [QUOTE=adb280z;2302124]Why is Fred Thompson going to be there?[/QUOTE]

    Because all available polling, and the Iowa Caucus results, have him ahead of Paul. What would you have expected?

    Thompson is a low-chance candiadate. Paul is a no chance candidate. Simple as that.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2302053]And yet Thompson and McCain will be there... sorry Ham, doesn't add up[/QUOTE]

    Surely there has to be a cutoff point, no? I mean, why not invite Alan Keyes? Is there a conspiracy against Alan Keyes?

    Surely you're not comparing McCain to Paul in terms of relevance to the upcoming NH primary?

    BTW, I thought Paul has tens of millions of dollars. I live in MA and we see all of the NH ads. I haven't seen any for Paul. What's he doing with all of this money he's raising? He raises this money, I see no ads and his poll numbers stay flat...what gives, what's he doing with all of this cake? Staying in fancy hotels and eating nice steaks while he "runs" for office, Al Sharpton-style? (Anyone remember that story? Freaking hilarious....)

    Just kidding. Anyway, surely there has to be a cutoff point for inclusion in a debate, right? What cutoff would you use, if Fox is so wrong? (Not saying they are or aren't...don't really care...just asking)

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,710
    There's 6 real candidates. Thats where the cutoff point should be, right after Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCain, Paul, and Giuliani. Its not that hard.

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,941
    [QUOTE=Sharrow;2302806]There's 6 real candidates. Thats where the cutoff point should be, right after Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCain, Paul, and Giuliani. Its not that hard.[/QUOTE]

    It's not? I think many Republican folks would say there is only 5 "real" candidates. And those same folks would ALSO say coming to the "5 only" decision is "not that hard".

    Paul is simply not a real candidate in the eyes of the vast majority of Republicans. Polls have been saying that all along. And Iowa certainly didn't dispute it. 10% is not a mandate for anything, especially when that 10% is mostly made up of Liberals temporarily signing up to vote Republican, and kids signing up for their first (and most idelaistic) election.

    But lets see how he does in NH. Another fifth place low % finish should end his campaign, but we'll see. Somehow I see Paul dragging his 15 minutes of fame out to at least 20 minutes this year.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfield County, CT
    Posts
    6,870

    Fox Loses GOP Debate Support

    [url]http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Fox_Loses_GOP_Debate_Supp/2008/01/05/62034.html?s=al&promo_code=4269-1[/url]

    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.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2302839]It's not? I think many Republican folks would say there is only 5 "real" candidates. And those same folks would ALSO say coming to the "5 only" decision is "not that hard".

    Paul is simply not a real candidate in the eyes of the vast majority of Republicans. Polls have been saying that all along. And Iowa certainly didn't dispute it. 10% is not a mandate for anything, especially when that 10% is mostly made up of Liberals temporarily signing up to vote Republican, and kids signing up for their first (and most idelaistic) election.

    But lets see how he does in NH. Another fifth place low % finish should end his campaign, but we'll see. Somehow I see Paul dragging his 15 minutes of fame out to at least 20 minutes this year.[/QUOTE]How come the polls are Gospel (one that mainly survey landlines and some don't have Paul on the ballot) but the Iowa actual numbers are too skewed to count?

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2302590]Surely there has to be a cutoff point, no? I mean, why not invite Alan Keyes? Is there a conspiracy against Alan Keyes?

    Surely you're not comparing McCain to Paul in terms of relevance to the upcoming NH primary?

    BTW, I thought Paul has tens of millions of dollars. I live in MA and we see all of the NH ads. I haven't seen any for Paul. What's he doing with all of this money he's raising? He raises this money, I see no ads and his poll numbers stay flat...what gives, what's he doing with all of this cake? Staying in fancy hotels and eating nice steaks while he "runs" for office, Al Sharpton-style? (Anyone remember that story? Freaking hilarious....)

    Just kidding. Anyway, surely there has to be a cutoff point for inclusion in a debate, right? What cutoff would you use, if Fox is so wrong? (Not saying they are or aren't...don't really care...just asking)[/QUOTE]
    Well, I never said there was a conspiracy against anyone.

    There should be a cut-off but do you see 6 people as too many? Have a longer debate. I don't think 10% is miniscule when McCain and Thompson were in his cluster.

  14. #14
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,710
    The fact is that in at least one state already, Paul fared better than Giuliani. If they're going to exclude him for lack of support, then to be fair, they have to exclude Giuliani as well because Paul has more support on the record than Giuliani has so far, even if its just one state. Either you exclude both of them or neither. Fair is fair, it doesn't matter if Giuliani is expected to do better than Paul is later down the road and it doesn't matter that he didn't campaign hard there.

  15. #15
    [quote=BrooklynBound;2302053]And yet Thompson and McCain will be there... sorry Ham, doesn't add up[/quote]

    Thompson, McCain and Giuliani didn't really make a run in Iowa, and polls show them with solid numbers in NH

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2303030]Thompson, McCain and Giuliani didn't really make a run in Iowa, and polls show them with solid numbers in NH[/QUOTE]

    Giuliani purposely spent almost nill in Iowa....

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2303443]Giuliani purposely spent almost nill in Iowa....[/QUOTE]

    He is broke.....

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;2304896]He is broke.....[/QUOTE]

    whatever you say genius.....

  19. #19
    Fox didn't include Paul because he has some very hard things to say about W and the GOP.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2305063]Fox didn't include Paul because he has some very hard things to say about W and the GOP.[/QUOTE]

    ...and anyone who disagrees is an apologist for the oligarchs!;)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us