Thursday, January 10, 2008

Fox New Hampshire Republican debate

It has wrongly been argued on this blog that FOX did the right thing by excluding two candidates from their debate since those two candidates did not have enough supporters.

Lets look at the New Hampshire results on the Republican side:
McCain, 37%
Romney, 31%
Huckabee, 11%
Guiliani, 9%
Paul, 8%
Thompson, 1%
Hunter, 1%

FOX excluded Paul and Hunter from the New Hampshire televised debate.

If you went by supporters in New Hampshire then FOX should have excluded Hunter and Thompson...

Mike Sylvester

17 comments:

Tim Zank said...

1st of all, Fox has the right to invite whomever they please to a "forum" of their choosing. That being said, common sense would dictate this is a NATIONAL election and despite the Paul followers ardent fervor, he's not any where near viable on a national basis. The other candidates all have a serious shot nationally. Giving RP a chance to continually ramble on aimlessly won't convert anybody, he's preaching to his own choir.

Jeff Pruitt said...

Tim,

Isn't it a catch-22 situation? How can one get his message out if media outlets don't allow it?

And it becomes extremely difficult if the major Republican news channel won't cover you but they cover all your opponents. Fox can do whatever they want I suppose but I think Ron Paul has earned enough support to at least be taken seriously...

Kody Tinnel said...

This is just another example of how biased FOX News is.

If nothing else this situation only helps to prove that the channel is not a credible source of information.

Tim Zank said...

Jeff sez :"but I think Ron Paul has earned enough support to at least be taken seriously..."

By whom?
3.7 % NATIONALLY.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html

He'll be included tonight and he'll continue his ridiculous correlations of how everything from the price of gas to the consistency of peanut butter is directly related to the war in Iraq and our "foreign entanglements". He doesn't offer ONE legitimate policy or initiative that would EVER be passed or enacted in this country, by either side of the aisle,EVER. They're not REALISTIC, they're IDYLLIC.

He is NOT a serious candidate, he's an idealist that makes a handful of people feel good about themselves. His appearances don't do him any good, they just illustrate how off base he is.

Tim Zank said...

And Kody, They aren't biased against Ron Paul for christ's sake. They're being realistic, he doesn't have the numbers. period.

Mike Hunsche said...

And now let's look at what you are arguing.....

Fox is a business. As a business they have the right to do whatever they want that is within legal limits.

They invited candidates they felt were most appropriate. To argue that they are wrong for doing so is to argue that American businesses shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions.

If you don't agree with their decision... change the channel.

Karen Goldner said...

Speaking of changing the channel....while watching Law & Order last night it occurred to me that perhaps Fred Thompson made a poor career choice in giving up the show to run for President. Or maybe next season he and Jack McCoy will run against each other for District Attorney? Or maybe that story line was already foreshadowed - I haven't watched a current season L&O so far this year.

Seriously, I do think it is a no-win situation for the networks (not that I would ever want to be seen as defending Fox News!): if you include everyone who is running then there are so many candidates that nobody has enough time to make a point and you are accused of being superficial, and if you limit the number of candidates you get into the questions that have been (legitimately) raised in this discussion.

Templeton Peck said...

Tim is right. If Clarence, the angel from Its a Wonderful Life, were to show Ron Paul how this election would look if he had never run, it would look exactly the same.

Robert Enders said...

Templeton,
Clarence came to my house today. He told me that if Ron Paul wasn't in the race, you wouldn't have anything to talk about.

Seriously, for a candidate that doesn't matter, you seem to like to talk about Paul a lot. Is there a candidate that you want to steer us towards? Do you derive some kind of gratifiction from telling us about Paul's chances?

Templeton Peck said...

Robert

Good question! That required some soul searching. I guess my fascination with Ron Paul is your (plural) fascination with Ron Paul. For example, it would be the equivalent of someone bemoaning the fact that Tom Tancredo or Joe Biden was excluded from the debates. Ron Paul may be a great guy and have great views, but he has as much chance of winning as you or I. Maybe it's irony, by being fascinated with how much time you devote to Ron Paul, I myself have devoted as much or perhaps greater time to him. Anyway, you'll be glad to hear that this is the last Ron Paul post I will ever make. It's time to end the vicious cycle.

Kody Tinnel said...

I don't agree with many of the decisions that FOX News makes, so I don't watch that station.

Unfortunately a lot of people do and take it as serious, balanced news reporting. I hope that these people choose not to vote.

Robert Enders said...

Templeton,
Actually, I'm sorry to see that this is your last post. A underdog's best hope is to keep people talking about his low chances.

Tim Zank said...

Kody sez: "so I don't watch that station."

Well, that would disqualify you from passing judgement now wouldn't it. If you don't watch it, how can you possibly tell if it's good, bad or indifferent?

Fr. Fozy Bear said...

My only concern and this is with paying a minuscule matter of time following the brouhaha is that FAUX NEWS couldn't give a reasoned explanation. Then when they did, it ended up flip flopping on themselves worse than John Kerry in a twelve hour time frame. Then they went on damage control and not by addressing the issues of their flip flops but by attacking RP supporters as kooks (polite term). Then Mr. Hanitise America himself was lamenting that he had given more attention and air time to Dr. Paul the week previous stating that justified RP exclusion in the circle jerk eer forum.

Jeff Pruitt said...

Tim,

I do remember the days (not too long ago) where people were asking why Huckabee even bothered to be in the race. He had no money (way less than Paul) and even less support nationally. My how things have changed.

Paul's running a serious national campaign, he's raised millions of dollars and he has a very vocal group supporting him. I'm not going to be the farm he'll win but I think he should at least be included in the debate.

Thompson has been sinking for months and looks to have little-to-no chance at this point. I certainly don't think he should be eliminated either. I think an inclusive primary process is always a good thing...

Kody Tinnel said...

Tim,

Thank you for pointing out the bad wording in my previous comment.

That statement should instead read "so I no longer watch that station".

Also I am forced to view it every so often when my parents are watching it and I happen to also be in the room.

Hope that clears things up.

Robert Enders said...

Perhaps the government will protect our youth from the dangers of second-hand Fox Network viewing.