Sunday, January 06, 2008

New Hampshire GOP Dumps FOX Due to Bias

The New Hampshire Republican Party has disassociated itself from the FOX News New Hampshire candidate forum to be broadcast tonight in protest of their refusal to let candidates Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul participate in the event. Paul has placed as high as third in New Hampshire polling behind favorites John McCain and Mitt Romney.

By excluding candidates that it views with disfavor, it seems FOX is attempting to shape the news, not just report it. This is part of a disturbing emerging pattern with FOX. During the New Years eve rioting in France, a Saudi named Al-waleed bin Talal, (a friend of News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch who controls an influential number of voting shares in the company) announced that he had gotten FOX to alter its coverage of the riots from "Muslim youths" to a spin that focused on social and class inequity.

Without Paul and Hunter, that debate is going to be four CFR corporate sock-puppets and one wanna-be Christian socialist. There will not be a real conservative at the table.


Anonymous Rick said...


It is disturbing that Fox would want to exclude Paul & Hunter but do you think that its because neither has a shot at winning the nomination? Ron Paul is currently polling in 5th place out of 6 candidates in N.H. In Iowa Paul finished next to last and only ahead of a candidate who didn't even campaign there (Giuliani).

You can't win a nomination if the campaign is internet run and thats what Paul's campaign is. Howard Dean found this out in '04.

8:46 AM, January 06, 2008  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

No, it is because FOX does not WANT either of them to win the nomination. As you said two days ago on a previous thread, this thing is wide open. Hunter may not have a chance, but Paul does.

Rassmussen has Paul 3rd in NH in their latest poll.

Guiliani actually made more visits to Iowa than Paul did. Team Paul knew that Iowa was not their state, and they probably spent less as a percentage of total resources available there than any campaign except Guiliani. The real battles are yet to come.

I don't get you claim about the internet and Dean. The net has grown exponentially in power and influence sine 04, and has been stronger as a conservative medium anyway because it has been mostly a non-lower class guy thing.

You cannot draw any lessons about what a campaign can do in 08 over the internet from experience in 04. That is fighting the last war.

9:14 AM, January 06, 2008  
Anonymous Rick said...


Here is a news flash, neither Paul nor Hunter have a snowballs chance in Hades of winning this nomination.
When I said this thing is wide open it was in considering the top 4, Romney, McCain, Huckabee & Giuliani.
Also, Huckabee isn't part of the "Establishment" you often refer to. I was listening to Pat Buchanan yesterday and he was talking about how Huck is scaring the Washington insider group to death.

10:24 AM, January 06, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't understand why the insiders would be scared of Huckabee, he'll just give them all the same programs and stuff that Hillary or McCain would, and call it the "Christian" thing to do. With his record of growing government, all the insiders should be confident of their job security.

If the Establishment includes CFR types, then I remember Huckabee referring to them by name as people who influence his foreign policy.

Although, I could see a scenario where the insiders get worried that Huckabee might crash and burn, jeopardizing their chance to sucker the Religious Right one more time...

10:35 AM, January 06, 2008  
Anonymous Rick said...


Rasmussen has Paul tied for third with Zogby & Mason-Dixon having him 6th in N.H. Where are his strong states?
McCain will win N.H. He will then go to Michigan and win where the Detroit Free Press, the states largest newspaper, has endorsed him.
If McCain wins N.H. and Michigan its over for Romney. Then it will become a battle between McCain & Huckabee for the nomination.

11:51 AM, January 06, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rick, why is it that Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance? What qualities do you see that the other "empty suits" have over Ron Paul?

12:00 PM, January 06, 2008  
Anonymous Rick said...


I don't see anything from any of the "empty suits" this election cycle and that includes Ron Paul. I guess thats why I haven't made my mind up yet who I will support. The way its going I may vote for Obama this year!

12:35 PM, January 06, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pretty vague stuff. What is it about a true federalist with a 20 year pro-life, pro-gun record who has never voted for a tax increase or an unbalanced budget and is strong on illegal immigration don't you like?

4:20 PM, January 06, 2008  
Anonymous Rick said...

Must be Hunter your talking about. Actually he is the class of the field but can't win.
If you are refering to Paul I listened to hin a couple weeks ago on Meet The Press and am convinced more than ever he is just like all the others.
Tim Russert nailed him to the wall on spending. He talks about cutting spending and at the same time brings in the bucks for his district. I understand thats the way politicians get elected but don't complain about the system and then use the system at the same time. Its like saying your against prostitution and visiting a hooker tonight. Get the point?

5:23 PM, January 06, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Earmarks? That money is spent in a budget from a separate vote- one which Paul votes against. The only thing earmarks do is give the elected representative some input into how the already spent money is used rather than give the decision to the other guys or some bureaucrat in the bowels of the system.

Paul voted against the spending for earmarks. Given that he lost that vote, what should he do, let Kennedy spend it all in Mass.?

If you don't like Paul, just give the real reason. This one does not hold up.

5:46 PM, January 06, 2008  
Anonymous Rick said...


I don't dislike Paul. I was willing a couple weeks ago to give him another look and he looked foolish on Russerts show.
Take that with him being wrong on the war, unelectable and the nutjobs he seems to attract and that pretty much covers it for me.

6:03 PM, January 06, 2008  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...


Sorry to hear that Paul has again swung out of your favor. It seems like the war is the main issue-based objection that you have. The others are form more than substance ("looked foolish" "nutjobs" "unelectable", those are all complaints of appearance, not policy).

I am afraid I can't help you on those as I make my decisions based on policy, not hipness. Don't care about who is coolest or I would be voting for Obama. IF you think it would help, I could start a thread about the war, and we could talk it out.

7:22 PM, January 06, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Booyah, that could not have been nailed on the head any better.

5:08 AM, January 07, 2008  
Anonymous Rick said...


I did take another look at Paul. Sorry, but I just don't like the guy. It has alot to do with policy and his lack of good judgement in who he takes photo's with and money from.
I will not support a man who has no problem posing with Stormfront owner Don Black, who is a neo-nazi. I realize as you pointed out in the past its not illegal, but it is certainly immoral to take money from these people. For whatever reason this guy attracts filth.
He isn't unelectable based on appearance. He is unelectable based on policy and lack of sound judgement. That my friend you can do nothing about either.

5:47 AM, January 07, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

like he knew who the guy was. that photo was at the "Values Voters" event. are you gonna bad mouth all the christian groups who let the nazi in the event to begin with?

4:05 PM, January 07, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fox News Used Planted Actor In Focus Groups

If the establishment Repubican media succeed in destroying Mike Huckabee, then I will be support Ron Paul even if it means he needs to run as a third party candidate. I absolutely HATE Rush Limbaugh and Fox News now.

Fox tries to make people believe that they are conservative, but if they were REALLY conservative, they would have supported and promoted Duncan Hunter with the enthusiasm and blatant bias that they have shown Romney.

11:31 PM, January 07, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FAUX News: R.I.P.

5:33 AM, January 08, 2008  
Anonymous Rick said...


Are you saying Paul didn't know who he was taking a photo with?

This article from Hate Watch dated last October.

Extremist Group Announces Speech by Congressman

The Robert A. Taft Club, a group headed by a man with a network of racist connections, has announced that a U.S. congressman, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), will address the group this Thursday at a restaurant in Arlington, Va.

The Taft Club is led by Marcus Epstein who serves as the executive director of both white nationalist Pat Buchanan’s The American Cause and the Team America PAC, which is run by Buchanan’s sister, Bay Buchanan. Epstein writes for the anti-immigrant hate site and he advocates for white supremacist organizations. He is especially fond of American Renaissance — a white supremacist journal that has suggested that blacks have “psychopathic personalities” — and attends the journal’s biannual conferences.

Maybe the reason Paul gets support from hate groups is he panders to them.

8:24 AM, January 08, 2008  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I'll take that one Rick. The Paul camp says that restaurant meeting claimed by one racist org. head never went down as he claimed.

I don't know if this is that incident or another, but c'mon. No, I don't expect that Paul knew the background of that guy he had his picture taken with on the convention floor of the "Value Voters" event. Likely the guy just wandered up to him and asked RP if they could have a picture. And I notice you did not answer anon's point- why aren't you upset at the AFA and Eagle Forum for letting that guy in? If Paul is tainted by this photo then the people who let him in to their exclusive event are tainted too.

The other group at the restaurant sounds harmless enough- Taft Republicans Club. How is a name like that supposed to clue the Paul folks into the idea that it is a White Power Hate Group? For that matter, how many white power hate groups are organized by a guy with a name as blatantly Jewish as "Marcus Epstien"?

And the writer seems to consider association with Pat Buchanan as "proof" that one is racist. I don't.

Rick, you are straining at gnats trying to find a reason to disqualify Paul. The silliest accusations from the silliest sources - "Hate Watch"? sounds like a bunch of raving socialists - are being bandied about as some sort of smoking gun.

Buck up, any GOP nominee with a spine will be accused by some fringe lefties of being a racist. They did it to Holt. HUCKABEE did it to Holt!!!

10:50 AM, January 08, 2008  
Anonymous Rick said...


To answer Anon, YES I do blame anyone or any group for knowingly allowing racist into their meetings.

As far as calling Jim a racist it was because of his illegal immigration policy. Most Americans including myself agree with Jims policy and aren't racist.
I see a disturbing number of people who are racist supporting Paul. I just want to know what it is with the guy that attracts these people. Is it just his policies as you have said in the past?

11:09 AM, January 08, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


11:20 AM, January 08, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home