I The Person
columnist: John Armstrong

Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
A Letter to Fox News: Explain Excluding Ron Paul from Debate

---

Maybe we'll get an answer

---

by John Armstrong
(Libertarian)
Saturday, December 29, 2007

Minor Correction: The Debate is Actually a "Forum" which is kind of a chat.  Dr. Paul may not have been intentionally left out, but how easy would it have been to just answer an email or phone call from anyone instead of keeping people in the dark?

Below is a letter I sent to Fox this morning asking them to explain Ron Paul's being excluded from the January 6th New Hampshire Round Table style debate.  If and when I hear back, I will update the post and share their response below.

Email Title: A Sane Ron Paul Supporter

Dear Fox News,

I have trusted your integrity as a major news network since the 2000 election.  I am a staunch republican who registered to vote in the state where I was attending college in 1996; I proudly displayed my Jesse Helms sticker on my dorm room door in uber-liberal Chapel Hill.  Seeing all of the ridiculous liberals there made me even more conservative.  I grew up with a family who loved me but financially had very little. After graduating I have since gone on to build a multimillion dollar (and growing) business. I understand from personal experience the importance of integrity, personal responsibility, hard work, foresight, and making good decisions.  My respect for these principles coupled with diligent research of all of the candidates has caused me to support Ron Paul's bid for the Republican Party nomination.  For a Carolina grad to support someone who graduated from Medical School at Duke, you know there have to be some pretty solid reasons to justify that support.

I am not writing you to rant about the "unfairness of the Mainstream Media" or to accuse Fox of being a "puppet of the Neo-Cons" as I am sure many of the others who support Dr. Paul's candidacy are.  I am just trying to understand candidate Paul's exclusion from the January 6th roundtable debate.  I want to be able to watch Fox and not feel like I have to read between the lines like I do when I watch the liberal network media that Fox was created to balance.  Please help me understand how someone who:

Will be the 4th quarter's leading Republican (if not overall) fundraiser,

Has indications that he could place as high as 3rd in the Iowa Caucus to be held three nights prior to the roundtable event,

Has a voting record that is so conservative it would make an Amish legislator look like Ted Kennedy,

Is a ten term Republican Congressman,

Truly believes in a smaller federal government as his voting record shows,

Has reasoned analysis based on extensive study for his reasons for not supporting the war in Iraq and his markedly different idea for how to conduct the war on Islamo-Facism (which is quite different than the "hippy" crowd's reasons on these issues),

Has never voted to raise taxes,

Has been married to the same woman for 50 years,

Served in the Air Force as a flight surgeon,

Is the only candidate discussing incredibly important issues like monetary policy,

Returns part of his office's budget to the Treasury each year,

Doesn't accept money from special interests,

Has done the seemingly impossible in awakening a previously apathetic general public to our political system and process,

could not be invited to the debate. When I joined this Party to vote for Bob Dole and Jesse Helms all of the things listed above were things the Republican Party believed in. Many of them bedrock issues. So how was he excluded? The only non-conspiracy theory possibilities I can deduce myself are:

His poll numbers are low (but higher than some of the candidates who are invited).

He hasn't ruled out running as a third party candidate and this could hurt the Republicans' chance of beating whomever they face in the general election so there is no need to give him face time.

He doesn't support the War in Iraq and this somehow makes him not a "real" Republican.

He isn't electable.

These last two issues seem most likely. 

As for the first issue, I doubt the executives at Fox will ever read this, but if you (the individual) are still reading, please click the link below.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm.

It is from one of Paul's 2002 speeches and explains why he didn't and doesn't support our military action in Iraq.  If you read it, you will see the reasoned; sensible nature of this man and understand that he in no way belongs in the "pacifist hippy" camp in which he seems to be thought of by mainstream republicans.  Although he has attracted many of those people as his supporters (which is something no other GOP candidate can say).

For the second issue, isn't electability determined by the voters?  Did I miss a memo on that one?  When Fox News says, "We report, you decide" does that really mean "We decide, then report, and you decide between our pre-screened options?" Does Fox not realize that Republican Party Loyalists will support whoever is nominated from our party?  Does Fox not understand the impact creating these new Republicans (many of whom will be voting for decades to come) could have on our Party? Has Fox thought about the possibility of the loss of all small "l" libertarians from our party, or even the rise of the large "L" libertarian party if Paul’s supporters feel as if our candidate is unfairly omitted? 

 Does Fox not remember that the reason we were obliterated two years ago in the mid term elections was due to the one issue on which mainstream Republicans (the ones being polled) seem to disagree with Paul most (the War) yet it's also an issue where most Americans agree with him?  When Clinton got destroyed halfway through his first term, he made adjustments so that he could win in 1996.  Our strategy hasn't changed in the last two years, and anyone running against an Anti-War (for the wrong reasons) democrat while carrying the same old Republican mantle will likely not be electable in a general election anyway. 

Maybe I'm wrong about these things (and hopefully I am if Paul isn't nominated) but doesn't Fox owe it to Americans to really let them decide?  Please help me understand the exclusion of Dr. Paul from the roundtable debate on January 6th so that I don't have to join the conspiracy theory camp.

Humbly,

John Armstrong

Like this Article? Thumb it.

Comment--It's fun.

Want to send it to a friend? Send it to yourself first and then forward it using your address book so it doesn't get stuck in spam filters.

As the author, unlike the NFL, I give anyone reading this full right to rebroadcast, retransmit, give accounts of this letter or repost it anywhere you wish in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
284 thumbs so far

2007 John Armstrong, all rights reserved.
Published: Saturday, December 29, 2007
Last modified: Saturday, January 5, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of John Armstrong only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Armstrong is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by John Armstrong of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.