Posted on 01/04/2008 9:38:26 AM PST by CounterCounterCulture
NEW YORK—ABC News is eliminating Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter and Democrats Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel from its prime-time presidential debates Saturday night because they did not meet benchmarks for their support.
The Republican debate three days before the New Hampshire primary will include Iowa caucus winner Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. It starts at 7 p.m. EDT.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
>None of them ever gave Duncan Hunter any airtime before. Don’t want a conservative who’ll actually do something about the borders, dont’cha know.<
If big business doesn’t want you on the news, you won’t be there. Same goes for what the CFR wants.
I get a helluva kick out of the ‘patriots’ on FR who support the war but won’t support the few people who want to make America the strong Republic that it once was.
I do hope they enjoy the New World Order and the inception of the ICC which will strip Americans of the Bill of Rights protections.
Why? He was close to McCain and Thompson and was about 3x that of Guiliani in Iowa. He's got tons of money. He's polling higher than Thompson in NH and is near even with Huckabee there.
‘Why?’
Because he’s ate up with the goofies, for starters.
Lincoln had a great sense of humor and was a master orator. Personality-wise, Hucklebee probably has more in common with Lincoln than any other Republican (and I say that as a Lincoln admirer who would never vote for Hucklebee).
Same objection as I had when Ron Paul was excluded. The media does not have the right to limit my presidential candidate choices.
I think Fred could pull off something like that. I doubt anyone else would. An opportunity for leadership?
What an intelligent, thoughtful response. Thanks.
Not as long as Fox is hosting them.
Mike Who?
If a quick rise can happen to the liberal pro-life evangelical Huckster, it can happen to the conservative pro-life evangelical Hunter.
Only if Hunter can borrow somebody’s personality. Huckabee may not be as conservative but he is much more personable, likable and is interesting to listen to, even if I don’t agree with much of what he has to say at times.
Paul is a libertarian in Republican clothing. He does not belong on the stage with the others.
ABC Debate should have been narrowed down to 5 just as the Democrats were. Iowa is only part of the formula - the national polls (not the ones the Paul people vote in multiple times) should also be considered. All things considered, Rudy would have been ahead of Paul.
The FOX debate will be much better than the ABC debate.
Iraq and Drugs - those are two major issues to me. I could not possibly vote for someone with Paul’s views on legalizing drugs and his surrender monkey stance in Iraq. And his blame America view points on 9-11 also. Don’t forget that. The guy is crazy.
Paul is also major deceiver when it comes to voting in congress. He proposes spending then he votes against it. Not honest and straight forward.
Lots of opportunities. Few leaders. :-(
Legalizing drugs would do nothing but save tax payers around 60 billion a year but that’s not an important issue to Paul (it’s not on his website) or to most (l)ibertarians (it is with the LP though). Iraq is a big issue which is why he shouldn’t be CinC. But I wish we had more of him in Congress so I’d be able to keep a lot more of my paycheck.
Why, in your opinion, are libertarians not welcome in the Republican Party but anti-abortion, pro illegal immigration and big government spenders are ok (Guiliani, Huckabee, etc)?
Post 136 should so PRO abortion (Guiliani) not anti-abortion.
Unfortunately, he'll be 71 if such a scenario happened.
He should have ran for POTUS in 2000. He would have benefitted from the name-recognition and support from conservatives now.
I would not be surprised if the criteria were chosen in some measure so that they would include Paul and not include Hunter, but (1) there's a limit to how many people should be in the debate, and (2) it would seem hard to justify including Giuliani without including Paul, and (3) it would be hard to justify including Hunter and excluding any of the people chosen instead.
We have figured them out in amazing detail, and can almost predict their every move, thus thwarting them and causing them to lose power.
We brought down DAN RATHER for Pete's sake! (Hat tip to ol' Buckhead).
And then, all that goes down the toilet when so many vast segments of Free Republic buy, lock, stock and barrel, the liberal MSM's blackout of candidates who would be the biggest danger to them and liberalism--guys like Duncan Hunter. And end up parroting the MSM's own propaganda: "He Cannot Win".
I just don't get it.
Even today, you will find "conservatives" on FR APPLAUDING the fact that unarguably the most solid Conservative--without being a nutcase with questionable baggage--in the race, Duncan Hunter, is excluded from the MSM controlled Saturday night debate in New Hampshire that could have a major impact. What is wrong with this picture, folks.
This is a very sorry state of affairs if you ask me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.