Posted on 12/29/2007 12:26:12 PM PST by StopTheNAU
PLAISTOW, N.H. -- Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network "is scared" of him.
"They are scared of me and don't want my message to get out, but it will," Paul said in an interview at a diner here. "They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."
Paul's staff said they are beginning to plan a rally that will take place at the same time the 90-minute debate will air on television. It will be taped at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown.
"They will not win this skirmish," he promised.
The Fox debate occurs less than 24 hours after two back to back Republican and Democratic debates on the same campus sponsored by ABC News, WMUR-TV and the social networking website Facebook.
Paul, the Republican Texas Congressman, was wrapping up his final day of campaigning in New Hampshire until the Iowa Caucuses on Thursday.
He spent much of the day campaigning at diners in Manchester and Plaistow and downtown walks in Derry and Exeter.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
The top 5 candidates in terms of national polling, that is everyone except Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Alan Keyes.
Paul is not a Republican.
That's right, he isn't. He's for limited government. No room for that in the modern GOP.
Are you sure he wan't trying to convert him? :)
Suppose it's him against Hitlery. How do you vote?
Oh, we will win this skirmish dork. The american people aren’t stupid.
That is exactly what the liberals call it. Thanks for revealing yourself.
You are aware, I assume, that a recent study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs said that Fox had the most balanced news of any network.
Of course, that isn't a very high standard.
QFT. But many here think they do.
Well, Reagan supported him, FWIW.
Isn't any undeclared war unconstitutional?
All Congress had to do was declare war.
ROFL!! He IS a scary guy!
I would hardly call any of these debates, "debates". They are theatrics and paid political programming.
I think Paulosi should join the Democrat debates myself.
Of course not.
Just because Congress has constitutional authority to formally declare a state of war between the US and another sovereign nation does not mean that the Executive's ability to render aid to our allies or undertake police actions is limited.
The Constitution guarantees the Executive complete authority over the deployment of US armed forces abroad.
Of course, if he wants money to fund his deployments, he needs Congress to write him a check.
Ooh, because I don’t like Fox News I’m a lib. Great analysis!
Why national polling? National polling is meaningless at this point. In addition, given this is a New Hampshire debate, wouldn't it make more sense to use New Hampshire polls?
If New Hampshire polls are used, the top five (in the RCP average) are: Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee and Paul.
I would agree that Paul should be in the debate if that is the case. I am not sure an official decision has been made by Fox News yet. At least I haven’t seen one.
Yes. I can understand the inclination to exclude marginal candidates, but I don’t think Paul, despite his sometimes-odd policy positions, is marginal enough, given that he may well come in third or fourth in New Hampshire.
Uh, dude—they’ve had you on Cavuto and several other shows. Is your memory THAT bad? Or are you just, as has always been suspected, an attention whore of a level just below that of Hillary?
Can Cheney say as much?
Presumably you are referring to the Vice President's deferment requests.
An interesting attempt to compare apples with oranges: let's look closer.
Ron Paul was drafted in 1962. At that time, Ron Paul was a medical resident and America was not at war. As Ron Paul himself has pointed out, his position as a flight surgeon permitted him to spend most of his time near his family and his position as a flight surgeon allowed him to continue his career uninterrupted: in point of fact, while his service as flight surgeon counted toward his medical residency it had better hours and higher pay than the civilian residencies available to him.
His service was lucrative and during peacetime.
The Vice President's number came up in 1966, while he had a pregnant wife and while he was working on his doctorate - and while the US was at war.
Unlike Paul he would have had no chance to stay near to home, nor did his civilian career give him the militarily-relevant experience to pick a plum military position safely in the rear.
Military service for Cheney would have meant putting his career on indefinite hold and leaving his wife's side while she was pregnant.
For Paul, military service meant neither of those things.
One can condemn Cheney for seeking deferment, but the historical facts show that Paul was strongly incentivized to embrace the draft, while Cheney was strongly incentivized to defer.
And all this becomes relevant in an election because Paul is running for office while he allows his supporters to scurrilously magnify his military record, as OrthodoxPresbyterian did for months, describing Paul as a "Vietnam combat flight surgeon" and falsely implying that Paul served in combat and that he served in Vietnam, neither of which was true.
The Vice President is not running for office - and while he and Paul both studiously avoided combat during Vietnam, Ron Paul figured out a way to get paid by the government to do so, while the Vice President relied on the private sector and not the taxpayer.
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.