|
A Letter to Fox News: Explain Excluding
Ron Paul from Debate
John Armstrong
Nolan
Chart
Saturday December 29, 2007
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.
(Article continues below)
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 debates. 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 thie 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
|
INFOWARS: BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR
MIND
| | 
