During this debate season, Fox News decided to add "cell phone voting" to the post-debate analysis. After the first debate, Ron Paul won the cell phone vote, much to the displeasure of the Fox News pundits (youtube video from that debate here.)
The second Fox News debate was no different. Pundits Hannity and Colmes assure the audience that Ron Paul is winning the poll simply because people are redialing. What is the point of having a poll if people are able to abuse it? Ron Paul supporters, a bit tired of being beaten down by the media, put together this video to debunk the Hannity and Colmes "redialing theory."
I am curious to know if Fox News viewers would like to see each candidate treated fairly, or if they prefer that the newscasters go as far as lying to make some candidates look worse than others.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 5)
16. I have heard people try and claim that Paul's supporters are mostly Democrats... but I strongly doubt this since he pretty much wants to cut every federal department and program with the exceptions of (maybe) State and Treasury.
Now, it might just be me, but I don't a lot of Democrats who advocate the cutting of the Education, Interior and Defense Departments... so if Paul's supporters are Democrats, they're either uninformed, or just trying to fool around with the polls. But I suspect that most of his supporters are a mix of Libertarians and old-world Republicans.
Tony Messinger at 8:57AM on Sep 7th 2007
17. Fox news hates ron paul because of money, greed and power- why else? Has anyone wikipedia'd Guiliani and looked at some of his controversies?
"Giuliani has had two notable conflicts involving the media. Since the News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, is a client of Giuliani, some began to question Fox's co-sponsorship of the May 15 2007 Republican debate". .. (read more at link)
Openureyes at 8:09PM on Sep 7th 2007
18. As per your quote "He wants to withdraw from NATO, the UN, put prayer back in schools and cut off freetrade with Canada. Can't think he's popular up there, Jeff"
I am a canadian and I love Ron Paul. All the Free Trade agreements do for canada is alow the US to Raps canada of our resources.
Trou at 10:32AM on Sep 7th 2007
19. Mel, actually the Canadians are vehemently opposed to the North American Union and the policies of the SPP also. They have had many demonstrations AGAINST the Nafta free trade invasions by super cheap Mexican labor. What Ron Paul proposes is rescinding NAFTA which has been a disaster for the American worker. Bush now proposes for Mexican Truckers to truck goods from Ports in Mexico, NOT US ports to any point in the USA or Canada with no oversight as far as truck inspections nor driver regulations. The FIRST customs point will be in St. Louis not at the border. HELL YES the Canadians are against Nafta, Cafta and all the rest of the Globalist's attempts to eliminate US and Canadian soverienty
Heidi at 9:16AM on Sep 7th 2007
20. Mel - Like you, I don't agree with everything Ron Paul stands for. But you've mischaracterized some of his positions. As for prayer in schools, he wants to put that decision back in the hands of local schools (getting the federal government out of education, a charter it never had). I agree there's a church/state issue to be resolved there, but people should have the right to choose their education without paying a huge penalty (i.e., paying taxes while also paying for private school). As for free trade, he's all for it, but the existing NAFTA and other "free trade" agreements slant the playing field in the direction of the companies who lobbied most effectively for certain provisions. So it's more accurate to say that he would try to make our existing agreements more fair.
As for withdrawing from NATO and the UN, his reasons are that we give in too much of our sovereignty to these organizations. I'm on the fence about that, because we routinely ignore things the UN objects to regarding our behavior. We can still belong to these organizations and maintain sovereignty. NATO is basically the US anyway, and it's not like they would go in a direction we didn't allow.
The question from the debate about what would we do without the FBI or CIA (which I believe he says he would do away with) was a valid one, and I don't feel he answered it as directly as he should have. We obviously need to gather intelligence around the world, and if the CIA isn't the right tool, he needs to be specific about what would be better. He usually has logical reasons and realistic implementation plans for his ideas that seem radical but are actually pretty sound.
AC Green at 9:19AM on Sep 7th 2007
21. I'm not big on economics, but saying you are "for free trade, but against internationally managed trade" means basically you are not for free trade. This is forked tongue. You are for free trade as long as it's completely on the side of the US and the international community (currently throught the WTO) has no say. That is not possible.
Heidi: I assume that many in Canada are against NAFTA, but that doesn't mean they don't want free trade with the US. They just don't want Mexico to have it.
Mel at 9:28AM on Sep 7th 2007
22. Mel and Jeff your totally wrong,actually he allows states to decide,he isnt trying to get prayer in school ,he actually is allowing state rights to decide not the fed goverment thats all so he really isnt against asnything,but he has his own beliefs.I think you need to go back and read hisstances and issues. jeff what issue to you disagree with getting rid of the irs? gertting goverment out of your life? Ron Pauls message actually allows you to disagree with him and deal with issues at state level,Ron Pauls message is about the constitution.I assume your for the document? please show me one issue that ron paul has that goes against the constitution? he is about state rights so you can be pro-life or pro-choice and still have a say in your state.If you read the constitution many of the big goverment dem and republicans issues arent even issues for the fed goverment.I would ask all to read the constitution and then actually read Ron Pauls Issues before actually attacking his issues then not even explain what your attacking,thanks Ron Paul2008 former democrat here
kenny griffin at 9:41AM on Sep 7th 2007
23. Mel,
About free trade, you're missing the point that it takes two people to make a deal. I think Ron Paul would make it very easy for companies to do international trade, and if those US companies were making unreasonable requests of their trading partners, they simply wouldn't be able to find trading partners. I think you're assuming there would need to be a lot of government oversight, and that would go against what I think Ron Paul would support. The way it works now, and I dealt with this on a daily basis in a prior job, the protectionist provisions of NAFTA were a real pain to deal with and definitely made it harder to run our business. This cost us many more jobs than were theoretically saved by protecting US industries.
AC Green at 9:57AM on Sep 7th 2007
24. Who wants to be part of the UN anyway? Why should our hard earned tax dollars go to Zimbabwe? (sp -sorry?)
brettrix at 10:01AM on Sep 7th 2007
25. Ron Paul speaks TRUTH TO POWER and they dont like it. They dont like the truth coming out that the emperor has no clothes. That is why the snickers in the background on FOX news and the ridiculing by moderators.
MEDIA COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBERSHIP
http://www.fdrs.org/council_on_foreign_relations_membership.html
Heidi at 10:09AM on Sep 7th 2007
26. Typical Fox Noise slander. Just lie, deceive, and debase anyone who does not support the extreme right. I just cant understand how such a great country continues to watch and believe these guys. Freaking lying cowards like Sean Hannity talk about patriotism, faith, and morality like they patented it. I have news for you, if there is a hell, people like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Rupert Murdoch will right there with Mr. Bush and his evildoers. God will judge these people for what they are, liars who will sell out for the survival of a political party/ideology. It does not matter if it is ripping the fabric of our country apart. Wake up people!
jgberc at 10:20AM on Sep 7th 2007
27. Brettrix,
"Why should my hard earned tax dollars go to Zimbabwe?" Typical idiot hypocrite. Wonder if you ever asked the question..."Why should my hard earned tax dollars go to Iraq?" Huh Brettrix? The silence is deafening..
jgberc at 10:27AM on Sep 7th 2007
28. Ron Paul is a truth teller. Many of his ideas are zany but he actually believes them. This scares the neocons who see the media as a force to manipulate people with lies and half truths. A lot of people feed off of Paul's honesty and respect him for it. Of course this begs the question, Can you get elected by being frank and honest?
Steve Seivers at 11:13AM on Sep 7th 2007
29. Ron Paul is a frivolous candidate who should never have been invited to the debate. His shameless grandstanding took away from having a serious discussion of the issues.
Donald Breyer at 11:32AM on Sep 7th 2007
30. Why this obsession with Fox news? So liberals think that because most of the talking heads are conservatives Fox slants the news. We got it. If one is mezmerized and swayed because of this I maintain that such a person is somewhat weakminded to begin with just as a person who toes the left party line. Why not listen to all pointes of view and come to some independant judgement. You, yourself cited A longevity statistic by Michael Moore showing that the US ranks low in longevity for a developed nation implying that our health care is responsible, when the longevity tales showed many western developed countries were around the same even many with socialized medical systems. That is becuase you are primed to believe Michael Moore so you didn't indepedently do the gunt work. Maybe healthy skepticism of any source is a better answer and not adhering slavishly to an ideology in forming opinions is more intellectually honest.
eric at 12:00PM on Sep 7th 2007