Fox News Post Debate Wrap

Has anyone else besides me received a bunch of spam text messages since voting in the faux text message poll last night?!? I don't want to cry conspiracy or anything because im sure fox wouldnt want to do anything to discourage ron paul supporters from voting in future polls. But i would like to know if there may be a trend worth investigating.

I think Hannity either got a message from over his head to back off RP, or he did voluntarilly.

Somebody may have discovered that the more we are attacked, the harder we fight back. Maybe they are trying the softball approach...
Watch your back Ron!

No bias either, but a transcript-breakdown, full video, covers words spoken and time allowed to speak, the whole thing. Let the NY Times know this is excellent work!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/10/21/us/politics/20...

The good doctor shouldn't have answered the questions about what he would do if he doesn't get the nomination in the way he did. He should have clearly said that his goal is to win and that being asked so much about supporting other candidates is rather insulting.

A well thought out blog post in Liberty Alliance: http://libertyalliance2008.blogspot.com/2007/10/and-then-the...
And then they fight us...

And here I was, beginning to have hope for the mainstream media. In the last few Republican debates, it almost seemed that Dr. Ron Paul was almost getting a fair shake. Perhaps that perception stemmed from the fact that many of the more recent debates were missed by the "first-tier", or perhaps it was because Fox News is far more shameless and less subtle than the other networks. Either way, after tonight's debate in Florida, one thing is now clear. The authoritarian media establishment no longer views Paul as a farcical side-show; rather, he's now a serious threat, and to be marginalized as such.

The marginalization began early, before the debate had even started. Frank Luntz, the noted Republican political pollster and operative who has so mastered the art of ideological manipulation that he was featured in the PBS Frontline documentary The Persuaders, was tapped to "moderate" a focus group of twenty-five preselected people (the methodology of their selection was not revealed in the broadcast). Luntz is someone who is not exactly an impartial fellow; according to cited references in his Wikipedia article, he has been "accused of skewing research results to reflect more favorably on specific clients. In 1997, he was reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research and in 2000 he was censured by the National Council on Public Polls." Therefore, it without great surprise but with disappointment that I watched him guide the group through a textbook example of groupthink. One member even went so far as to refer to plant the seed, before the debate was even begun, that Ron Paul was crazy.

Finally, the debate started, and immediately it became apparent that the structure of the questioning functioned to create an in-group, out-group dynamic. The first questions centered on things that Fred Thomson had said about other "first-tier" candidates. This drew the rest of the pre-selected "first-tier" into a network of responses and counter-responses that created a sense of dialog. This lasted at least ten minutes before the "bottom-tier" got to speak. At this point, the effects of this first ten minutes of top tier dialog became apparent. Whereas the top tier seemed to be part of a community of competitors, Paul, Hunter, and Tancredo seemed more to respond to isolated questions. This created an entirely different atmosphere when they responded; almost as if we were watching a separate amusing, but irrelevant, debate. I believe the top tier, and the media groups that support them, have recognized that allowing Paul to engage in dialog with the "contenders" gives him credibility and was the driving force behind the materialization of the Ron Paul RevolUTION. Therefore they, by the structuring of the questions and dialog, were able to subtly split the candidates into two groups. By treating the group that Ron Paul was consigned to as less important, they were able to avoid any messy confrontations and minimize the effects of his far too occasional responses.

Paul was further hindered and marginalized by the makeup of the crowd in the auditorium. It actively booed him on many issues, which had not happened in earlier debates, and he implied in the Post-debate interview that the organizers purposely limited the number of Paul supporters in the hall by issuing each candidate the same number of tickets. With pro-war supporters outnumbering anti-war supporters 7:1, the crowd was guaranteed to be hostile to Ron. Ron is smart enough that he called Hannity on this when Hannity tried to imply that the crowd was more representative than the phone poll. Fox, realizing what a liability that the text-in poll has become with Ron Paul's consistent domination, again called upon Frank Luntz to utilize the deceptive manufactured consent of his focus group. He asked for a show of hands of who thought Ron Paul had won the debate. No hands were raised. Luntz peered into the camera meaningfully, as if a hand selected sample of 25 pre-screened individuals was a better indication of electoral strength than thousands of dedicated activists voting.

Fundamentally, this debate taught us a few things. We've learned that Ron Paul supporters MUST NOT become complacent, thinking that the momentum from the jump-start that the campaign has experienced will carry Ron to the White House without massive further effort. Ron Paul in power would be incredibly detrimental to the ruling elite of our country, of which the media elite are but one segment. He would cut off the free flow of grants and Federal largess to their pet projects, would favor labor over speculation as a way of making profits by shoring up the dollar and eliminating the income tax, and would end the enormous profiteering opportunities of continuous warfare. Now that they see Paul as a potential threat rather than as an eccentric oddity, they will fight his candidacy with every tool at their disposal. Experts like Luntz are only the visible tip of the iceberg of the massive social scientific apparatus that can be arrayed against the Paul campaign. We'll have to continue to participate in the main stream media games, but they'll no longer bring the massive jumps of support that the first few debates brought us due to the new tactics of the "first-tier". Rather, we need to continue exploiting those media that WE dominate in order to level the playing field and we must continue enthusiastically spreading the revolution virally. Keep those shoes pounding the pavement and those blog posts rolling in. We're in a battle over who defines public discourse, and victory is by no means guaranteed. However, for the first time in my life, I feel like we have a chance for real, constructive, radical change, and I'm going to do everything in my power to ensure that that chance doesn't slip away.

********************************
Dear Fox News,

I find it interesting that you chose to omit the results of your "You Decide" text vote poll from this article. It's no secret that your news corporation has tried to silence Ron Paul's campaign success, and that was made abundantly clear last night on the Hannity & Colmes post-debate show when Hannity attempted to discredit Ron's 34% victory by blaming it on Paul's supporter's "stacking the vote." How it would even be possible to "stack" a text message vote is beyond me as it is technologically impossible, and Hannity's accusation is just ridiculous. Your system only allowed each participant to vote once, and on top of that, it cost us money to do so. You can blame Ron Paul's online poll success on "hackers" or "programmatic failures" all you want, but trying to do the same thing with a text message vote that Fox News owns and operates is completely absurd, and nobody's buying it.

Paul's supporters are everywhere, and the more efforts Fox News puts forth to marginalize and outright ignore Ron Paul's campaign, the more supporters join him. The sad truth is, had any other candidate won your text poll, such accusations would never have occurred.

Sincerely,
Jaime from Baltimore, Maryland

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303827,00.html
********************************

I encourage everyone else to contact Fox News in a similar fashion. Let them know we aren't going to stand for this BS.

"If Americans really cared about the annual deficit or the $9 trillion national debt, they would choose Hillary Rodham Clinton or Ron Paul to be the next president. They're among few candidates whose campaign spending is well within their means."

"Ron Paul, the iconoclastic Texas Republican who has developed a fanatical Web following, raised $5.2 million in the last three months out of the $8.2 million he has raised overall. But he still has $5.4 million in the bank and no debt. Likewise, Democrat Dennis Kucinich, former mayor of Cleveland, raised $1 million in the last quarter and spent $900,000."

From the Ventura County Star
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/oct/22/spending-m...

I was impressed that Hannity was actually CIVIL with Dr Paul this time. Last time he pulled the neocon-O'Reilly-bully trick. Dr Paul doesn't fare too well when people are so hostile and confrontational to him. Dr Paul is a gentlemen and a humble guy. I don't think he's used to being so disrespected and he isn't quite sure how to take it. I saw that on O'Reilly (that pig).

Anyways, it was a good night for the Paul campaign for sure. Guiiani is fading more and more into the night.

Was it just me, or did Paul seem to get more questions this time? He got a lot more attention that Hunter or Tancredo did.

Wow! Over 400 comments.
Good news, people.
I watch the number of subscribers to RP you tube channel.
Last night before debate was 32,300 subscribers registered.
This morning 33,252!!!!!
Debate appearance brought around new 1000 supporters who registered(3% more).
I can only imagine how many people who just started to pay attention became interested in RP.

Who does Sean Hannity think he's talking to?

When Newt Gingrich cracked the whip on party members to support a messy budget compromise, he excused Paul from the duty to support the budget, and the "Ron Paul exemption" entered the congressional vocabulary. What did it take for other members to earn this privilege to buck the party? A voting record that opposed all unnecessary federal spending, even in their home district. No one else has been granted the exemption.

Source: sacbee.com

Ron Paul isn't going to just tow the party line just to support the party. And Ron Paul isn't going to be painted a "Libertarian" instead of "Republican" because he doesn't "tow the party line."

Hannity is so provincial.

When Hannity was complaining that "Wherever I give a speech around the country, you've got all the Ron Paul Supporters there to attack me...I don't like that."

And Ron Paul's response (not missing a beat): "That's great. That's Great!"

Interesting aside -- this shows how transparent a liar that Hannity is -- on the one hand he claims that "WHEREVER I give a speech AROUND THE COUNTRY, you've got all the RON PAUL SUPPORTERS..."

Yet he claims that the text poll is false? What, does he really think that its the SAME Ron Paul supporters following him around?

And you gotta love the "You mean your own poll isn't any good?" comment by Ron Paul.

He dun good, and pwned both Hannity AND Colmes!