Well isn't it nice that the media should determine who we hear from when it comes to the debates for the next president of this free country? Claiming that "we don't have room" and creating some arbitrary scheme that "only those with double digit polling numbers get to join the debate" Fox and ABC have decided that the American people don't need to hear from candidates like Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.
I'd like to take this moment to thank the media for restricting the American people's choices as to who they select to be president. Isn't there a law about "equal time" and haven't these media businesses just said they're going to ignore that law because "they don't have room on their bus"? Well if they don't have room for all the candidates, don't host the debate at all. Let some other reputable media source (oxymoron I know) host the debates instead.
Fox has really gone down the shitter recently. For instance, I wonder what O'Reilly's (whom I no longer watch much at all anymore) "body language expert" would have to say about this. Or maybe he could give us a "culture quiz" for 5 minutes instead of covering something important happening in America. Someone should tell him to leave the game shows to Mark Goodson and Bill Todman.
If you want the whole story on this fiasco, including Ron Paul supporters outcry of conspiracy, go have a read at Outside the Beltway
Also see my comments at Blogs of War where John Little seems more than pleased that Paul was cut out.
OK, so I originally was a little annoyed at the fact that they were cutting out candidates from the debate. Then I just now realized while sitting here that Paul and Hunter are really the two toughest candidates left in the race opposed to illegal immigration that have actual proven voting records and not just lip service (see my overview of Paul's immigration record and we all know about Hunter building the Otay-Mesa San Diego border fence and writing the Secure Fence Act bill).
Was this a conspiracy all along? Hehe, me proposing a conspiracy, now that's a new one as I am generally conspiracy proof. Anyway, with Tancredo out of the race, now they have cut Paul and Hunter out. This takes illegal immigration off of the table for the debates and gives the candidates a breather from one of the top issues that Americans are concerned about. No one will be pushing the issue. They may respond to a question about it, but in general the other candidates running have past proof of their inaction on the issue. Maybe there is a conspiracy after all?
Expect the "debate" to be more about Iraq and the other party, health care and other issues, except for illegal immigration. For the media once again has managed to silence those seriously opposed to it under other pretenses.
There are laws against illegal aliens being in our country. Yet, there are also laws preventing hospital workers and police from questioning the legal status of an illegal alien.
There are laws against illegal aliens voting in our elections. Does anyone know if there are laws preventing officials from questioning the legal status of an illegal alien voting in our elections? I have read the ACLUs website and it says they will defend spanish speakers (aka, "undocumented citizens") "right" to vote.
Given the current political climate I suspect that if an illegal alien voted in our elections the only one punished would be the person reporting it.
I don’t trust our elections. I firmly believe that Big Money Interests (BMI) would not hesitate to fix elections. If that doesn’t work, I don’t put it past BMI to assassinate to protect their profits.
The right fears Paul’s fiscal honesty and the left doesn’t like Paul’s objection to socialist government theft. Govt spending is about to put our dollar in the toilet but neither the right nor left cares; they will keep taking until the system collapses then point their fingers at a made up villian. Democracy is dead.
Posted by: ken pope on January 2, 2008 11:04 AM
There are states that have recently passed laws requiring photo ID in order to vote. These laws, many of which were on the ballot and approved by voters with huge majority votes, are being challenged by the ACLU and black and Latino advocate groups stating that it is a "poll tax" on the poor in order to prevent them from voting because "some people can't afford a photo ID".
In a lot of states, (i.e. California) all you have to do is show up at the polling place and state your name and then they give you a book to sign (they have no way to verify it is your signature).
Last year I covered the Federal Election Integrity Act. In that bill was included funding for the poor in order to obtain photo ID, so there should be no objections right?
Wrong, the ACLU was still pissed off.
Posted by: Digger on January 2, 2008 05:48 PM