AP uncritically reported groups' reasons for excluding Ron Paul from Iowa forum
SUMMARY: The Associated Press uncritically reported that Republican
presidential candidate Ron Paul was excluded from the Iowa presidential forum because, according
to one of the groups sponsoring the event, Paul "didn't meet the
criteria the groups drew up," including "having an established exploratory committee and garnering at least 1 percent in a
national poll." The AP did not mention that Paul established his
presidential exploratory committee months before invitations for the forum were
sent and was polling at 1 percent in at least one national poll at that time.
A June 28 Associated Press article reported that Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (TX) was excluded from a June 30 forum for presidential candidates in Iowa, co-sponsored by the Iowa Christian Alliance and Iowans for Tax Relief, because he "didn't meet the criteria the groups" sponsoring the event "drew up last winter." The article added that some of the criteria Paul "didn't meet" in March when the invitations were sent, according to Ed Failor Jr., executive vice president of Iowans for Tax Relief, included "having an established exploratory committee and garnering at least 1 percent in a national poll." But the article did not note that Paul did have an established exploratory committee in January and was polling at 1 percent in at least one national poll at that time. By March, when the invitations were apparently sent, Paul had officially announced his candidacy and was polling in at least one other national poll at 2 percent.
Indeed, as the AP reported on January 11, "Paul filed papers in Texas to create a presidential exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money." Around that time, Paul was polling at 1 percent in at least one national poll, a January 19-21 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll, which would appear to fulfill the "criteria" set by the Iowa forum's sponsors, and he was polling at 1 percent in a March 30-April 1 Strategic Vision poll of likely Iowa caucus participants. By March 12, Paul had formally announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination, according to a press release issued by his campaign. Paul's announcement came during an appearance on C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
According to a June 22 article in The Daily Iowan, the student newspaper of the University of Iowa, "Of the 10 hopefuls who participated in the first three Republican debates, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is the only candidate who was not invited to attend the event." The Des Moines Register reported that Republican candidates Jon Cox and Mark Klein, who have not participated in any of the national Republican debates, also were not invited.
Not only did Paul already have an exploratory committee formed by March, he was also polling as high as 2 percent in national polls at that time. For instance, a March 9-11 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, showed Paul polling at 2 percent among "registered Republicans." Paul was polling ahead of Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO), former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA), all of whom, according to the June 28 AP article, are included in the Iowa forum's "line-up of ... speakers." Tancredo and Thompson polled at 1 percent and Hunter polled at less than 1 percent at the time. The CNN poll's margin of error was +/- 4.9 percent. A March 23-25 USA Today/Gallup poll found that 1 percent of "Republicans and Republican leaners" would support Paul and Tancredo for the Republican presidential nomination at the time, while 2 percent favored Thompson; less than 1 percent chose Hunter.
Additionally, the AP article also claimed that Paul "has struggled to top 1 percent in national polls." However, in several more recent national surveys, as well as in at least one Iowa state poll, Paul is polling at 2 percent. In a June 22-24 CNN/Opinion Dynamics poll, Paul garnered 2 percent support from "Republicans or Independents who lean Republican," again polling higher than Tancredo, Thompson, and Hunter. Similarly, a June 11-14 USA Today/Gallup poll found that 2 percent of "Republicans and independents who lean to the Republican Party" chose Paul as the candidate they "would be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for President in the year 2008."
As the AP reported January 11, Paul "was one of a handful of Republicans to vote in 2002 against giving President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq, contending that only Congress had the power to declare war." Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the war and in Republican debates has repeatedly voiced his support for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
From the June 28 Associated Press article:
Congressman Ron Paul will add party crashing to his presidential campaign tactics this weekend.
The Texas Republican, who has struggled to top 1 percent in national polls, wasn't invited to a forum of presidential candidates Saturday in Des Moines. The gathering is sponsored by the Iowa Christian Alliance and the watchdog group Iowans for Tax Relief.
Instead of grumbling, Paul's campaign decided to hold its own party in the same hall as the forum. They're calling it a celebration of life and liberty.
[...]
Still, campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said it has been frustrating to be excluded, especially since Paul has consistently opposed abortion and is known nationally for his advocacy of lowering taxes.
"To try to exclude Ron, especially when he is so good on these issues that both of these groups purport to support ... it's just a little head-scratching," Benton said.
The line-up of forum speakers includes Tommy Thompson, [former Arkansas Gov.] Mike Huckabee, [Sen.] Sam Brownback [KS], [former Massachusetts Gov.] Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.
Ed Failor Jr., executive vice president of Iowans for Tax Relief, said some candidates weren't invited in order to keep the event from stretching on too long.
"You sort of draw a line because we're not going to have a 17-hour event," he said.
Paul didn't meet the criteria the groups drew up last winter, which Failor said included having an established exploratory committee and garnering at least 1 percent in a national poll. The groups sent out invitations in March to all "credible" candidates of both parties; all the Democrats declined to attend.
Of Paul renting space right next door, Failor said "It's a free country. He can do what he likes."
I think I posted here the day after the GOP debate, and suggested that Paul pack it in right there.
For those who didn't see it, Paul delivered about 30 seconds of straight, grown-up talk regarding our foreign policy, which was met with mostly a stunned silence.
Giuliani came back with a wagon-load of feel good patrotic bullshiite, to thunderous applause.
I thought the republican party was supposed to be the 'big tent' party....
Paul should be kicked out of the party for having MMFA
backing him.
They arent backing anyone they are pointing out APs inaccuracies. You really cant understand anything can you?
The AP had no misinformation. Media Matters just wanted them to include things that the AP felt were irrelevant. You just don't understand that do you?
Of course I understand, you dont, what were the chances. The AP repeated the GOP spin that RP wasnt included because he didnt have an exploratory committee, which he does, and hasnt gotten at least one percent in a National Poll, which he has. How is that NOT information and how in the WORLD is it not relevant that he met BOTH criteria the the GOP said he was excluded for NOT meeting? Try to keep up you old codger
It wasn't GOP spin. It was a local committee in Iowa that did the invites. The GOP didn't call the shots and not invite him because the GOP wants to seperate itself from Ron Paul.
It is a LOCAL IOWA committee NOT the GOP. Surely you know the difference don't you?
Ron Paul's polling numbers are horrible in Iowa. He doesn't support ethanol and few of his ideas play well in Iowa. The latest polls show he is practically the worst candidate in terms in popularity.
Strategic Vision 6/23/2007Republican Voters in Iowa
Mitt Romney23%Fred Thompson17%Rudy Giuliani14%John McCain10%Tommy Thompson6%Mike Huckabee5%Newt Gingrich4%Sam Brownback3%Tom Tancredo2%Ron Paul2%Duncan Hunter1%Jim Gilmore1%Chuck Hagel1%Unsure11%My heart just bleeds for you poor liberals that don't get to choose who debates for the republicans. LOL.
It's interesting that you put it like that, LH. It shows that you truly don't understand what is going on here. It had nothing to do with liberals not wanting Ron Paul to not be heard or to not run. It was the local GOP committee who didn't want him around. Blame your own party, not the Democrats.
I dont care if its local GOP spin or national GOP spin, nothing could be more immaterial. They repeated it it was inaccurate. Keep trying to change the subject all you want. AP repeated an inaccurate rationale for excluding Ron Paul. It really is that simple
It's amazing to see how many repug trolls hang out here now that Bill O'Reilly has done so much free publicity for MMFA.
It's also fun to see them shot down, time after time.
Things the AP thought were irrelevant??? Did he really say that? Do you mean the FACTS they left out of their story that directly refute the claims being made by the GOP? Does that really work for you? It's ok if they uncritically repeat lies of a political party because they think the facts are irrelevant? Would you please, for the love of God think about that for just one minute. You come to this site after all. You must be at least a little curious.
MMFA is "backing" Paul?
Leaving aside the obvious (to most people) fact that MMFA is a media watchdog site and doesn't promote any particular candidate in any election, will Leatherhelmet's statement finally get people to stop the incessant whiny complaints about MMFA backing Hillary?
If so, then something good finally comes from one of his posts.
MMFA doesn't back any candidates yet they somehow never correct liberal candidates when they misspeak. Please get a clue.
Because this is a website for conservative misinformation perhaps?
Maybe you should get a clue, and read the mission statement. They're not a non-partisan website, and never claimed to be. But they also don't support separate candidates, they point out misinformation spewed forth that is conservative in nature.
And it's also media misinformation of the conservative variety. This site doesn't point out mistakes of conservative or liberal candidates. It's about the media.
Examples, por favor. I'd like to see you back that up.
This is great. There is no way in the world MMFA would stick up for Ron Paul if Paul was as vocal about his economic policies as he is on the war.
He believes, as do I, in no regulations and no entitlements.
Yeah like YOU know things about Ron Paul that we and MMFA dont. They arent sticking up for him they are highlighting APs misinformation. Try to keep up
He believes, as do I, in no regulations and no entitlements. -- CD.com
I have never met a GOP'er that did not believe in corporate entitlements. When I do I may choose to believe the above statement as much as they believe they do.
And Salon is right it is not about the man it is about the MSM.
Lots of libertarians are GOPers and don't believe in corporate entitlements.
I guess mmfa should have complained that the AP did not mention that Paul wants to get rid of the department of education, yes on star wars and no to gay adoptions.
Did the GOP say he DID when he DIDNT? No. The GOP said he DIDNT get 1% in a national poll and he did, they said he didnt have an exploratory comittee and he DOES, so what part of passing on misinformation DONT you understand?
Look, I'd vote for paul if he could be Hillary, but he can't so I have to be practical.
I dont care who you will or would vote for, it also has nothing to do with my point.
Duh. This has nothing to do with Ron Paul's economic policies or anything else about Ron Paul or about anything else. MMFA is pointing out that AP was incorrect about the reasons Ron Paul was excluded. The implication being that Ron Paul was actually excluded because of his position on the war in Iraq, not because he failed to meet some criteria that he actually met, as AP is reporting here.
You mistake interest in the conservative media for interest in Paul. Most here are aware of his other baggage. Mostly its so unique for a Republican candidate to speak about our international situation that does not follow usual Neocon talking points. It will be very interesting to see how he inserts himself into the debate and how his fellow GOP candidates respond to it.
All the whining from the right about how the "Fairness Doctrine" would stifle their voices, and then they blatantly stifle the voice of one of their own candidates because thay are worried he will say something out of line with their party line bulls**t, Priceless.
Its hard to accept complaints about stifling a guy who polls at 1 percent.
"Its hard to accept complaints about stifling a guy who polls at 1 percent."
Why do you find this so hard? The more popular someone is the greater the right for them to speak? Is that what you believe?
This democracy protects the right of everyone to not be 'stifled'. If you are truly believe in democracy you will stand up and fight for the right of the minority to have their opinions heard and not to be suppressed.
I suggest you go and read Ron Paul's reasons for his positions on the issues. You are interested in the issues aren't you? You are interested in the reasons for a position - no? Maybe not.
You seem to like to spout opinions without thought or reason. That would make you unreasonable and irrational. There is someone like you running the country right now and 9 more irrational fear-mongering Republican candidates trying to replace him.
There is, however, one rational presidential candidate. His name is Ron Paul. Check him out. Find out his positions and his reasons for holding them. Then vote.
Vote for a man of reason this time - or vote again for a man of passionate and willful ignorance. Hey, it's only your life at stake and the lives of your children. But then 'who cares' right? Not you.
Leatherhelmet's only one person, so if he was banned from this site and all others, I cant see myself getting worked up over it, after all as I said he's only one guy, his right to equal access to this forum really doesnt mean much in the grand scheme of things, does it?
Leather- MM is pointing out that the GOP had set criteria for who would be allowed to participate in the debates and who would not. Paul meets the criteria, yet he's being excluded anyway. That doesnt bother you? What if it were YOUR favorite candidate being excluded? Would that bother you? Do you realize that you would have no legitimate reason to be angry?
The 1 percent solution
That is an interesting point. If Paul's support is really only at 1 percent, then why are the GOP so afraid of him?
In my opinion, they fear Ron Paul because he's the only true "conservative" in the entire Republican Presidential race. He's the only one advocating small government, upholding the Constitution, less government intrusion in our personal lives, cutting spending, etc.
The rest of them are following the modern day Republican playbook, which is advocating being the policeman of the world, nation-building, more intrusion into the personal lives of Americans (spying without a warrant, suspension of habeus corpus, etc.), expanding government like we've done under Bush, more federal beauracracy (putting groups like FEMA under Homeland Security, the "War Czar" position, etc.), less personal freedom, winning elections through fear, etc.
I think modern Corporatist/Federalist Republicans have a lot to fear from a Libertarian Republican like Paul. The fact that he doesn't poll highly, in our current system, really just means he doesn't have enough special interest money to run many commercials and get his message out. So the fear is, allowing him on the debates WILL allow more and more people to hear his message. In fact, I think Ron Paul was the most searched on the internet of ANY Republican candidate. People have heard tidbits of his message, and want to learn more because they agree with what he said.
Leather, can you say D E M O C R A C Y ?
Its hard to accept complaints about stifling a guy who polls at 1 percent
It's hard to understand the fear of a guy polling at 1% from those tough, strong, we-know-what-is-right regressives.
LH,
You said:
"Its hard to accept complaints about stifling a guy who polls at 1 percent."
Fair enough...... but
With that kind of logic..... why should we forced to have to keep dealing with a president that is polling at 26%? A VP polling at 12%?
(The majority of which are right-wing Christian, wrap myself in the flag, claim a higher moral ground fundamentalists)
That's EXACTLY what it is JSCOTT. No more, no less.
It will be interesting to see how many people show up at Dr. Paul's forum on Saturday. I have little doubt that he will have 3 to 5 times as many people at his rally compared to participants in the "official" forum, which should be a huge news story. That said, I wonder if the national news media will report on it. WHEN he wins the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire in January, the news media will be forced to cover him and will no longer be able to cover up his meteoric rise. The general population will be shocked that someone they've never heard of won the primary, and his support will skyrocket as people in the general populace learn about him and his ideas. It's going to be a very interesting and possibly revolutionary election cycle!
The AP (and Ed Failor) might have checked the fundraising totals as well, to determine who was a credible candidate. In the first quarter, Ron Paul raised more money than Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, and Tommy Thompson, all of whom were invited. The second quarter totals will be even more impressive.
For Ed Failor to lump Ron Paul in with John Cox and Mark Klein is laughable. Everyone has a right to run for president, but a 10-term Congressman is usually considered a credible candidate automatically.
In each of the debates Paul has participated in, he's received plaudits afterwards for his REAL straight-talk and thoughtful answers, and "snap" polls have shown that he either "won" the debate with the viewers or at least made a very poweful impact. Which is why he wont be invited to any more debates. Paul simply wont toe the company line, so he's dismissed. Meanwhile, worthless bleating sheep like Gilmore, Brownback, Thompson, Hunter etc will be welcomed back because they wont rock the boat- they are happy just to be there so they can tell us once again how great Ronald Reagan was and how much they love the Flag and Hate Terrorists and want to cut our taxes.
Paul could be polling at 30 percent and the state parties would find reasons to exclude him. He's just too hard to control. (BTW I would never vote for Ron Paul- I think he's basically a nut on everything except Iraq- but I respect his refusal to read from a pre-approved script.)
I listened to an MP3 of the exchange between Snyder and Failor, on the Jan Mickelson show, WHO, Des Moines.
Failor raised the issue that Iowans for Tax Relief is a 501c3 oganization that exists for, partly, educational purposes as part of his “justification” for not inviting Dr. Paul.
Failor said that the tax exempt status would be jeopardized if they had invited Dr. Paul because it would have been a politically based decision. So, Dr. Paul was excluded based on a political calculus for fear of losing the tax exempt status?
Was Failor implying that to invite Dr. Paul was to lose the 501c3 status?
Was that just another idiotic excuse or did he slipped that someone threaten Failor?
You can listen to the radio exchange by follwong one of the links below. Hat tip to lewrockwell.com:
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/RonPaulCampaignCharimanKentSnydervsIowaEdFailorWHOnewsradioIowa062007.m3u
http://dissentradio.com/lrc/snyder-failor.mp3
PS: I posted the above on another blog.
To correct some of the inequities in our two party system, I would like to see run-off voting. It would be interesting to see how candidates like Ron Paul, Kuchinich and Gravel would fare.
To be fair theire are many things I donot agree with Paul on but he is the only honest Republican running and he seems to be the most feared. Whener Paul is brought up in a conservative forum neocons crap themselves trying to smear the man.
There should be more Pauls and less Rudy mcRomneys.
Can you blame 'em. These Iowa types don’t want to hear some old school, way out of fascism, I mean fashion, Eisenhower-esc conservative saying, "beware of the Industrialize Military Complex", blah, blah, blah, smaller government..blah, blah, quit meddling in other countries, blah blah….boring! What about Neo or New Conservitism is it he dosen't get?
Leather, Copius, et al,
Which requirements of the Iowa presidential forum did Paul not meet? If he met them both, why is he not allowed to speak according to the Republicans?
Personally, I don't care for Senator Paul. I just want to know why the Republicans are lying.
It's because they are LIARS.
The requirements are to be eligible - not some kind of automatic qualification to get them in the debate. Then a committee picks who participates. Others that were eligible were also cut. Too many bottom-feeder candidates and he missed the cut. For me, the more the merrier especially earlier in the process,but then the top candidates complain they don't get enough time.
Incredibly, Media Matters didn't bitch about all the democrats who were invited but declined to debate!!!!!!!!!
"The groups sent out invitations in March to all ‘‘credible’’ candidates of both parties; all the Democrats declined to attend."
And yet what was the reason GIVEN as to why Ron Paul was excluded? Lets go to the record
according to one of the groups sponsoring the event, Paul "didn't meet the criteria the groups drew up," including "having an established exploratory committee and garnering at least 1 percent in a national poll."
Which was NOT TRUE. Keep spinning this all you want they lied flat out nothing you say is going to change that, keep telling us what you WISH were true we will continue to see the factual reality
This is the same nonsense Raph Nader complains about, our monopolized, unrepresentative political party system. The bossism and grudge bearing is apparent with Ron Paul, he didn't join the party in the vote to invade Iraq, politicians are expected to abandon their conscience and become homogenous screws to these bicolor, national monotheisms 'red' and 'blue'. How else could they market obtuse selection more repletely than to shut out Americans in their own domestic holding pens that have already been carved up into petty abstractions which must flip or flop one of two ways? There are no choices and no alternatives, the right to vote has lost all meaning.
On this subject, the 2006 results which 'voted out' the republicans coincided with the move to electronic polling...presumably a far more secure system...yet the media never drew the landslide into a context with the new voting technology. It should be obvious that election theft's dull thuggery wasn't invited to the 2006 election.
Americans have to get the notion out of their heads it means anything to vote for someone "because they'll win", then maybe independent candidates can bring on the decline of the old bossism and begin important reforms that would otherwise continue to be knuckled under. The 'pick a winner' wimps can't separate the wannabe, slave to fashion impulsivity in our heavily consumer oriented society from government or the outcomes of leadership versus a lack thereof. Consolidated party corruption corrupts by imposing a vacuum of polarizations in totality, banning content for debate, absorbing itself in its enduring rival and discounting anything the public has to say through layers and layers of insulating filters. This converts them into television media prima donnas adrift in a self fulfilling fantasy of courtesanship, out of touch and destined to be optimally manipulable.
Under such extreme conditions even science, common sense to detect fraud, and our national healthcare crisis cannot function. A bogus sham of a CDC study in February of 2007 confirms purely raw inventory data on an unexplained mental retardation and autism epidemic...with not one word mentioned as to origin of causation...no etiology. Neither is it pointed out that the statistics indicate twice as many in the statistic are diagnosed 'mentally retarded' than 'autistic'; but the media only wants to hype the meaningless buzzword because it is a weaker diagnosis, making the whole problem appear and yet disappear. The most incapacitated are rapidly shoved to the side, and not one bonehead politician can stop spinning long enough to notice anything's happened. They are all trapped like employees of corporations that have subsumed every citizen's identity, and corporations have no regard for the minutia or concerns of the public; neither do their employees comprise the deciding stock holding, nor have any say so in its affairs or even hear about plant closings until long after it is the chosen course--chosen by a handful.
The other mistaken notion that privately held free enterprise is a democratic institution is an important part of the problem of unrepresentative government. corporations always getting their way is excused by the foible its employee base somehow characterizes a demographic of free political conscience making an informed and therefore justified, electoral decision. See the obtuse selection? Well it gets even worse when the very same subsuming of voting rights is paralleled in the electoral college scheme, and then, the marginalized controlling of issues to be broken down into preposterously ambiguous dichotomies. The flip a coin for a million principle is the repeat joke time and again, including which coins chosen by whom, those who dream up and draft the pressing legislative agenda are a sight unseen, and whatever hat they pull their rabbits from. But make no mistake, it has to be one of their rabbits because the whole sham is their magic act.
At this stage in American politics, elections have become all for show, a ritual which is performed to pay homage to what no longer exists inherited before there was the practical and more modern; yet that requires exertions of a great tribulation festooned with pomp and circumstance, a veritable Mardi Gras. It all has slipped into the cobwebs of pageantry.
WOW,
Thanks for a very interesting essay on the state of American Politics. Once I read it two or three times and digested, or looked up some of the bigger words, I agree with you. I saw a very interesting discussion between Bill Moyers and a gentleman I had never heard before, Victor Gold. The discourse of these gentlemen is something that every American citizen of voting age should watch. Although I have not read the book by Mr. Gold I am going to read it as soon as I can get my hands on it. The discussion between these two men speaks to the point you made about “There are no choices and no alternatives, the right to vote has lost all meaning.” I hope that everyone in America, Republican or Democrat, especially the Republicans listen to the logic of what Mr. Gold reveals about how the Republican Party was hijacked by the Neo-Cons who are trying to kill American democracy as we know it.Here is the link and if it doesn’t work go to www.pbs.org and listen to it at least three times. I believe that it is a real eye opener for anyone who is a thinking person.http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/watch2.html
It should be obvious that election theft's dull thuggery wasn't invited to the 2006 election.
It's only obvious to conspiracy-minded nobodies who talk to themselves in crowded coffee shops.
By the way, for all the effort you put into that unintentionally riotous post, it is easily refuted with three words you missed at school:
Duverger was right.
You're the opposite of Hemingway. You drone on and on as he did, but say precisely nothing.