So Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter have been excluded from the next New Hampshire Republican presidential debate, scheduled for January 6. As Fox explained it, "The network said it had limited space in its studio — a souped-up bus — and that it invited candidates who had received double-digit support in recent polls."
The Paul campaign is furious. But Fox has a mobile studio in New Hampshire, and there's just not room. Although, Paul, at least, has been invited to the next Fox News debate, in South Carolina on January 10. The point is, there are reasons--often times technical, nothing to do with a conspiracy--to do everything.
And as we can see from these data provided by the invaluable RealClearPolitics.com,Paul is not a genuine contender in the Republican nomination. By now, if we're interested, we all know what the candidates will say in their timed-for-sound-bite answers to questions. What would be much more interesting would be to see the various candidates, in both parties, paired off against each other, mano a mano, like the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858--say, Mitt Romney vs. Mike Huckabee, or Hillary Clinton vs. John Edwards. With a little creativity, everyone could debate everyone, and then we'd actually see how these candidates, think What would also be cool, TCG thinks, would be to have a Democrat debate a Republican, even as they continue on in their respective primaries.
But back to Paul. The Texas Congressman has a history of being a minor player in presidential campaigns-- back in 1988, he ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for president, receiving a grand total of .5% of the vote. So why should someone with such an obvious record of being a non-factor in either the Republican nomination race, or the race for the White House, get to be automatically included in all the debates.
Indeed, a look back at that year, 1988, reminds us as to why it's a good idea to exercise judgment in screening for the debates--I did not know that KKK-er David Duke "ran" as a Democrat that year; since I don't remember him at all, that tells me that the Democratic Party, in its wisdom, kept Duke out of its forums. And back then, various sponsoring outfits, such as, say, The League of Women Voters--a major player in the presidential debates in the 70s and the 80s--did their part, as well, to keep Duke out.
Since then, as we know, the media have pretty much taken over the presidential-debate sponsoring gig. And they have made plenty of controversial choices. Remember the debates that The Des Moines Register held in December? The paper excluded Dennis Kucinich out of the Democratic debate, and included Alan Keyes in the Republican debate. The Register had its reasons; and while critics said that the paper was trying to help the Democrats (by excluding the goofy Kucinich) and hurt the Republicans (by including the goofy Keyes), the point is that that's freedom. Nobody makes anybody participate in these debates, and nobody makes anybody watch.
The Paul campaign, in particular, should understand this: They are libertarians--you know, let the free market, and private-sector players, decide. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to be on TV.
In fact, Wikipedia lists seven more GOP hopefuls, all formally filed with the Federal Election Commission. And that list doesn't include John Cox, who raised a ruckuslast spring when he was excluded from the GOP debates. Indeed, The Cable Gamer can think of several more presidential hopefuls, on top of all those, floating around out there.
Should they all have their free speech rights? Of course.
Should they all be guaranteed TV time? Of course not.
TCG predicts that this debate-fight will come up again and again. In each instance, there will be more demand for TV airtime than there will be a supply of TV airtime. And yet because we have to elect somebody this year, we need some sort of orderly process. What if Ron Paul decides to run again as a Libertarian candidate, as he probably will? What if Mike Bloomberg gets in the race? What about, say, Ralph Nader? And what of all the other mavericks, malcontents, and misfits who might wish to throw their hats--or whatevers--in the ring?
So to repeat: there will need to be a process for deciding who gets on, and who doesn't. The Cable Gamer thinks that, in the true spirit of Ron Paul's libertarianism, the market, and all the players in the market, should make the decision.
