Richandler
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,763
What are the chances we can flood the area with 10,000 Ron Paul supporters!?
Republican Presidential Debate to Exclude Ron Paul
- Thread starter Taco John
- Start date
jesshwarren
Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 123
We GOT to do somthing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes you are right on this account.
This is the whole shootin match....no "pollsters" can work in collusion with Networks to "shape" the outcome of elections (we all know thats what happens though)......
We just need to have the BALLS to put a stop to it. PERIOD
a DECLARATION OF LIBERTY needs to be drafted....with the grievances.
I got a brilliant idea.
how about we just setup ron paul outside the debate with all of his supporters. contact a local news organization. and we'll have our OWN damn debate EXCLUDING the other GOP candidates.
We can live stream it on the net, you tube it, ron paul radio it. ect ect.
how about we just setup ron paul outside the debate with all of his supporters. contact a local news organization. and we'll have our OWN damn debate EXCLUDING the other GOP candidates.
We can live stream it on the net, you tube it, ron paul radio it. ect ect.
M
michaeldk
Guest
The Good Doctor
Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2007
- Messages
- 949
M.Bellmore
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 572
Two ideas come to mind:
1. Largest RP event next door ever (make the Philly rally seem small)
2. International Rally - RP seems to have significant international support. Is there some way to link it all together for an Iowa event? (we could sing we are the world
)
1. Largest RP event next door ever (make the Philly rally seem small)
2. International Rally - RP seems to have significant international support. Is there some way to link it all together for an Iowa event? (we could sing we are the world
)
M.Bellmore
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 572
Sounds like the money bomb date might have to be Dec 4
This is what happens when we let injustice go unchecked. I remember back in 2000 when Alan Keyes was denied participation in a Republican debate and showed up at the event and was promptly arrested. I was furious that none of the other limp-dick Republican candidates would lift a finger to stand up for him. The Republicans have been selling out incrementally for a long time. Let's bring them back in line.
ChooseLiberty
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 2,509
Don't know if this has been mentioned -
One of the first things to do should be to make sure this potential exclusion gets dropped into the conversation on the MSM.
Dr Paul's getting huge publicity right now. Make sure the media people know what's going on with Iowa before he takes an interview. Especially the Iowa papers and TV.
I doubt if many people in the media are aware of this situation.
One of the first things to do should be to make sure this potential exclusion gets dropped into the conversation on the MSM.
Dr Paul's getting huge publicity right now. Make sure the media people know what's going on with Iowa before he takes an interview. Especially the Iowa papers and TV.
I doubt if many people in the media are aware of this situation.
TheEvilDetector
Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 3,716
Iowan Meetup People, this is HIGH time you figure out how to fix this.
What is necessary (and legal of course) MUST be done!!!!
What is necessary (and legal of course) MUST be done!!!!
ladyliberty
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,535
FCC rules say they have to give ALL the candidates equal time - how long do the Fox debates usually last???
I agree. Play the networks off one another. Make them want to look like they are the champion of the democratic process and the other guy is the fascist.
ladyliberty
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,535
EQUAL TIME RULE
U.S. Broadcasting Regulatory Rule
It is the closest thing in broadcast content regulation to the "golden rule." The equal time, or more accurately, the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time. Simply put, a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office. However, a candidate who can not afford time does not receive free time unless his or her opponent is also given free time. Thus, even with the equal time law, a well funded campaign has a significant advantage in terms of broadcast exposure for the candidate.
The equal opportunity requirement dates back to the first major broadcasting law in the United States, the Radio Act of 1927. Legislators were concerned that without mandated equal opportunity for candidates, some broadcasters might try to manipulate elections. As one congressman put it, "American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations." When the Radio Act was superseded by the Communications Act of 1934, the equal time provision became Section 315 of the new statute.
A major amendment to Section 315 came in 1959 following a controversial Federal Communications Commission (FCC) interpretation of the equal time provision. Lar Daly, who had run for a variety of public offices, sometimes campaigning dressed as Uncle Sam, was running for mayor of Chicago. Daly demanded free air time from Chicago television stations in response to the stations' news coverage of incumbent mayor Richard Daley. Although the airtime given to Mayor Daley was not directly related to his re-election campaign, the FCC ruled that his appearance triggered the equal opportunity provision of Section 315. Broadcasters interpreted the FCC's decision as now requiring equal time for a candidate anytime another candidate appeared on the air, even if the appearance was not linked to the election campaign.
Congress reacted quickly by creating four exemptions to the equal opportunity law. Stations who gave time to candidates on regularly scheduled newscasts, news interviews shows, documentaries (assuming the candidate wasn't the primary focus of the documentary), or on-the-spot news events would not have to offer equal time to other candidates for that office. In creating these exemptions, Congress stressed that the public interest would be served by allowing stations the freedom to cover the activities of candidates without worrying that any story about a candidate, no matter how tangentially related to his or her candidacy, would require equal time. The exemptions to Section 315 have also served the interests of incumbent candidates, since by virtue of their incumbency they often generate more news coverage then their challengers.
Since 1959, the FCC has provided a number of interpretations to Section 315's exemptions. Presidential press conferences have been labeled on-the-spot news, even if the president uses his remarks to bolster his campaign. Since the 1970s, debates have also been considered on-the-spot news events and therefore exempt from the equal time law. This has enabled stations or other parties arranging the debates to choose which candidates to include in a debate. Before this ruling by the FCC, Congress voted to suspend Section 315 during the 1960 presidential campaign to allow Richard Nixon and John Kennedy to engage in a series of debates without the participation of third party candidates. The FCC has also labeled shows such as The Phil Donahue Show and Good Morning America news interview programs. However, appearances by candidates in shows which do not fit under the four exempt formats will trigger the equal opportunities provision, even if the appearance is irrelevant to the campaign. Therefore, during Ronald Reagan's political campaigns, if a station aired one of his films, it would have been required to offer equal time to Mr. Reagan's opponents.
Section 315 also prohibits a station from censoring what a candidate says when he or she appears on the air (unless it is in one of the exempt formats). Thus, a few years ago when a self-avowed segregationist was running for the governorship of Georgia, the FCC rejected citizen complaints over the candidate's use in his ads of derogatory language towards African-Americans. More recently, the FCC has also rejected attempts to censor candidate ads depicting aborted fetuses. However, the Commission has permitted stations to channel such ads to times of day when children are less likely to be in the audience.
The equal opportunity law does not demand that a station afford a state or local candidate any air time. However, under the public interest standard of the Communications Act, the FCC has said that stations should make time available for candidates for major state and local offices. With regard to federal candidates, broadcast stations have much less discretion. A 1971 amendment to the Communications Act requires stations make a reasonable amount of time available to federal candidates. Once time is made available under this provision, the equal time requirements of Section 315 apply.
The 1971 amendments also addressed the rates which stations can charge candidates for air time. Before 1971, Congress only required that the rates charged candidates be comparable to those offered to commercial advertisers. Now, Section 315 commands that as the election approaches, stations must offer candidates the rate it offers its most favored advertiser. Thus, if a station gives a discount to a commercial sponsor because it buys a great deal of air time, the station must offer the same discount to any candidate regardless of how much time he or she purchases.
-Howard Klieman
FURTHER READING
Donahue, Hugh Carter. The Battle to Control Broadcast News: Who Owns the First Amendment? Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1989.
Rowan, Ford. Broadcast Fairness: Doctrine, Practice, Prospects: A Reappraisal of the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Rule. New York: Longman, 1984.
See also Deregulation; Federal Communications Commission; Political Processes and Television
U.S. Broadcasting Regulatory Rule
It is the closest thing in broadcast content regulation to the "golden rule." The equal time, or more accurately, the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time. Simply put, a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office. However, a candidate who can not afford time does not receive free time unless his or her opponent is also given free time. Thus, even with the equal time law, a well funded campaign has a significant advantage in terms of broadcast exposure for the candidate.
The equal opportunity requirement dates back to the first major broadcasting law in the United States, the Radio Act of 1927. Legislators were concerned that without mandated equal opportunity for candidates, some broadcasters might try to manipulate elections. As one congressman put it, "American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations." When the Radio Act was superseded by the Communications Act of 1934, the equal time provision became Section 315 of the new statute.
A major amendment to Section 315 came in 1959 following a controversial Federal Communications Commission (FCC) interpretation of the equal time provision. Lar Daly, who had run for a variety of public offices, sometimes campaigning dressed as Uncle Sam, was running for mayor of Chicago. Daly demanded free air time from Chicago television stations in response to the stations' news coverage of incumbent mayor Richard Daley. Although the airtime given to Mayor Daley was not directly related to his re-election campaign, the FCC ruled that his appearance triggered the equal opportunity provision of Section 315. Broadcasters interpreted the FCC's decision as now requiring equal time for a candidate anytime another candidate appeared on the air, even if the appearance was not linked to the election campaign.
Congress reacted quickly by creating four exemptions to the equal opportunity law. Stations who gave time to candidates on regularly scheduled newscasts, news interviews shows, documentaries (assuming the candidate wasn't the primary focus of the documentary), or on-the-spot news events would not have to offer equal time to other candidates for that office. In creating these exemptions, Congress stressed that the public interest would be served by allowing stations the freedom to cover the activities of candidates without worrying that any story about a candidate, no matter how tangentially related to his or her candidacy, would require equal time. The exemptions to Section 315 have also served the interests of incumbent candidates, since by virtue of their incumbency they often generate more news coverage then their challengers.
Since 1959, the FCC has provided a number of interpretations to Section 315's exemptions. Presidential press conferences have been labeled on-the-spot news, even if the president uses his remarks to bolster his campaign. Since the 1970s, debates have also been considered on-the-spot news events and therefore exempt from the equal time law. This has enabled stations or other parties arranging the debates to choose which candidates to include in a debate. Before this ruling by the FCC, Congress voted to suspend Section 315 during the 1960 presidential campaign to allow Richard Nixon and John Kennedy to engage in a series of debates without the participation of third party candidates. The FCC has also labeled shows such as The Phil Donahue Show and Good Morning America news interview programs. However, appearances by candidates in shows which do not fit under the four exempt formats will trigger the equal opportunities provision, even if the appearance is irrelevant to the campaign. Therefore, during Ronald Reagan's political campaigns, if a station aired one of his films, it would have been required to offer equal time to Mr. Reagan's opponents.
Section 315 also prohibits a station from censoring what a candidate says when he or she appears on the air (unless it is in one of the exempt formats). Thus, a few years ago when a self-avowed segregationist was running for the governorship of Georgia, the FCC rejected citizen complaints over the candidate's use in his ads of derogatory language towards African-Americans. More recently, the FCC has also rejected attempts to censor candidate ads depicting aborted fetuses. However, the Commission has permitted stations to channel such ads to times of day when children are less likely to be in the audience.
The equal opportunity law does not demand that a station afford a state or local candidate any air time. However, under the public interest standard of the Communications Act, the FCC has said that stations should make time available for candidates for major state and local offices. With regard to federal candidates, broadcast stations have much less discretion. A 1971 amendment to the Communications Act requires stations make a reasonable amount of time available to federal candidates. Once time is made available under this provision, the equal time requirements of Section 315 apply.
The 1971 amendments also addressed the rates which stations can charge candidates for air time. Before 1971, Congress only required that the rates charged candidates be comparable to those offered to commercial advertisers. Now, Section 315 commands that as the election approaches, stations must offer candidates the rate it offers its most favored advertiser. Thus, if a station gives a discount to a commercial sponsor because it buys a great deal of air time, the station must offer the same discount to any candidate regardless of how much time he or she purchases.
-Howard Klieman
FURTHER READING
Donahue, Hugh Carter. The Battle to Control Broadcast News: Who Owns the First Amendment? Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1989.
Rowan, Ford. Broadcast Fairness: Doctrine, Practice, Prospects: A Reappraisal of the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Rule. New York: Longman, 1984.
See also Deregulation; Federal Communications Commission; Political Processes and Television
Email to Iowa GOP
Just sent an email to Chairman of the Iowa GOP (see below). I seriously doubt whether he will respond. Some quick thoughts. If there is a 5% poll requirement, Ron Paul won't make it (maybe 4.76% or so) because poll will be rigged.
What to do? I suggest a Dec 4 money bomb aimed at debate exclusion. I will be mad enough to double Nov 5th contribution and I think many others will be also.
Use the money raised that day to buy TV time on most popular shows following the debate - Not a single penny to Fox- only ABC, CBS, NBC. Show series of Ron Paul ads - We would get much more exposure that way than in the debate anyway and the unfairness of Ron's being excluded would play well across America. Lets turn this thing to Ron's advantage. Save the gas money for the drive to Iowa and put it in TV ads that people will watch. Play the "underdog" and "mistreated" card. BIG Time with big money.
Mr. Hoffman,
I notice that in your announcement of the December 4
presidential debate sponsored by the Iowa Republican party,
you state that you will "host a debate featuring major
Republican candidates."
You use the word "major" rather than "all" Republican
candidates. Does this mean that the Iowa Republican Party
intends to exclude some of our Republican presidential
candidates? I surely hope this is not the case. There have
been seven debates to date, and the sponsors of all those
debates have acted in a fair and impartial manner by
including all candidates. While it is true that the "top
tier" candidates were given more time and more questions to
answer, nonetheless, all candidates were included. I hope it
would not fall to the Republican Party of Iowa to be the
first to act unfairly. All of our Republican candidates
have made major sacrifices to run a presidential campaign
and their supporters have worked hard and also made
sacrifices of time and money. They ALL deserve to be heard
and treated respectfully.
Just sent an email to Chairman of the Iowa GOP (see below). I seriously doubt whether he will respond. Some quick thoughts. If there is a 5% poll requirement, Ron Paul won't make it (maybe 4.76% or so) because poll will be rigged.
What to do? I suggest a Dec 4 money bomb aimed at debate exclusion. I will be mad enough to double Nov 5th contribution and I think many others will be also.
Use the money raised that day to buy TV time on most popular shows following the debate - Not a single penny to Fox- only ABC, CBS, NBC. Show series of Ron Paul ads - We would get much more exposure that way than in the debate anyway and the unfairness of Ron's being excluded would play well across America. Lets turn this thing to Ron's advantage. Save the gas money for the drive to Iowa and put it in TV ads that people will watch. Play the "underdog" and "mistreated" card. BIG Time with big money.
Mr. Hoffman,
I notice that in your announcement of the December 4
presidential debate sponsored by the Iowa Republican party,
you state that you will "host a debate featuring major
Republican candidates."
You use the word "major" rather than "all" Republican
candidates. Does this mean that the Iowa Republican Party
intends to exclude some of our Republican presidential
candidates? I surely hope this is not the case. There have
been seven debates to date, and the sponsors of all those
debates have acted in a fair and impartial manner by
including all candidates. While it is true that the "top
tier" candidates were given more time and more questions to
answer, nonetheless, all candidates were included. I hope it
would not fall to the Republican Party of Iowa to be the
first to act unfairly. All of our Republican candidates
have made major sacrifices to run a presidential campaign
and their supporters have worked hard and also made
sacrifices of time and money. They ALL deserve to be heard
and treated respectfully.
Similar threads
