Posted by Rojas @ 4:25 pm on December 31st 2007

Oops, part 2

It now appears pretty certain that the Paul campaign and the AP had it right all along where the January 6 candidates’ forum was concerned:


CONCORD – New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen releases the following statement regarding primary weekend debates:

“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.”

“Therefore, the New Hampshire Republican Party calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.”

“The New Hampshire Republican Party has notified FOX News of our position, and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6.”

So, on a personal level, I apologize for having doubted the veracity of the campaign’s position on the issue and their competence in directing support (though not for reporting on the larger controversy). As I’ve said before, the campaign does a pretty excellent job at a nearly impossible cat-herding task. It seems that in this case it was I, not the campaign, who should have held my tongue until learning more.

One would hope that the quashing of this controversy will restore campaign control of Paul’s volunteers in time for a maximally effective Iowa and New Hampshire push.


  1. I understand the need to “feed the blog” but you (this blog) are really jumping all over the Ron Paul campaign for a variety of small issues in the name of “constructive criticism.”

    Comment by daveg — 12/31/2007 @ 5:16 pm

  2. Speaking for myself, I post what I’m interested in and don’t feel the need to post (as evidenced by the fact that I’ve no been posting much the last week). I am entirely sure that the others are the same.

    I think that Rojas is posting about this because he’s interested in it (as he is a Paul supporter) and he has a long and ignoble history of writing what he wants and not caring how things appear to people. And he posts retractions, which is a good thing.

    Comment by Adam — 12/31/2007 @ 5:28 pm

  3. Well, in this case I was certainly wrong to criticize the campaign.

    The fact of the matter is, though, that we are first and foremost observers of the process rather than an organ to pass along a party line. If you want the latter, turn to Fox News.

    The successes of the Paul campaign (for which several of the bloggers here hope) are certainly worthy of comment, and we’ve discussed and celebrated them. But the controversies within the campaign are also worthy of comment. We’re not going to bury that stuff just because several of us like Ron Paul. In this case, there was a very real rift between the campaign and a substantial chunk of the volunteer base; coming as it does a week before the first delegates are selected, that’s worthy of exploration. As it happens, the campaign seems to have been right, and the critics seem to have been wrong; one would hope that our reporting the whole story would be a mechanism by which the volunteers could be brought back onboard. But to do that, we have to report the WHOLE story.

    In short: we have our candidate preferences, but we’re not cheerleaders for ANY candidate. There’s plenty of blogs out there which are celebratory of all things Paul. That’s not our niche. My hope is that our readers will accept us as intelligent critics of the political process and as REASONED advocates of those positions we adopt.

    Comment by Rojas — 12/31/2007 @ 5:31 pm

  4. Nobody reads retractions.

    Comment by scineram — 1/2/2008 @ 11:29 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.