New Haven Independent

Posted by: cuthbert1776 | January 7, 2008 10:57 AM

Talk about mean...let's have a look at the latest on Frank Luntz's wonderful focus group practices.

http://roobaroo.net/Images/Fox_Focus_Group.jpg

Now, I'm no forensics expert, but it certainly looks like Frank may is using at least some of the same people in his "fair & balanced" focus groups.

I agree with Penn & Teller (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4 )... Frank!

Posted by: on whalley | January 7, 2008 11:11 AM

That was total BS not allowing Paul onto the Fox debate. I get it that very few MSM'ers think Paul has a chance but after beat Rudy they should have apologized and invited him on.

If Paul had as low support as Duncan Hunter did I could accept his absence but he beat Rudy for Christ's sake. Rudy is like WalMart. He doesn't need to advertise. People know who he is and he still lost to Paul.

I'll be writing Paul in if I have to. There's no I'm throwing my support behind any of the other (R)'s (in name only). Maybe if through some feat of majic Hunter wins the bid I'll go for him but Rudy, Mitt and Mike can forget about my vote.

All of the (D)'s are pushing for more government so they're off my radar almost by default.

Posted by: John Bowery | January 7, 2008 11:33 AM

Fox News and Frank Luntz do indeed owe the American people something. They owe us an apology for prejudicial coverage of the presidential campaign so far, for excluding an important candidate from a debate immediately preceding a critical primary, for pretending to be a news organization instead of a propaganda machine for the big business establishment.
If the Ron Paul supporters are rowdy and angry it is because they care deeply about the same things that are troubling most Americans: the weakening of America's working middle class, skyrocketing national debt, erosion of our basic constitutional rights, and an unresponsive political machine that only pays lip service to changing our disastrous national policies.
Maybe it is time we ALL became a little angry and rowdy.

Posted by: grunk | January 7, 2008 11:33 AM

Why doesn't the media call out Luntz for his phony focus group. There's a guy who was in Luntz's September focus group. It makes all media look bad.

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=5888

Posted by: Richard Wicks | January 7, 2008 11:34 AM

Fox's "focus" groups are rigged:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLVgMF9R9g (focus group for Sep 5, 2007 debate) at around 3:45

is the same as the guy in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZenB1s2rKDI at around 1:44 which was from January.

They are actors.

I wonder if the media will pick up this story? I doubt it, the media doesn't seem too worried when it's caught trying to manipulate people - since this is the function now of our "free" media.

Posted by: Connecticut Bob | January 7, 2008 12:05 PM

Great article! Melissa, you really nailed it. The story IS how Fox distorts the "news" and presents opinion as fact. There's nothing fair and balanced about excluding a legitimate candidate from a nationally-televised debate.

"I don't owe you guys anything!" said Luntz.

That could be the new Fox News slogan.

Posted by: Leo | January 7, 2008 1:51 PM

Thank you for being truly "fair and balanced." Not taking a side in this media frenzy. If the people are allowed to choose, they will choose who THEY will, not who the media wills.

Stay fair Independent, and stay independent!

Posted by: Bob C | January 7, 2008 1:53 PM

I was there last night, being roughly twice the age of many of the supporters I watched the Hannity retreat from a distance with a sense of pride...Never liked bullying blow hards like him.
Maybe he will come to know the meaning of "blowback" and educate his blowhard buddy Guliani.

The rally was impressive from the point of view that so many young people are waking up, thank you to all who were there I hope you can help us keep our freedom. If we have to continue take to the streets to maintain our rights, so be it.
Others will hear us an join us. Spread the message to all elections, at all levels.

Rather than denigrate the people at the rally last night I ask readers to consider WHY they are so angry? Isn't the real question why AREN'T more Americans angry too? Your dollar is falling faster than Guliani's poll numbers, we have a
host of fools foisted on us by the media and we're told to pick the lesser of two evils.

The "rapid Ron Paul supporter" stories are entertaining but fail to get to the heart of the problems in America...we leave that chore to Dr. Ron Paul. He has the cure.

What is wrong with Constitutional government, fiscal sanity, respect for liberty and end to our Corporate sponsored Empire building?

Google Ron Paul for President 2008 Join us.

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | January 7, 2008 3:57 PM

"Dr. Ron Paul...has the cure" for all that ails us. Another of the Paul Fantasists bares his breast! Americans fall for a new political "savior" with every new campaign, only to find themselves disappointed in their choices, and they call for a new one shortly thereafter. How will Paul be any different? Especially since his platform is stagnated in concepts that were modern in the 19th century! Getting nothing done in a congress and an administration that will fight tooth and nail, he will get old very quickly!

Posted by: doug | January 7, 2008 4:12 PM

Paul certainly was disenfranchised, as were others by ABC. But his supporters - who don't officially even work for the campaign - are wrecking his already-lackluster credibility. He is anti-war and that's great. But the guy apparently wants to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. So we all home-school? So where does the education funding come from? Does anyone realize where most of the money for new schools comes from?

It's nice that "savior" has let us all know that his first move is to tear down the American education system. Makes him really an attractive candidate. Sheesh.

Posted by: eric | January 7, 2008 4:36 PM

Look at who they are what they've stood for!
Mitt, slick look, slick talk, more corp. america
Rudy, (Mr. 9/11) taxpayer money for his mistress'flat and her escort
Huckabee, I'm wary of any man who leaves the calling of GOD for politics.
McCain, 100 years more or war? you're kidding right? Of all people he should be waging peace.
RON PAUL says what does and does what he says, atleast for the last 20 years! He's an M.D. and I think America needs a Doctor! Not only would he not take part in the lucrative congressional pension plan, he would not allow ANY of his children to receive government funds for their college. Humble, peaceful, promotes life, against having our children killed, a true partiot!

Posted by: Jim | January 8, 2008 5:01 AM

Doug: Schools get roughly 5% of their funding from the federal government's Department of Education. States and towns are perfectly capable of providing funding on their own, especially since they will likely run more efficiently without the added layer of beaurocracy.

Hartford: Did you ever consider that maybe some of us don't want or need the federal government's help? That in every area of our lives that the federal government has touched, it has made our lives worse? Who are you to force the rest of us to pay for all of the things that you think so greatly improves your life? If all Dr. Paul ever manages to do is stop Congress from "helping" for four years, I'll vote for him a second time.

And I happen to agree with a lot of those old ideas that you so casually dismiss. I like reading Jefferson and Madison and Franklin. I think followers of more "modern" political and economic thought - Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, lack even the most basic understanding of liberty. That's the one thing both Hillary and Bush supporters have in common.

Posted by: doug | January 8, 2008 11:09 AM

Thanks Jim. However, I'm fairly certain schools get far more than 5% from the federal gov't - particularly for the construction of new school facilities - but I would imagine it depends quite a bit on which state you live in. Either way, states funnel the federal money through to the towns, however much that might be. Let's assume you're right for a moment, though, and imagine the impact of a 5 percent funding cut on your schools. Class sizes rise, books not bought, etc. Whatever. Clearly you don't believe in public education if you support Ron Paul. Maybe that's because Republicans can afford to send their kids to private school? That's not sarcasm. I'm just not sure where you're coming from.

Yes, schools can and need to get better, but student achievement is far more about parenting than any school's ability to perform the miracle that it takes to force children to score well on tests. The growing number of completely undisciplined children enrolling in school makes it nearly impossible to keep a classroom under control, and increasing the ratio of students to teachers is certainly not the answer.

Meantime, Hartford's annual operating budget is funded more than half by outside sources and businesses are leaving in droves because of the taxes. You find the money. I think the city's second largest revenue stream - aside from state and federal dollars - comes from parking tickets.

Hartford's a terrible example. Connecticut is full of towns that operate model school systems, and they do it by paying teachers better than anywhere else. Getting a teaching job here is very competitive.

And for god's sake wake up about the federal gov't. It is a fact of life. It's not going away, and yes it touches our lives quite a bit. Things like federal food and drug standards are good things. Roads also are needed. By jumping on a band wagon full of dreamers who think that Ron Paul will somehow shrink or eliminate the federal gov't, you're just taking votes away from candidates who actually have a chance to make a positive impact.

I agree Paul should have a place in the debates, even if he thinks the civil war should not have been fought because the "market" would have eliminated slavery. But don't ignore the fact that he made that statement.

Posted by: Rakkur | January 8, 2008 12:20 PM

Doug, you're missing the point of Dr. Paul's intentions. By taking away the Department of Education, he has no intentions of destroying that educational funding. He wants to take the money that we funnel into this failed system and give it back to the states so that they can decide the best way to spend the money for our education. This way, you have a choice to bring your child to one school or the other. What the federal government tries to do is to create a set of global laws and standards that affect all the schools, and, once you make a rule there, then all the schools in the entire US have to comply with those laws.

Restoring the power to the states will give you the freedom of choice to choose what education you want to give to your children. If you think that the education system in CT is better than MA, then, at least, you have the choice to go there to raise your children. Once the federal government enacts a law that harms education, there's no state that you can relocate to so that you can avoid this law. He wants to restore the power of education to the local governments, and not keep that power in a large bureaucracy that doesn't connect to the people.

Roads and government funding and everything else you have stated are an incredibly important function of government, but not of the federal government. State governments should create their own roads, and they should rely on the federal government to make plans where the roads from different states interconnect. The state government belongs to the people and is closer to the people and is, therefore, more apt to make decisions that are better for those people. They are also much more efficient because they are not trying to maintain the entire country at once; they only deal with the people in their state.

"Abstinence only" sex education for the whole country? The Department of Education is a joke; it should have been called the Department of Restricted Education.

Posted by: on whalley | January 8, 2008 1:18 PM

"And for god's sake wake up about the federal gov't."

My sentiments exactly. The faster people "wake up" to the realities of the fed the sooner we can be rid of it. At the very least, de-claw, de-fang and castrate it.

Posted by: doug | January 8, 2008 6:53 PM

Yes those are reasonable thoughts. But you're talking about rewriting education policy, and that's not really what Paul says. Whatever it is, good luck with it... I wish him, and you folks, all the best. If he can move the argument in the right direction, great.

Posted by: kavorka | January 10, 2008 11:36 AM

This is slightly off topic, but since there are a lot of Ron Paul people on here and New Haven is a small city this might get to the right ears...

I had to take a Ron Paul sign down yesterday that someone had glued to the side of the Little Theater with construction adhesive. The Little Theater is used by ACES the nearby arts high school. In the coming months I encourage everyone to show support for their chosen candidates, but please don't get carried away and damage public property.