Petition Against Ron Paul's Inclusion in Future Republican Presidential Debates

Petition Against Ron Paul's Inclusion in Future Republican Presidential Debates Created by Lee Garnett on 16 May 2007 @ 8:13:24 AM

We the undersigned believe that Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, Republican candidate for president, does not represent any significant constituency within the Republican Party and has proven to serve only as a distraction from the serious issues confronted in candidate debates.

The paucity of Paul's support among registered Republicans, the support he draws from external parties which are aggressively opposed to the GOP, as well as his fundamental opposition to many core principles of our party and his apparent inability to understand even simple geopolitical realities, make his continued presence in future debates undesirable.

Congressman Paul's self-confessed belief that President Clinton and “50 years” of United States foreign policy on Iraq and Iran was responsible for provoking Al Qaeda to attack the United States on September 11, 2001, are views which are totally inimical to Republican Party principles and are gravely offensive to the vast majority of registered Republicans.

We Republicans do not wish to be associated such views, have a party platform provided for their propagation, or allow them to distort and damage the substantive content of future presidential debates. By forcing the other candidates to confront his unsound and grotesquely anti-American positions on equal terms, Paul lowers the quality and relevance of any debate and thereby does a substantial disservice to Republicans seeking a nominee for their party.

It is not our belief that Congressman Paul isn't entitled to his views, or to have them publicly heard and addressed. But we object strenuously to them being presented in the context of a Republican party presidential debate, for which they are entirely unsuited and broadly unwelcome. They will be better served in a debate over a party's nomination where they are shared by the party membership, such as under the Libertarian National Committee.

Therefore, we the undersigned request Ron Paul's exclusion from invitation to future Republican presidential debates by the Republican National Committee and any relevant media organizations, including Fox News Channel, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, PBS or any party which intends to organize, host or televise future debates between the candidates for a presidential nomination, under the Republican Party's name.

“where do you get off calling him a lunatic?”

I dont care what he has done when he babbles on about 9-11 being our fault on national TV and puts our troops in more danger while encouraging our enemies, especially while hiding behind a Republican mask.

“The voters in his district certainly don’t appear to agree with you, they keep reelecting him.”

There must be quite a few lunatics in his district.

Anyone who comes from the position that terrorism is our fault can kma, I couldnt care less about anything else they have said or done or how many moonbats in their district give him their support.

If you want your old screen name back , just ast JimRob nicely and he'll fix things.

It worked for me.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

>>>Yeah, some if his ideas are different from mine so he just needs to be shut up! </ democrat>

Well, this is getting redundant, but this is not an appeal to “shut up” Paul. All of the people in here arguing against censorship are debating a scarecrow in a distant field, as the petition has not made that case.

But comment that some of his ideas are different from mine is too charitable a description. Who does agree with his his contention. The man has blamed the United States for 9/11. This is not a minor disagreement, that can be put aside or justified as a worthwhile subject for discussion. This is a fundamental hostility to both truth and principle, of the highest magnitude. It should disqualify his participation, if anything would (and some things should).

Blaming the United States for the murderous schemes of her adversaries from a podium at a Republican debate has no value in any context. No one benefits from exploring this idea. He might as well have stood up and told the assembly that the world was flat, or that the Stalin had a point when he liquidated the Kulaks. Debate along these lines is ridiculous.

I don’t like him. He’s like a little weasel.

However, this IS America and...he has the right just like everyone else to participate in this campaign and while he has already made an ass of himself...it is STILL his right as an American citizen to be a part of the debates. Let him speak his mind and offer his opinions just like everyone else. The idea of signing a petition to remove a candidate of any party is ludicrous.

We absolulely must silence Ron Paul.

We have worked long and hard over the last 15 years to turn the Republican party into a compassionate pro-government movement. We’ve been able to increase Federal spending 50% under Bush, we’ve created more social welfare programs that Clinton, we’ve opened the borders and have allowed the American people to fund Mexico with the 18 month social security eligibility. We have made great strides in monitoring the personal lives and finances of the American people in order to keep them safe, and we are on the brink of being able to eliminate firearms from our great society.

Ron Paul threatens all of this.

So you think it’s impossible that our foreign policies have repercussions?

If I show up at your house, and punch you in the face, should I not expect a response?

Is this just because you’re so egocentric you can’t fathom that foreigners have thoughts or feelings?

I don’t know enough about Ron Paul to make a determination about his suitability to be included in the debates, but as long as mccain and guiliani are both allowed on the stage, he should have a place there as well.

I disagree in the strongest possible terms with both of those individual, but I won’t waste my breath or my fingertips calling for their muzzling, for whatever reasons.

If you only allow those whom you agree with to “debate”, soon there will be no one on the stage and you’ll be alone in your little cocoon safe from disturbing thoughts and ideas.

In other words, Grow the Frack up!

When in a fight if you drop your arms and start trying to figure out what you did to cause it, 2nd guessing yourself...then you already lost.

Thats were we are as a country imo.

Hindsight doesnt matter to me nor does the question of if our foreign policy was perfect or not.

When we are attacked (especially civilians) I believe in defense, even offense. Everything else is moot at that point.

"Is this just because you’re so egocentric you can’t fathom that "foreigners" have thoughts or feelings?"

Your sympathy for the "thoughts and feelings" of terrorists might get more traction at DU.

>>>If you want your old screen name back , just ast JimRob nicely and he’ll fix things

Thanks LonePalm, I’ve no doubt of that. This one is good enough, as I’m not really particular about my screen name. Since the 90s, I’ve always been kind of an in-and-out guy on FR. This is actually my third name due to a lost email addy I think, going back to 98 or so.

To give you an idea how rare I am, the last debate I had was about Harriet Miers. The majority in the thread I was in thought she was just swell and I didn’t. Although that couldn’t have been representative of the board then.

Similarly I’m unconvinced that the majority of FR doesn’t understand the difference between censorship and invitation to a debate, despite what is being said in here.

But suggesting that the United States is culpable for its own punishment on 9/11 from Al Qaeda

Except this does not at all resemble what he said. He said that past US foreign policy has contributed to the hatred which inspired 9/11. And this is unequivocally and undeniably true.

>>I disagree in the strongest possible terms with both of those individual, but I won’t waste my breath or my fingertips calling for their muzzling, for whatever reasons.

Again, there is no muzzle here. I understand that it’s conveinant to argue that there is. But it’s possible (trust me) to dispute this petition without mischaracterizing it as censorship.

It’s just wrong that every idea should be permitted a platform at the GOP debate. Holocaust denial, the promotion of racism, apologies for Stalin or Castro and other things of this nature contain no benefit at all to a Republican presidential debate. Forcing the other candidates to dismiss them, tells us nothing about them either, because no sensible Republican candidate could possibly endorse them to begin with. Thus we learn nothing of utility about the candidates. Saying the people on 9/11 had it coming, due to fifty years of United States foreign policy belongs in the ranks of the above opinions. They should be cast out as uniformly unsuitable. They don’t deserve a microphone on national television.

And yes, time should be devoted to saying this about those discreditable positions.

Ron Paul merely wants us as a nation to re-examine our foreign policy, he realizes that the current track that we are on (nation building throughout the mideast, propping up corrupt governments like Saudi Arabia) is liable to bankrupt us before it can deliver a pacified mideast, and is more like poking a hornet’s nest with a stick with these crazy Islofascists. After sinking $1 trillion and 3.5k+ American lives over in Iraq, what will we have achieved? Personally I myself am not sure we are anywhere near the point to where we can disengage ourselves from things as Dr Paul seems to be proposing, but let him air his views, it helps open up the debate, not only on this issue, but plenty of others. He’s the only limited government guy left, and he knows the path we are on now playing world policeman/nation builder is incompatible with that vision of limited government. He has a much more consistant overall conservative philosophy compared to many of the other pretenders in this campaign, and therefore his voice needs and deserves to be heard.

While we have troops on the ground there he should not undermine them by placing the blame for the fight on their country. Not only it is wrong in principle but untrue also.

He lost me there, and I will forever support his political demise.

My cousin is recovering from an IED in Baghdad
and Im convinced this sort of talk has encouraged the enemy and prolonged the war thus putting him and his fellow soldiers at more risk, not to mention contributing to the $1 trillion expense.
Ive come to expect that from the left but will never except it from someoen claiming to be Republican.

He is complaining about what he himself is encouraging by his own words.
If he was concerned about the money and lives it would benefit both to sthu about it being our fault at least until the job is done and/or the troops are home. (imo)

I don’t believe in exclusion of candidates, but if they were to begin, Giuliani should be the first out.

There have been Ron Paul fans on this site since the late ‘90’s, but now there’s such vitriol when his name is mentioned. The neo-cons have taken what was left of a viable, true conservative base and left it fractured, hollow...
bare ruined choirs.

Paul supporters are “spammers”, I read here. One man’s “freep” is another’s spam. I recall when Freepers were outraged by Clinton’s lies, yet now turn blind eyes to current lies and spin.

plus ca change, etc...

>>>Except this does not at all resemble what he said. He said that past US foreign policy has contributed to the hatred which inspired 9/11. And this is unequivocally and undeniably true.

Nope. Directly, Ron Paul said the following: “Have you read the reasons they attacked us? We’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years.”

That’s as direct correlation between US policy and the attacks as they come. That’s not a contributive effect. That’s suggesting our policy of enforcing the UN mandated NoFly Zone to prevent genocide, was the cause of 9/11. It’s also amusingly dissonant in light of Paul’s earlier reasons for opposing the war. In that it suggests Al Qaeda and Iraq have identical interests.

Later in his defense, he merely extended this point by citing half a century of US policies. Both specifically and broadly, it’s not only obscene, it’s ludicrous. These are not Al Qaeda’s motives if you know anything about their global ambitions. These are Al Qaeda’s excuses to the extent that they mention them at all.

>>>This type of thing gives the guy more attention than he deserves. Just ignore him.

That would be nice, unfortunately given that he is presently included in the formal Republican presidential debates, he cannot be ignored. He will persist in forcing these horrendous ideas into the Republican debate and we’re the worse for his efforts too.

>>>Anyone who comes from the position that terrorism is our fault can kma, I couldnt care less about anything else they have said or done or how many moonbats in their district give him their support.

Ditto.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.