Posted on 05/19/2007 1:09:38 AM PDT by roger55
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.
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/AgainstRonPaul
It was a dumb thing to say, but by itself it does not invalidate his candidacy. When Jerry Falwell made a similar statement, that was dumb too but did not invalidate all his other works.
So long as Paul is a member of the party, and can demonstrate any support, he belongs on that stage with the other candidates.
Free and open debate is the LAST thing this country needs.
>>Do you understand what the 1st Amendment is about?
Your “petition” denies some of those rights. Not a good position for a conservative of any stripe.
You’re right I’m running afoul of the proviso to Amendment 1 that entitles every man who declares himself a candidate for the presidency, to a permanent seat at formal televised debates by the Republican Party candidates, irrespective of what he has to say. It’s a little known item granted, written in invisible ink, right next to the treasure map. I must have forgotten about that when I forgot that failing to promote an idea under the party brand, equals the censorship of it.
I kid, but the great irony of this of course, is that anyone who promotes compulsory speech, isn’t promoting free speech. If you’re required to endorse and accept something, that’s not free speech or free association.
THOMPSON/POWELL 08’
Why make a martyr of him? Alex Jones would make hay over that for decades.
>>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.
You are right! We can't allow someone like Ron Paul who is against illegal immigration, or for the second ammendment, or against the IRS and all the government welfare programs NEAR the whitehouse!
I have come to my senses! I will vote for Rudy, who was endorsed by the liberal party in New York! He will take my guns - and fund abortions with my tax dollars! He is the REAL republican! (and so is McCain)
Hahahaaa!
LOL, Good one, we can't have anyone heard that actually believes the Constitution means what it says now can we.
This petition is garbage.
>>>Why make a martyr of him? Alex Jones would make hay over that for decades.
True and good. Insane and self-defeating enemies such as that, are hard to come by. That Paul appeared on Jones alone, is a whole other problem with his candidacy.
“Ron Paul won both debates so far”
Are you on drugs?
OMG! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
The Ron Paul Smear Campaign
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1835505/posts
Paul does not ~~come from the position that terrorism is our fault~~ ; thus the whole premise for your petion is flawed.
Interesting petition. Good luck with all that.
Fact is, all the hoo-ha over what Paul said is giving him priceless exposure and raising his profile beyond his wildest dreams. Many are upset with what he said, but as soon as they dig into his record and his background they see that he is a solid conservative in a much stricter sense than most of the ‘pseudo-conservatives’ running the GOP circus right now.
Any politician knows that the only time to be worried is when they are not talking about you at all.
>>Who is, and where is, compulsory speech being promoted?
Everyone who suggest that Paul’s inclusion in the debate is mandatory, is suggesting just that. The argument, such as it is, is that he’s entitled to a permanent platform no matter he says. To enforce any preconditional standards is censorship. At least as they would have it.
>>Where and/or how are you being compelled or required to endorse or accept anything?
I’m not? Gasp! You mean, Paul’s ideas don’t have to be presented and heard nin a televised debate under a big GOP logo? I agree with you. Now let’s put an end to the indignity of it.
Not if the media has their way, they want to undermine him as a kook because he threatens so many entrenched special interests. And the globalist/ big government wing of the RNC appears fine with that, they seem threatened by him too, they don't want to disrupt their budding alliance with Ted Kennedy over such things as "no child left behind" and amnesty for illegals. They would much prefer we ignore such conservative issues so we can get in line behind faux conservatives like Rudy McRomney instead, and too quit sullying these debates with the dangerous ideas of a limited government Constitutionalist like Ron Paul.
>>they seem threatened by him to
A helpful note to Paulists. Your opponents are not:
1. Desperate
2. Threatened
3. Frightened
4. Involved in a conspiracy
Save this checklist and run your argument through it before making it each time. Make sure this sort of vanity isn’t present in whatever point you’re making. You’ll improve your case, I promise. Everyone benefits from that.
Almost everyone’s,
Not mine. I never read the list of what is proper to say and what is not. Could you provide a list of the proper speech standards?
Like I said, blatant anti-2nd Amendment comments were made up there.
Shall we eliminate that candidate too?
No, are you?
Ron Paul clearly won both debates.
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.