They hate us because were beautiful. - Rudy
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
As proved in the thread cited above, Paul does not "come from the position that terrorism is our fault"; - thus the whole premise for your petition is flawed.
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.
Everyone here would benefit greatly if you would take your supercilious attitude about republicanism elsewhere.
Are you on drugs?
“No...”
Perhaps you should look into them.
>>>Like I said, blatant anti-2nd Amendment comments were made up there.
As I said earlier, it’d be nice to be able to enforce this but we just can’t. Too many people in the GOP want/need representation on this issue. It’s only really a slim majority of Republicans who are actually pro-gun rights. Some of the polls on the issue have surprised me.
But, blaming the US for the actions of Al Qaeda...I mean, I’m not sure most Democrats even believe that fundamentally. It’s something that’s totally alien to the GOP and should be comprehensively offensive to all Americans. It deserves to be back in the political rubbish heap that is the Libertarian Party. I list it as equivalent or near equivalent, with those who blame the Jews for the Holocaust. This is not some item of broad and controversial contention in the Republican Party either. We don’t hold symposiums on the question of US foreign policy is to blame for the slaughter of our citizens, or try to redefine the aims of the salafists to serve political interests.
But as the petition states, it’s not that Paul’s views have no place at all in politics. It’s that importing these views into the GOP is an abuse of the party to serve external (largely Libertarian) political loyalties, who have no interest whatsoever in building or advancing our party and her principles. Libertarians hate and despise the GOP. I know, I used to be one. You ought to see some of the things that are routinely said about the GOP and its entire history in their forums.
Yet, we’re supposed to enable and include these adversarial views as if they were our own? For what reason, toward what end? The debate only suffers by the inclusion, because Rudy/Mitt/McCain can sit up there all day running against the Terrorist apologist, when we need to be digging into the variations on their strategies. As the petition says also, it’s a distraction.
Actually, it was "60 years":
"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export."-- President George W. Bush -- November 6, 2003 linking U.S. policy with the rise of Islamic terrorism.
I guess George Bush has no place in the Republican party (according to you).
So how's ol' Rooty McRommney doing so far?
>>Everyone here would benefit greatly if you would take your supercilious attitude about republicanism elsewhere.
Possibly, but not if they intended to use my absence to persist in explaining criticism of Paul as evidence of vast phantom conspiracies. You’ve got to realize when you ascribe insulting self-flattering motives to your opponents like that, it weakens your case substantially.
~~ blaming the US for the actions of Al Qaeda...I mean, I'm not sure most Democrats even believe that fundamentally. Its something thats totally alien to the GOP and should be comprehensively offensive to all Americans. It deserves to be back in the political rubbish heap that is the Libertarian Party.
I list it as equivalent or near equivalent, with those who blame the Jews for the Holocaust.
This is not some item of broad and controversial contention in the Republican Party either.
Everyone here would benefit greatly if you would take your supercilious attitude about republicanism elsewhere.
Possibly, but not if they intended to use my absence to persist in explaining criticism of Paul as evidence of vast phantom conspiracies.
~You~ list Paul's criticism as equivalent or near equivalent, with those who blame the Jews for the Holocaust. -- Now thats vast phantom BS, in my estimation.
You've got to realize when you ascribe insulting self-flattering motives to your opponents like that, it weakens your case substantially.
You just stuck your foot in your own mouth. - Poor you.
>>~You~ list Paul’s criticism as equivalent or near equivalent, with those who blame the Jews for the Holocaust. — Now thats vast phantom BS, in my estimation.
Hmm. It could be argued that it’s an exageration, but it’s hard to argue it’s phantom. Blaming the victim for the crimes of their tormentors is the same in each instance.
>>>You just stuck your foot in your own mouth. - Poor you.
No, I’m afraid I haven’t described Paulists as being frightened, threatened, conspiratorial or desperate. This is quite different you will observe, from how Paulists routinely mock their critics. Thus my foot, is squarely on the floor.
What is becoming clear is- you don’t like Ron Paul because you don’t like freedom. You are one of those people who wants to control others.
Ron Paul didn’t blame America for 9/11, he inferred it was a consequence of an interventionist foreign policy. Not all Americans support interventionism, and there is nothing definitively American about such a policy. The Republicans need more candidates who look at our appeasement of Islamic fascists during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our appeasement of Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s as detrimental, not fewer.
>>What is becoming clear is- you don’t like Ron Paul because you don’t like freedom. You are one of those people who wants to control others.
Well if you believe that, at least you can comfort yourself with the fact that I’m manifestly inept at it. I’ve been arguing and continue to argue the minority position in this thread. Hmm. Come to think of it, that’s a curious attribute for a control-freak isn’t it?
I know where you’re coming from but if Ron Paul stays in, he only makes more of a jackass out of himself and gives the other candidates a chance to trump him. As repugnant as I found his comments, he did spark off the most entertaining moments of the night.
I’m convinced when we denounce someone, regardless if he or she is “liberal” or “conservative,” as a traitor for saying a military policy is failing, we discourage anyone from EVER saying a policy is failing. Seems like a great way to get stuck with policies that don’t work and to MAXIMIZE U.S. casualties.
Goldman Sachs, Board of Directors, Chairman, and CEO
Morgan Stanley, Board of Directors, Chairman, and CEO
Citigroup, Inc, Board of Directors, Chairman, and CEO
Bank of America, Board of Directors, Chairman, and CEO
Bank of England, Board of Directors, Chairman, and CEO
General Electric, Board of Directors, Chairman, and CEO
Boeing, Board of Directors, Chairman, and CEO
ExxonMobil, Board of Directors, Chairman, and CEO
Wal-Mart, Board of Directors, Chairman, and CEO
George Soros
Warren Buffett
Alan Greenspan
The Ford Foundation
;)
If I show up at your house, and punch you in the face, should I not expect a response?
>>>
I agree with you entirely on this Miss Marmelstein. But the reasons why I agree with you (his self-defeatism and entertainment value), also motivate me to support the petition.
In my view, Paul’s arguments run so counter to broader party sentiment that they collapse the debate down to a very low common denominators. Some folks on here have accused me of being a Rudy supporter. This isn’t true and indeed I’d argue that apart from the direct offense, one of the worst collateral costs of the America-is-to-blame argument he made, is that enabled Rudy to connect with the base in a meaningful way.
Paul reduced the debate to such a low level of Republican consensus, that he allowed Rudy to champion the WOT and look like a great conservative hero. When in actuality, all he had done, was defend the most prerequisite Republican assumption possible.
Rudy's run in the polls is about to tank. He knows it and is getting desperate.
Hmmm...some here seem to think I like Rudy too...
You've got to realize when you ascribe insulting self-flattering motives to your opponents like that, it weakens your case substantially.
You just stuck your foot in your own mouth. - Poor you.
Hmm. It could be argued that its an exageration, but its hard to argue its phantom. Blaming the victim for the crimes of their tormentors is the same in each instance.
That is the issue here roger. You imagine [without proof] that Paul is blaming the victim, when he is not.
I'm afraid I haven't described Paulists as being frightened, threatened, conspiratorial or desperate. This is quite different you will observe, from how Paulists routinely mock their critics. Thus my foot, is squarely on the floor.
Babble on. You have exposed yourself as just another irrational basher of libertarian concepts.
And p.s.: just ‘cause Rudy got the drop on the rest of the candidates this time, doesn’t mean someone else won’t get it the next time.
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.