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
There, I fixed that for you.
Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Ron Paul = Ross Perot =
>>>Hmmm...some here seem to think I like Rudy too...
It’s all a conspiracy Miss, everyone’s part of the ZOG.
Man, am I arguing effectively for a change? Rare. Where are all these new signatures coming from on the petition.
Otherwise I look at defeatist talk as self fulfilling prophesy, self inflicted.(especially from politicians)
>>>That is the issue here roger. You imagine [without proof] that Paul is blaming the victim, when he is not.
All the proof I need is Paul’s quotes: “Have you read the reasons they attacked us? We’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years.”
>>>Babble on. You have exposed yourself as just another irrational basher of libertarian concepts.
Babble, babble babble Ron Paul is awful, babble babble.
First off, he's not far-right. He's all over the place.
Secondly, it's not censorship for a party to have some sort of standard as for membership. Nor is it censorship when people choose not to invite you to their parties. No one seeks to silence him. As a sitting congressman, he'd still have more platform than 99% of the citizens.
You don’t need to fix anything I write. I stand by my original statement.
Paul diverts the debate and the seriousness of the upcoming Presidential election.
He also provides a room for Giuliani to hit back when it is clear that Giuliani is a one issue candidate who relies on war on terrorism being in the spotlight.
Hence Ron Paul needs to barred from the upcoming Republican presidential debates.
Do you believe in cause and effect?
How naive. We saw those evils and rejected them in our Constitution.
now the far right (which I thought, once, was what I was!) along with the far left thinks America pollutes the world. A depressing evolution..
miss marmelstein
Constitutionalists see the world as it is, and would like America to mind its own business. Unfortunately, some of our present business includes staying in Iraq for the foreseeable future. No president will change that.
Roger:
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.
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.
Dream on that Paul's isolationist stance is self defeatism. -- He wants Congress to authorize bounty hunting to kill terrorist leaders & those who support them.
Well Major General Baptiste, who commanded the First Infantry Division in Iraq and claims to be a life long Republican has come out against it as being damaging to our interests, have you taken notice of him? Or do you consider him to be a traitor lunatic too?
Is that right?
So you are suggesting it's OK for Romney to make anti-2nd Amendment comments on stage and we shouldn't demand to eliminate him from speaking, but other issues are off limits.
Just so I understand.
Can I just ask why you think it will ONLY be Guiliani who will respond to the next dopey statement by Paul? Surely, everyone on that panel has an opinion on 9/11 and wants to express it. What if your candidate of choice had jumped in like Rudy? Would you still be saying Paul must get out of the race?
“Well Major General Baptiste...do you consider him to be a traitor lunatic too?”
Yes.
Here is the General Batiste thread so you can catch up:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1832599/posts
Truth frightens politicians and must not see the light of day.
All the proof I need is Paul's quotes: "Have you read the reasons they attacked us? We've been bombing Iraq for ten years."
"-- If Ron Paul was "blaming the victim" as Mayor Giuliani indignantly implied, then he is in the company of such notorious America-haters as the current President of the United States, the former Assistant Secretary of Defense, the editorial boards of the Weekly Standard and Wall Street Journal, and many, many conservative pundits and intellectuals.
Cause & Effect
In a now famous November 6, 2003 address, President Bush explicitly linked U.S. policy with the rise of Islamic terrorism:
"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."
Paul stated:
"They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there."
So why was Paul savaged?
I believe it's because many conservatives, especially since 9/11, have become increasingly unwilling to internalize the simple maxim that government actions have consequences - many of them unintended, some of them negative.
Conservatives are rightly skeptical of grand government initiatives aimed at curing various domestic ills. Yet some have become convinced that the same bureaucrats who cannot balance the budget will nonetheless be able to deftly manage the political outcomes of nations half a world away. --"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<
Wise words, well written.
Damn shame so few here can understand them.
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.
dragnet2 wrote:
Is that right? So you are suggesting it's OK for Romney to make anti-2nd Amendment comments on stage and we shouldn't demand to eliminate him from speaking, but other issues are off limits. Just so I understand.
Good catch dragnet; - I think we both understand that roger sees the gun grabbing minority as having a 'right' to want/need representation on this issue.
The old foot in mouth disease strikes again. Gotta love how Rinos out themselves.
Is that right? So you are suggesting it’s OK for Romney to make anti-2nd Amendment comments on stage and we shouldn’t demand to eliminate him from speaking, but other issues are off limits.
Just so I understand.
As I said it would be nice if defense of the 2nd could be preconditional. And truthfully, I don’t know how credible the poll results are. But there’s clearly at least some support for gun control in the GOP. Particularly in the Northeasten GOP. But I just can’t say that about terrorism apologias.
I mean heck, no one in here is even defending what Paul said, even among his supporters. That’s how far out it was. There’s two lines of defense instead: 1) Argue piously in favor of his right to free speech 2) Argue he was misunderstood or didn’t say it.
First one is a defense in search of an opponent. The second one is just baloney.
The Ron Paul Guide to Making Yourself Hated in 30 Days
Not every candidate can get elected. Not every candidate can even make it through more than a handful of primaries. But it is possible for EVERY candidate to become widely despised and hated by people who would otherwise never have heard of him. While this may not be an ideal strategy for a candidate who wants to win, there are the Ralph Naders and the Ron Pauls who will settle for getting millions of Americans to hate their guts.
Future Ron Pauls of America– this is your guide.
Step 1: Recruitment: A crazy candidate needs equally crazy followers. You want people who will get out there and promote you 24/7. You want people who will quit their jobs and sell their kidneys just to pay their text messaging bill so you can win a phone poll. In a word you want fanatics who desperately need hope and a reason to live– and for a few short months, you can give it to them.
Step 2: Your Ranks of Zombie Followers: Since your candidacy is hopeless, you need to gather your disciples from among the ranks of the hopeless– people so despised that no other campaign would want to touch them without washing its hands. In other words, 9/11 Truthers. Harness their ability to disgust and annoy people– second only to the followers of Fred Phelps– by turning them into your loyal zombie followers to harass people in your name.
Step 3: Make Your Case: Now that you’ve got a collection of loyal slaves with all the personal charm of an IRS Agent with Diarrhea, it’s time to put them to work so your evil legions can grow. The internet is an ideal forum for obsessive people with too much time on their hands and pet ferrets in their closets to spam multiple social networking sites and blogs with praise of your greatness.
Step 4: Ron Paul is Spam: The ideal sales technique for convincing someone to vote for you is to make sure they can’t escape your name anywhere. Have your zombie horde submit neverending praises of you to Digg. Haunt Blogs you find in directories and reply to any post– no matter how random by promoting Ron Paul. e.g. If you see a post comparing shampoos, post a comment stating that “as a strict constitutionalist Ron Paul is completely opposed to government regulation of hair care products.” This will either gain you many loyal followers or insure that within a month anything with your name on it is automatically treated as spam.
Step 5: Dr. Paul: Make sure your followers constantly refer to you as Dr. Paul. This will convince everyone of your qualification for the Presidency and insure that your looniest statements are taken seriously. After all– you are a doctor. Either that or they’ll laugh at you.
Step 6: Debate: This is the part where all your hard work comes to nothing as you arrive at a Republican debate only to mumble prissy defenses about understanding why Osama hates us. This plays about as well as trying to attend Church while dressed as Satan. Later comfort yourself by having your zombie horde spend the last of their blood and kidney donation money spamming the phone poll. It won’t make a difference but it will make you feel better.
Step 7: Build the Hate: When you inevitably get trashed in the primaries announce that you feel called to run as an independent candidate. Hey it worked for Ralph Nader, didn’t it? While this accomplishes nothing useful, it insures that people will go on hating you long after your campaign has become irrelevant.
Step 8: The Bond Age: The election is over. Your loyal zombie horde now feels lonely. But your career in politics doesn’t have to end. Just build yourself an underground fortress and try to take the world hostage by digging a hole to the center of the earth.
http://spaceramblings.blogsome.com/2007/05/17/the-ron-paul-guide-to-making-yourself-hated-in-30-days/
Well if you want to start comparing lunatics, perhaps we can start with those idiots who actually thought it a good idea to try and impose a western style secular democracy on a backward third world country that seems to prefer a sort of quasi-Islamic theocracy divided along religious and tribal sectarian lines instead. Deposing Saddam was one thing, spreading democracy and nation building is something else again. Once upon a time conservatives knew the difference and acted accordingly.
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.