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
Since you trotted out Batiste as your hero shouldnt you defend him before we move to the next subject?
Come to think of it, Ron Paul already lost and these threads are really a waste of my time. Im bugging out.
So good luck with all that.
That’s a fine note to draw this discussion to a close I think Blue States, you’re right. As this is drifting away from Paul and on to Paul supporters, SpaceRamblings nailed the Paulist phenomenon more effectively than anything I could say on that subject. Hilarious stuff.
>>>Oh, this petition will never have 13,000 signatures. In candor, doubt it will ever have 50.
Oh and as a parting note, I was wrong about one thing. We did get more than 50.
Traitors! They're all traitors I tell ya! Anyone against policing a civil war should be sent to Guantanomo! We gotta fight the "war on terra" in Iraq for the next 50 years.
~~ draw this discussion to a close ~~
Can't respond to my posts 177 or 178?
Poor you.
No offense meant to RP supporters, maybe I wasnt very friendly.
Paul just really pissed me off the night of the debate
and he is from my home state.
Let it be clear he wasnt speaking for me as a Texan. later.
No thanks, Ron Paul is no better than a liberal when it comes to the WOT.
Haven’t read the posts yet but Paul is more in tune with the right than JulieAnnie. I cannot believe anyone would suppress his freedom of speech and ability to run as Pres.
I’d like to see the field narrowed but I’d never tell T. thompson, Huckabee, Gilmore, Tancredo and the rest that they didn’t have the right to run.
I love Tancredo and what he stands for, but he, like many others is one of the “not ready for prime time players”.
I don’t like or support Ron Paul either.
But, the Republican Party shouldn’t be about censorship.
Ditto!
I think this thread is having the opposite effect that was intended, and for that I am glad.
The day we start officially silencing people because they dare to dissent... hmm.
Ron Paul's supporters have asked me to make a "correction". I replayed the tape and what he actually said versus what many (including myself) perceived he said is different.
Oh his voice is out there. It's way the hell out there, if you know what I mean.
So Saul Anuzis has withdrawn his slanderous mischaracterization of what Dr Paul said - now if we can only get Sean Hannity and the other Rudybots over at Fox news to do the same. I won’t hold my breath waiting though.
Republicans are not the fascist censors that the Left are. Let the man speak, even if I disagree with him on this issue. It should be good for the other candidates to articulate why they disagree with him.
So what is the point of your story? That we should overhaul the constitution the way the 1940 Ford Coup was overhauled?
Not at all. But Ron Paul fails to recognize that we no longer live in a world where a ‘Fortress America’ mentality is workable. The whole point of that story was to illustrate that as the years have gone by, the world has changed, and it simply isn’t possible to return to an old-tyme ‘Robert Taft Republicanism’ in the 21st century.
As for our War on Islamofascism, the battle has been joined, America is in fact at war, and withdrawing from Iraq and essentially surrendering to al Qaeda is not an option. Ron Paul wants to blame America first, with his puerile commentary about ‘why’ America was attacked on 9/11.
America was attacked because terrorists incorrectly perceived that we had become weak due to Bill Clinton’s putzing around for eight years, treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue instead of treating it as it is, a series of asymetrical attacks upon the United States, an act of war, by a terrorist organization(s).
Overhauling the Constitution isn’t necessary. Overhauling the early 20th century mindset of Ron Paul is, however he’s never going to be president anyway so it’s a moot point.
No offense, but you’re whacked!
That is HILARIOUS NBS, and oh-so-true! :))
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.