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
>>>Do you advocate that those who support the amnesty bill - it can be considered as treason - should also be kept from the debates?
I do not. Wished I could though! And you’re right, while I wouldn’t call it treason, this amnesty bill is absolutely horrendous.
But of course, this not such a good equivalent point. This is anecdotal but I know Republicans who support the bill on a variety of reasons personally. Industrial employers, demographics guys, party guys, Bush advocates and of course most substantially since I live in the Southwest: Hispanics.
But among them and others, I don’t know anyone who agrees with Paul personally on 9/11 who doesn’t have an “i” or “d” in his voter registration card’s party affiliation space.
What an incredibly stupid idea.
>>>What an incredibly stupid idea.
Thanks, Gracesdad. I was looking for an excuse just like this one, to throw aside all reasons and declare this idea smart and all ideas opposed to it stupid. Now that I have precedent, I can do so. Ahem. This idea is smart. You all opposed to it are dumb. Thank you.
Ah, I love congratulating myself on my intellect at the expense of others. It doesn’t make me smarter or win any arguments unfortunately (and I need the help too), but it does feel good.
>>>And in the spirit of true reciprocity, feel free to lob a few rhetorical grenades on my behalf as you deem necessary Roger, thanks FRiend!
Well, thank you. Reciprocity is a good thing. But don’t act so pleased Jessup. I mean it doesn’t get you a discount on a car wash or anything. ;)
And that's why we have to keep right on wiping out those little Islamofascist scumbags until they're either dead, or until Jesus comes back to say 'everybody outta the pool!'
But we aren't doing that. We're now establishing a stable Iraq and as soon as that's done we're supposed to come back home, even according to Pres. Bush. (Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete.)(notice the subtle shift in wording from "war" to "mission") Those "little Islamofascist scumbags" will still be around and we won't be able to do a thing about them. Yes, we're keeping them over there for now, but we can't stay there forever. How do you suggest we "keep wiping 'em out" once we're back home? Lob a few cruise missiles at 'em?
And I'll tell you something else, even Paul doesn't go far enough in his analysis as to why we were attacked. Those people are religious zealots. This is about more than military bases in the ME. These freaks want everyone to submit to Islam or DIE...PERIOD! Just look at his fatwas and see all of the religious aspects in there.
You get it now Phil?
Do I get what? If you ask a complete question I can give an answer. As it is...
They chose to mess with the big dog on the block, and now it's up to the big dog to chew them up, tear 'em a new one, and then spit them out like the garbage they are.
The big dog has a muzzle on. He ain't biting anybody. He's going on, and gonna stay on, a leash (peacekeeping duties). Do you understand that what we're involved in isn't a war, it's nation building? We didn't even declare war like bin Laden did, we merely got an Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") against Afghanistan and Iraq. How weak do you appear to your enemy if you can't even declare war on them?
Blah, blah, blah...blah, blah, blah.
Are the scales dropping from your eyes yet Phil?
I had no scales on my eyes to start with. You, however, seem to have some very restrictive blinders on, as well as some really bunched up panties. (meaning that you seem to be letting emotion override your logic)
As an aside, pal, I wanted to "let slip the dogs of war" when the USS Cole was bombed way back in 10-2000, well before you even became a member of FR.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it! And quit your sanctimonious, holier than thou lecturing while you're at it.
I agree that it's problematic since you don't want to establish exclusion on non objective/universal bases (e.g. poll numbers) as a principle. But let's face it, there is a level of extremist nuttery where failure to actively marginalize and exclude amounts to tacit endorsement. For instance there's no way that a David Duke would be included in a Republican debate, regardless of poll numbers.
Ron Paul by his own words in the last debate, and for the matter of that by his own actions previously (e.g. appearing as a friendly guest of and endorsing "truther" wingnut conspiracy loon Alex Jones), has put himself into that territory.
I agree.
Paul should be able to continue to go as far as the primaries and then defeated there.
That’s the Constitutional way to do it.
Anyone who doesn't recognize what is going on with all of this is willfully blind.
...you want to fixate on 'why they hate us'...
You've sure got a way of reading what you want into other folks replies. Take a deep breath.
...and like I said *pal*, it doesn't matter.
And there you go showing your ignorance...again!
>>>He didn’t say that. But you knew that.
Yes he did. But you knew that.
Good argument, thought I’d use it too.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions are right out of Cheech and Chongs Space Odyssey. And if I had a vote I’d vote to throw him off the island, right after McCain landed in the water. But I don’t, so I see no reason to limit the debates at this point to Rudy, McNut and Romney. No reason at all. But that’s up to folks sponsoring the debates I suppose.
Sure, you don’t have to sign it of course. I’m glad to hear too, that you’re not voting for this character.
But if this doesn’t matter then the debates don’t matter. So we can just 86 all discussion about them right? I’m afraid that just isn’t true. The debates matter. This matters.
>>>Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions are right out of Cheech and Chongs Space Odyssey.
Yup.
>>>But I don’t, so I see no reason to limit the debates at this point to Rudy, McNut and Romney.
So we include the other GOP candidates who are not presently included as well too? Anyone who shows up is the rule?
>>But that’s up to folks sponsoring the debates I suppose.
Correct! Hence, petition.
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.