Petition Against Ron Paul's Inclusion in Future Republican Presidential Debates

Petition Spot.com ^ | 16 May 2007 | Lee

[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

[CJ Wolf]

The only reason to ban him is because you are afraid of him.

Paul isn’t anti-American, you are.

[seekthetruth]

I agree that this idea stinks! Let the process proceed, and all will be well. Where is the petition of outrage over the fact that Duncan Hunter was given less time to speak at the last debate than any other candidate??

[CJ Wolf]

Lots of effort you took in telling that story.

Truth is that a running original 1940 Ford Coupe is worth much more then a customized piece of crap that breaks down all the time because your friend has no sense or respect for the car. If he wanted to take it home, he should have trailered it.

[Admin Moderator]

Do NOT post pictures - or links to pictures - suggesting the identity of another poster.

[mkjessup]

Truth is that a running original 1940 Ford Coupe is worth much more then a customized piece of crap that breaks down all the time because your friend has no sense or respect for the car. If he wanted to take it home, he should have trailered it.

To each his own. A perfectly restored '40 Ford is nice for the occasional Sunday drive or participation in a 4th of July parade but for everyday use, for commuting to work, groceries, etc., forget it. Try finding parts for it without paying the exorbitant prices in Hemmings Motor News.

On the other hand, there is many a restored and *updated* classic car that is more than reliable than any new car, and anyone who pours their sweat, blood (sometimes), money and effort into such a modified restoration would not take kindly to the assertion that they don't "respect" their car.

But like I said: to each his own. The purists have always looked down their nose at those who modify cars instead of keeping them museum-accurate, and always will.

It makes no difference either way.

[CJ Wolf]

To each their own. Correct, which is why Paul should remain in the debates.

[roger55]

>>The only reason to ban him is because you are afraid of him.

As you can see in the thread, there are plenty of reasons to oppose Paul’s inclusion. Also, please see my checklist on post 138. Your critics are not “afraid” of a candidate who polls less than the margin of error. Be sensible about this please.

>>Paul isn’t anti-American, you are.

One does not become anti-American by opposing the inclusion of a fringe candidate in a party debate on commercial television. Apologizing for the motives of this country’s enemies....now that’s a different story altogether.

[greenthumbedislndr]

disgusting... there’s no way I’m signing anything like this. I agree with a lot of his views and even if I don’t agree with his view on the war, he has the right to express that view. Why don’t we exclude Giu-Freaking-liani ... he’s pro “choice”... That’s definitally not traditionally a republican position to take.

[roger55]

>>he has the right to express that view.

So you’re in favor of including all the other minor GOP candidates who are presently excluded, correct?

[roger55]

>>>My point was that historically a large part of the Republican Party hasn’t been that keen on foreign wars.

The only period in the party’s history where isolationism was ascendant was in the inter-war years. On either side of that period, you have the McKinley/Roosevelt and Eisenhower ages. And of course, no GOP isolationist made apologies for the motives of Japan, after it attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941 like Paul does for Al Qaeda. Nor did they suggest we must withdraw from the Pacific to accommodate those motives. Paul’s views are a radical departure from that tradition.

In fact, he’s cloaking an extremely radical view in the coat of Robert Taft, who is unlikely to have agreed with him.

[mkjessup]

To each their own. Correct, which is why Paul should remain in the debates.

Nahh, don't think so. There are already plenty of Republican candidates that are not being included, and Paul's presence does nothing except to ignite the 911/'Truther' moonbat crowd, and his policies are a throwback to the old Fortress America days.

His 'candidacy' is nothing but an attempt to get his quaint but archaic opinions out in the public arena. Even he knows he's not going to be President.

[arroyo run]

Ron Paul isn’t making apologies for Al-Quada just by noting what THEY’VE said their motives were. And maybe someone should “make apologies,” by which you seem to mean recognize what motivated our enemy, in regards to Japan.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor after a U.S. embargo on Japanese oil recovery in the Sumatra crippled their economy. Another example of how the U.S. could’ve protected the lives and liberties of its citizenry by ignoring the advocates of globalism and by NOT GETTING INVOLVED in other nation’s troubles.

Yet, here we are, stuck in Iraq, appeasing Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey at the will of the globalists in the Bush administration, just as in the mid-’80’s we appeased Saddam Hussein. When in twenty years Americans are dying in warfare to curb the dictatorships we are appeasing today, Will the supporters of globalism and the war in Iraq finally be identified as the traitors they are?

[x]

The Republicans were successful in recent decades because they combined more and less interventionist attitudes towards foreign affairs. In contrast to the Democrats, they were wary of starting foreign involvements. They saw established commitments through and brought them to an end.

Today it looks as though some people are trying to get all of the interventionists in one party and all of their opponents in the other. That's not a good recipe for success, either at the polls or in foreign affairs. It means those who could brake a dangerous intervention or those who urge action overseas at a critical time are silenced if their in the wrong party and that party simply pursues an unthinking course.

I don't like Paul, but I'd hate to see the Republican Party turned into a dependency of interventionist think tanks. A lot of people who've voted Republican up to now might agree.

[mkjessup]

Ron Paul isn’t making apologies for Al-Quada just by noting what THEY’VE said their motives were. And maybe someone should “make apologies,” by which you seem to mean recognize what motivated our enemy, in regards to Japan. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor after a U.S. embargo on Japanese oil recovery in the Sumatra crippled their economy. Another example of how the U.S. could’ve protected the lives and liberties of its citizenry by ignoring the advocates of globalism and by NOT GETTING INVOLVED in other nation’s troubles. Yet, here we are, stuck in Iraq, appeasing Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey at the will of the globalists in the Bush administration, just as in the mid-’80’s we appeased Saddam Hussein. When in twenty years Americans are dying in warfare to curb the dictatorships we are appeasing today, Will the supporters of globalism and the war in Iraq finally be identified as the traitors they are?

Or more importantly, will any of the remaining Communist countries on this planet hire you to help them re-write history?

I'd say that you show some potential.

[arroyo run]

How did I re-write history? The warmth and coziness between Saddam Hussein and his lapdogs Donald Rumsfeld and April Glaspie are well-documented! We had a posting here on FreeRepublic just a few weeks ago that noted (from a peculiar, critical perspective) that Nancy Pelosi supported legislation identifying and castigating Turkey for their genocidal campaigns against the Kurds - The poster thought we should ignore Turkey’s assaults on liberty, however, as it was not advantageous to our operations in Iraq.

Pakistan is known to have WMDs, harbors terrorists, and is a despotic state. THEY ARE NOT OUR ALLIES. No matter what George W. Bush says.

[roger55]

>>>Japan attacked Pearl Harbor after a U.S. embargo on Japanese oil recovery in the Sumatra crippled their economy. Another example of how the U.S. could’ve protected the lives and liberties of its citizenry by ignoring the advocates of globalism and by NOT GETTING INVOLVED in other nation’s troubles.

Glad you brought that up. What more needs to be said, really? Paulists don’t even support the US cause in World War II and will voluntarily defend the grievances of Imperial Japan. Pathetic is all that can be said about that.

Why was the US embargoing Japan? Was it because they were trying to impose a brutal fascist empire across Asia perhaps and had long sought to usurp our role and seize our territories there? I suppose we should have just allowed that to pass without objection and thus made our security all the stronger no? Ah yes, we should all yearn for the halcyon days of the Nanjing massacre. Moonbattery.

You guys are so fundamentally at odds with with an conception of what constitutes a sound or moral security policy it almost defies belief.

At the very least, it has no place in this party. Take it back to the LP and plug it in alongside the other nutballed Libertarian ideas like legalizing incest and privatizing sidewalks.

[roger55]

>>>Today it looks as though some people are trying to get all of the interventionists in one party and all of their opponents in the other.

I think this is actually a good point frankly. But it has nothing to do with Paul’s specific policies, which are the focus of this petition. It’s one thing to say the United States should be less interventionist abroad. It’s another entirely, to assign and then embrace the arguments of the enemy.

[arroyo run]

Usurp OUR role and seize OUR territories in Asia? We had NO business in Asia, and our imperialism was as foolish as Japan’s. (Thoough not as cruel.) We should not have been in Asia, any more than we should be in the Middle-East. I can only hope one day Americans finally heed George Washington’s words and root the globalists, imperialists, and other elements who hate America and the American ideals of sovereignty and civil rights out of power.

[mkjessup]

How did I re-write history? The warmth and coziness between Saddam Hussein and his lapdogs Donald Rumsfeld and April Glaspie are well-documented!

You truly are a moonbat-in-training if you believe that Rumsfeld was 'Saddam's lapdog', are you channeling Cindy Sheehan or something?

Now if you're up for some REAL history, here it is:

Before there was a re-establishment of relations between Iraq and the United States in the 80's (and there were powerful strategic reasons for doing so), the entire region was in turmoil, thanks to noneother than Jimmy Carter and his national security stooge, aka Zbigniew Brezinski who traveled to Amman Jordan in mid 1980 to convey the message to representatives of Saddam that the U.S. would basically look the other way if Iraq were to attack and annex disputed territory that was being held by Iran. In other words, Carter single-handedly instigated the Iraq/Iran War in which hundreds of thousands of people died.

And why did he do this? It was a clumsy attempt to put pressure on Tehran (which was still holding our people hostage), and like all of Carter's abysmal attempts to influence events, this one ended up causing even more chaos than existed before.

By the time the Reagan Administration was trying to clean up Carter's mess, Iran was threatening to defeat Iraq and that would mean that the Assahollah Khomeini could end up as the dominant power in the Persian Gulf AND control most of the oil flowing through that region as well. The Reagan Administration stated that the fall of Iraq would not be in the interest of the United States, and began providing limited support to Saddam to prevent an Iraqi collapse, and to prevent Iran from sweeping the board.

Yes, Rumsfeld traveled to Iraq, that's no secret, but it wasn't for the purpose of being anybody's 'lapdog' (where did you pick that phrase up from, DU or Daily KOS?), it was to communicate to Saddam the seriousness of the situation, and to be sure that it was understood that the U.S. was not providing assistance for the purpose of Iraq conquering it's neighbors, it was providing help so that Iraq could defend itself from the overwhelming military advantage held by the Iranians (whose military was still, at that time, 99 percent U.S. provided and equipped).

When Carter finished screwing up the Middle East, there were nothing but bad choices left to be made, and the Reagan Administration did the best they could with the cards they were left holding, and that wasn't much of a hand.

You want to blame somebody for the current Islamic/West confrontation?

Look no further than Jimmy STP Carter.

[arroyo run]

And here is a sound and moral security policy: Protect the United States. Leave despotic nations to their own devices. If certain Americans wish to conduct business in despotic nations, let them handle the repercussions, and if those repercussions threaten other Americans, deport those who wished to conduct business with nations whose values are contrary to our own.

Coddling the scum that is Saudi Arabia’s leadership, now, that is not sound or moral.