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
This is disgusting. This is almost as bad as Fox News not wanting anyone under one percent to be part of the debate. Ron Paul regardless if you agree with him or not (He is not my pick) should be part of every debate until HE decides to either sit them out or drops out of the race.So what would be a cut-off, if not 1%? What?
By your standards, moveon.org can field any number of faux "Republicans" (not even talking about RINO's here, who at least get votes with an R by their name in real elections --- this is something completely different), as long as they want to spend the money?
Soros himself could field 10 or 20 Ron Pauls. Should they all be in the debate?
Of course participation in a Republican Party debate should be based on some kind of measurement of bonafide support from some number of registered Republicans. Otherwise, why have parties at all? And if you're willing to include any schmuck who can pay the ticket price, why have debates?
Intra-party debates should be limited to serious contenders for the votes of the registered voters of that party. It doesn't have to be huge support, but there has to be a cut-off or measurement of some kind, or you open yourself up to Soros-mischief.
Rudy is a proven vote-getter with an R by his name on a ballot. That alone qualifies him to participate in R-debates. By definition. Doesn’t mean he’s not RINO. Doesn’t mean he supports what you think he should support. But Rudy’s R-credentials are beyond reproach.
Bwaaa haa, you can't possibly be serious.
I didn’t say conservative, I said Republican.
If you get a lot of votes, in an official election for any office in this country, and you have an R by your name, you are, by definition, a Republican.
Doesn’t mean you’re not a RINO, just means you’re a Republican.
This is not a difficult point to understand. Take your finger out of your bias and think about it for a second.
Don't know, but I will say one thing, I'd never thought I'd see the day when a liberal, pro-abort, gun-grabber like Rudy would be sitting at the top of the Republican primary ticket. Something seriously wrong with this picture.
I do not support this petition either. But at some point fairly soon, the field will have to be winnowed. Fully half the 10 “candidates” have zero chance of winning and that includes Paul. It will soon be clear even to a blind man on a fast horse that the Ron Pauls of the field are cardboard cut-outs, propped up and existing only by the grace of the media. Perhaps he, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and the Greens can go form their own party somewhere.
“For disclosure, I’m a Freemason agent and serve as the Illuminati liaison for the ZOG Super Secret Repression of Ron Paul Directorate (SSRRPD). “
LOL!
The bottom line is, if you use any other measure, other than some level of support by Registered Republicans, on the question of who should be in the debate, then you are attempting to exercise censorship.
Determining participation in a Republican Party debate should be based soley on where the candidate stands (in some measurable way) with Registered Republican voters.
Nothing else makes any sense.
>>I don’t agree with many of his statements, but censorship? I think not!
I agree. But as I’ve said before, it’s not censorship to not invite a guy to a debate. Mandating a loudspeaker and mandating free speech rights are totally unrelated things. An appeal to censorship by contrast would be if the petition said: “We the undersigned call for Paul’s opinions to be silenced and the expression of them to be forbidden.” You’ll notice it doesn’t say anything remotely like this.
If not inviting a representative of every conceivable opinion to a debate no matter how obscene, purposeless or unrepresentative, constituted censorship, every debate thus far staged in history was censored. This is plainly not the case.
If and when Fred Thompson gets in there will be an outcry from all the others about how unfair it is that Thompson jumps in 'at the last minute' and trounces all their work.
what is wrong, is that BUSH doesn’t represent the majority of his party right now on the topic of illegal immigration, yet people still put him back for a second term.
The Libertarian trolls come to FR each election cycle,
a few stay but most leave and come back when its time to campaign for their candidate.
They will be here pushing Rupaul this time and it will get old quick. The guy is a lunatic.
Yeah, some if his ideas are different from mine so he just needs to be shut up! </ democrat>
Rudy Giuliani's views have no place in the Oval Office. If said views get to the White House, they should be rerouted to the dumpster.
Rudy Giuliani's views have no place in the Oval Office. If said views get to the White House, they should be rerouted to the dumpster.
I’ll be honest... I’m not thrilled with a single candidate running for President at all. BUT, they all have the right to voice their opinion and be included in the debates. Ron Paul has one thing going for him over the other candidates... he’s pro-gun. None of the others are... sure they spout the BS line that they support the 2nd Amendment but do they really support your right or my right to own a gun? No. If you don’t believe me, ask them to repeal the 1968 gun control acts “sporting purpose” clause.
Sorry but the 2008 slate of candidates is the most pathetic this nation has ever seen. They are a bunch of liars, con artists, thieves, and anti-freedom maggots.
But, they do have the right to speak as they will... even if the campaign finance laws infringe on our 1st Amendment rights...
Mike
This is absurd. Reminds me of liberals and PC police. Somebody has different views, and he can no longer be in the debate? He would make the debate more lively and attract viewers who would otherwise not watch.
For a lunatic he seems to have led a pretty exemplary and principled life, serving honorably in the armed forces, raising a fine upstanding family, and having a distinguished career delivering more than 4k babies (while refusing to accept medicare or medicaid on principle, rather doing the work for free or at reduced rates for those who can't afford it). He's also refused to participate in the bloated congressional benefit and retirement gravy train. He is a decent man who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk, where do you get off calling him a lunatic? The voters in his district certainly don't appear to agree with you, they keep reelecting him.
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.