Michigan GOP leader wants Paul barred from future debates[Ron Paul]

AP ^ | 16 May 2007 | Jim Davenport

[BGHater]

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.

Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates. At a GOP candidates' debate Tuesday night, Paul drew attacks from all sides, most forcefully from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, when he linked the terror attacks to U.S. bombings.

"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Paul said.

Anuzis called the comments "off the wall and out of whack."

"I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party," Anuzis said during an RNC state leadership meeting.

"Given what he said last night it was just so off the wall and out of whack that I think it was more detrimental than helpful."

Anuzis said his petition would go to debate sponsors and broadcasters to discourage inviting Paul.

Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, said the candidate "is supporting the traditional GOP foreign policy. I think it's a shame when people try to silence the traditional conservative Republican standpoint."

After the debate Tuesday, Paul said he didn't' expect his remarks to end his campaign.

"The last time I got a message out about my position on the war it boosted us up by tens of thousands and I didn't change my position," Paul said. "I think the American people are sick and tired of this war and want it ended."

[GLH3IL]

Attention Mr. Saul Anuzis:

Sir, I totally disagree with your response to Ron Paul’s remarks. Your response highlights my immense frustration with the GOP both at the National level and the Illinois GOP too. Your response sounds way to much like the insipid nonsense we always hear from the DNC, Moveon.org and that ilk. Your response, in essence, says that the average GOP voter is not going to be able to grasp the concept that Paul was talking about, thus an elite political animal such as yourself must make that decision for us. Such a mentality it the very core of the religion of liberalism isn’t it? We common citizens are too stupid and too inept to make decisions for ourselves, no, we must depend on government and liberals to help us make better choices.

Mr. Anuzis please reconsider your reaction to Mr. Paul’s comments. Perhaps Paul’s statement is wacky and out of touch with reality. Perhaps not. It is not for you to decide for me how I will choose to react to such things. Let Mr. Paul particpate in the election process - let the voters decide Mr. Paul’s fate. That IS how a democracy works.

...or at least how repubicans view democracy...or used to.

[finnman69]

But how do you help matters by banning him from the debate?

Would the debates become more meaningfull if you only had to divide the time between 5 candidates instead of 10? By the end of the summer, there is no question the list should be culled.

[MeanWestTexan]

And retreat from Iraq.

And retreat from Lebanon (during Reagan)

And repeated votes to abandon Israel.

Etc.

[LouAvul]

Why don't you people come to some consensus about your politics?

Conservatives are not going to elect any lunatic who espouses legalizing currently illegal drugs.

And this guy might say he's in favor of secure borders, but that is not a libertarian platform. Once we open the floodgate of libertarianism, we're going to get all that we fear.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

And retreat from Iraq.

Refereeing a conflict involving two Muslim sects is not in our nation's interest.

And retreat from Lebanon (during Reagan)

Reagan himself initiated this

And repeated votes to abandon Israel.

Ending tax-dollars to Israel doesn't make one an Israeli-hater. Israel is big enough to stand on its own now.

Thanks for playing.

[Cicero]

Well, sure, the lists should be culled. But they should be culled by the party leaders or the debate sponsors in terms of popularity or polls, not because some self-appointed arbitrator objects to what they say.

If enough viewers or potential voters object to it, fine, then they have succeeded in eliminating themselves, and that’s another story.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Why don't you people come to some consensus about your politics?

Why don't you try reading the Constitution sometimes, like Paul does.

Conservatives are not going to elect any lunatic who espouses legalizing currently illegal drugs.

Strawman argument. Paul isn't the advocate for legalization of drugs that most Libertarians are. He correctly puts other issues ahead in importance.

And this guy might say he's in favor of secure borders, but that is not a libertarian platform.

Doesn't matter what the LP platform says (BTW, the GOP is busy selling America down the river, blame that on the "Losertarians") Paul has consistently voted in favor of border security.

Once we open the floodgate of libertarianism, we're going to get all that we fear.

Perhaps if Republicans became more Libertarian instead of gutless socialist wannabes this nation would be a lot better off.

[Nevermore]

"I think the American people are sick and tired of this war and want it ended."

I know that lots of people are sick and tired of Ron Paul and want him ended. That doesn't mean that they approve of him being executed, for instance...necessarily...
Perhaps the wisest words in rock lyrics, by Mick Jagger of all people: "You can't always get what you want." Grown-ups know this, Ron.

[finnman69]

But they should be culled by the party leaders or the debate sponsors in terms of popularity or polls,

I agree, 2% seems reasonable at this stage.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27598

First Choice for 2008 Republican Nomination Based on Republicans/Republican leaners May 10-13, 2007
	%
Rudy Giuliani	29
John McCain	23
Fred Thompson	12
Mitt Romney	8
Newt Gingrich	6
Sam Brownback	2
Tommy Thompson	1
Mike Huckabee	1
Tom Tancredo	1
George Pataki	1
Duncan Hunter	*
Jim Gilmore	*
Chuck Hagel	*
Ron Paul	0
Other	2
None	5
All/any	0
No opinion	8

[LouAvul]

Paul isn't the advocate for legalization of drugs that most Libertarians are.

And conservatives are not going to vote for a candidate whose party generally favors legalizing dope.

Might as well vote for a Klansman who promises he won't discriminate.

BTW, the GOP is busy selling America down the river

And you'll notice that the current Republican president has lost the favor of his constituents, and the Republicans also lost Congress this past election.

We're sick to death of elitists of any party forcing their globalist agenda down our throats. It may be too late to undo the harm (viz, our current criminal invasion re third worlders), but I'll be hanged if I bid God speed to another wolf in sheep's clothing.

[freedomdefender]

Yes, let’s let the back-room boys tell us who we can’t listen to at the debates. That’s real democracy. I wonder which candidate this guy is fronting for? Rudy? Romney? McCain? Maybe McCain, because McCain is already on record as an enemy of open debate and free speech (remember “Campaign Finance Reform”?)

[jess35]

Yeah, let's bomb Saudi...the country that kicked bin Laden out and took his citizenship.

That's almost as silly as some of the stuff Paul has said.

[MeanWestTexan]

If any of your responses were based in reality, yours would be a great response.

Now, go back to Stormfront.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Nice reply. How long did that take you to type?

[MeanWestTexan]

A long time. I typed S L O W L Y, so you can understand easier.

[IAforRonPaul08]

Prevent banning Ron Paul from the debates and support free speech while we still have the Constitution! Sign the Petition Here: http://www.petitiononline.com/r0npau1/petition.html

[Sam Gamgee]

You said it. Until the debate I was suspicious that he was a Libertarian anti-war fruitcake - thank God he confirmed my suspicions and I no longer have to guess.

[Sam Gamgee]

He does have great fiscal ideas - sadly the end of Western civilization is a bigger issue.

[rednesss]

You’re assuming that $9 trillion and growing national debt won’t have the same consequences. The Federal Reserve has destroyed the U.S. we just haven’t realized it yet.

[Sam Gamgee]

For the most part, I can agree with that. Fractional reserve banking is government sanctioned fraud. Not too many know the role the US government played in taking down fractional banking’s 80s rival - the savings and loan success. So you see I can get very passionate about this topic.

But I cannot get over what I heard from R Paul that night. Geez. Why is it libertarians are such fruit cakes on national defense?