5 GOP candidates commit to Baltimore debate (No Fred, Rudy McRomney, but there are Hunter and Paul)

Baltimore Sun ^ | 09/22/2007 | David Nitkin

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Just five Republican candidates - half the invited field - will take part in Thursday's presidential debate in Baltimore, event organizers said yesterday.

The four leading contenders, Rudolph W. Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, have each said they will not participate in the forum focusing on issues facing minority voters. Their absence has drawn the ire of Tavis Smiley, the talk-show host who is moderating and organizing the debate at Morgan State University; he said the candidates are making a mistake in not reaching out to black voters.

A list of confirmed participants released yesterday also omits Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a staunch opponent of current immigration policy. Confirmed are Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Alan L. Keyes of Maryland, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, organizers said.

Also yesterday, former Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, the chairman of GOPAC, a Republican political action committee, said in a statement that he was "hopeful" each missing candidate would "adjust his schedule" to participate.

[RasterMaster]

LIEberaltarians are same as LIEberals....it applies to those who are easily manipulated and controlled by DUmocrats.

“Because he’s a crank who evidently thinks that mall security guards are better at their jobs than the US Marines. That’s pretty much what he said on John Ziegler’s show the other night. Click to play.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/13/audio-why-ron-paul-is-a-crank-episode-314/

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/189370.php

Ron Paul Compares U.S. Marines to “Mall Security”
Saturday, September 15, 2007 5:08 PM
http://afk.townhall.com/g/656bca00-494c-482d-8c2b-c2910b26329c

[SuziQ]

Also yesterday, former Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, the chairman of GOPAC, a Republican political action committee, said in a statement that he was "hopeful" each missing candidate would "adjust his schedule" to participate.

When was this 'debate' organized? Do they think every candidate should just drop what he's doing and attend because these 'leaders' say they should? I consider this the same as the previous debate set up by the Values Voters group. No one elected those folks to speak for me, and no one elected the 'black leaders' to speak for all minority voters. Just because a candidate doesn't 'adjust his schedule' to attend the debate doesn't mean anything with regard to his attitudes toward minority voters., and these 'leaders' shouldn't assume differently and campaign against anyone not attending.

[SuziQ]

I understood why FT and Rudy McRomney stayed away - they are totally scared of the truth on REAL issues. They knew they would be pinned down and they like to have wiggle room to pander and/or “adjust” their message for the audience. That debate was not a venue that would be easy at.

Fred and Rudy have been up front about their stands on issues. Being at a debate hardly anyone watched wouldn't have changed them. If you like them, fine, if you don't, vote for another primary candidate.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Maryland “Freak State” PING!

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

And just when did Alan Keyes call for reparations? Doesn’t seem to be his thing.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

You think any of Paul’s supporters will even watch this debate, considering that it turns out most of them are neo-nazis?

Is this going to get pulled or is there a double-standard for Paul supporters?

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

"I’m sorry, but you don’t really understand the Constitution very well, do you? It puts limits on what the government can and can’t do. You are not protected from a murderer because of the Constitution, you are protected first and foremost by your own right to self defense, as enshrined by the 2nd amendment, which is your right to not have the government take your guns, and secondly by your state’s murder laws" Where to begin? I will assume you have some bonum. 1. Last time I checked, the judicial branch was still considered a coequal branch to the federal government and all references to persons throughout the founding documents referred to unconvicted human beings. 2. The founders enshrined their reasoning for a new country into the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY,and the Pursuit of Happiness- That TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, Governments are instituted among men...."(1776) Fast forward to the US Constitution, which bound the federal government to specific obligations: 3. "...nor be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property, without DUE PROCESS of law..." (amendment 5-Bill of Rights),restricting the federal government(and all of its reps) from taking the life of innocent human beings. 4. The federalists argued that natural rights-ie-those that come from a Creator, like the right to life,are beyond the authority of government to deny because they are rights that come from God, and not the government. The government does not give life, and may not take it away. The federalists also argued for divided government to help defend our rights-to prevent tyrants from whimsically killin and incarcerating us. Different branches of the federal govt. have different duties, and some duties are reserved to the states, but all public officials HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL DUTY TO PROTECT INNOCENT LIFE. That is the purpose of government. 5. Amendment XIV, ratified in 1868, incorporated the Fifth Amendment's DUE PROCESS clause and the EQUAL Protection Clause protecting the RIGHT TO LIFE OF INNOCENT PERSONS, thus declaring that neither the state nor the federal governments could deny any innocent human being his/her RIGHT TO LIFE or their DAY IN COURT. 1973-The liberal court, in Roe v. Wade, announces it will ignore "the well-known facts of fetal development" and discover a right to abortion-a euphemism for killing innocent preborn human beings. So, let me say again: Defending human life is not a federalist issue. It is the business of all of humanity.

[JSDude1]

I wouldn’t say hardly anyone watched it; it’s is just the truth that they want to (marginalize) the Christians (but they’ll gladly take their help in the general election)-No Thanks!

This nation is heading for some hurting (God won’t bless us) if it turns on Chrisitan values, and abandons God once and for all-..

[Moose4]

One does not merely walk into Baltimordor.

}:-)4

[jmeagan]

****In national media (Bill O’Reilly), we’ve been called a “hate site”.****

There are a lot of Ron Paul haters here.

[Guenevere]

Duncan Hunter bttt

[jmeagan]

*****Why should any Rep candidate subject themselves to questioning by a Dem operative who makes no secret as to where he stands politically? I credit those who don’t attend for good judgment.*****

The venue is at a university, so many in the audience will be in the middle class some time in the future. The students will not hear the ideas of a smaller, less intrusive government from the Democrats who will appear their.

Also the anti-illegal immigration message should play well there as the 4 students executed in N. J., by at least one illegal immigrant, were all going to attend this university.

[logician2u]

. . the word is out.

Yeah, it's on the internet so it must be true. </sarc>

[jmeagan]

****Total waste of time for any GOP candidate.***

It plays right into the Democratic chant that republicans don’t care about minority voters. Not a good thing.

[Altura Ct.]

This just further proves that we are living in some sort of fantasy world in the US that seems to be heading towards the abyss. We are NOT a colorblind society even though most people want to PRETEND that we are. Why don’t we just admit that and then maybe we can get past all the rhetoric and lip service. Minorty issues? What are those? If “minorties” have issues do whites?

[SuziQ]

Just because a candidate decided not to attend the Values Voter debate, doesn’t mean he’s ‘turning on Christian voters and abandoning God’, anymore than not attending the Baltimore debate means he doesn’t care about minority voters.

[jmeagan]

****I wouldn’t call a finger-in-the-wind approach as “strong” on border security. According to his statement, he’s not really for the fence and wouldn’t support it other than for items he agreed with in the bill, which is now law. There are other times when he’s stated that a fence “isn’t the right thing to do”.****

I don’t know about the fence issue, but I have heard Ron Paul say that you can’t be a sovereign nation if you don’t have secure borders. (or words to that effect.)

[George W. Bush]

The unalienable rights listed in the Declaration cannot be assumed to have quite the same force of law as something written in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. Assuming that they are equal is a fundamental error. Consider to whom the Declaration was addressed and its purpose: to declare the rule of kings (England) to be invalid and as trampling the fundamental rights of man with which he was endowed by God, thereby making of the king a tyrant, much like the one the Puritans ancestors had executed under Cromwell back in England. See Isaiah 10:14 and the footnotes for the Geneva bible for the source of this line of reasoning.

Prior to that time, the right of kings was considered divine and ordained by God. The revolutionary rabble (Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, etc.) required a legal rationale by which to justify their rebellion to the world and to their fellow-colonists. This is why America was and always has been a danger to kings and dictators and that is why they always recognize us as such.

If you can explain how precisely the Declaration addresses abortion directly (other than repeating the words "endowed...Creator...unalienable...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness") then please explain how you read it.

If you want a fundamental right-to-life, then you have to amend the Constitution. Not a bad idea and I'm not opposed but that is how to do it. You'd also have to find wording to allow the courts to exercise the death penalty as well.

[jmeagan]

I just want to remind everyone that there will be a live web feed of Ron Paul’s event today. It begins at 3 P.M. central time. Details can be found at his web site.

[JSDude1]

WHERE Else ARE they going to ANSWER tough questions (that they averagage “social conservative”) Voter wants asked: It sure is true that they aren’t gonna get it from the “main-streme” media (including FOX News)?

So where are we going to hear the ‘front-runners’ answers on tough questions Christians want asked, instead of canned ‘sound bites’?