Posted on 05/18/2007 4:29:23 AM PDT by theothercheek
Michigan Republican Party chairman Saul Anuzis plans to circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members asking debate sponsors and broadcasters to bar Rep. Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates. At the GOP candidates' debate in South Carolina Tuesday night, Paul put forth the proposition that that the Sept. 11 terror attacks were the result of misguided U.S. foreign policy, which Anuzis characterizes as being "off the wall and out of whack."
According to The Associated Press, Anuzis told attendees at an RNC state leadership meeting: "I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said ... 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."
Being a free speech kinda gal, The Stiletto doesn’t think Paul should be banned from future debates just because he’s a moonbat. However, the time has come to thin the herd so that candidates in future debates can get to answer more questions, and give longer answers to the questions they are asked.
According to PollingReport.com, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson have never cracked the 5 percent mark in any major poll. So yes, Paul should be given the hook before the next debate – along with the other six hopeless presidential hopefuls.
That leaves Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney – with plenty of room on stage for Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich to join the ensemble.
Saul Anuzis is a Totalitarian.
If none of the other 9 candidates are willing to make a public statement denouncing this insult to the Republican base, then none of them are worthy of the support of the Republican base.
until fred thompson enters the race, the rinos are a complete waste of time
with sh-amnesty, the rinos are a dangerous complete waste of time
agreed.
To the Stiletto: Who are you to decide who must exit the stage before the primaries? Does the Stiletto decide who we get to vote for?
I do not think the Republican base believes the US did anything to “deserve” the attacks on 9/11 - certainly not bombing Iraq after 10 years of Saddam flouting the UN sanctions. And when Giuliani called Ron Paul on his assertion the other night it was a conservative audience in a conservative state that erupted in cheers. Not being from Michigan I don’t know much about Anuzis - but I do know that Ron Paul does not speak for me. I hope this does not insult anyone ...
I’d like to say something like, “I’ll stop sending them money”!”, but I already stopped sending them money several years ago.
Isolationism is the most traditional conservative position. The founding fathers did not want the US to intervene in the affairs of foreign nations.
We are probably the best-placed of all modern nations to live on our own resources. The only problem right now is oil.
Whether we would want to do that is another question.
That’s BS - who cares if Ron Paul is in the debate.
Let him drop out when he wants to.
Good grief.
For them to be 'real' debates they should be questioning one another, not having questions from the MSM and two minutes to give a sound bite.
“...off the wall and out of whack.”
Man, that’s gonna leave a mark. Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul. There is a mistaken belief that “libertarian” is just some kind of super-conservative, and that is not true at all. Libertarians exist out in a universe of their own, and while I can identify with their objectives (limited government, pretty much very little regulation of personal lives, stern punishment for miscreants), their view is based on individuals having sufficient self-discipline to stick to these goals. And people are just not like that.
“Sheeple” is not just a clever term for the great mass of people who are muddling through life in probably the most widespread epidemic of clueless action in higher vertbrates since worms developed visual sensory capabilities. There really are people that dumb/ignorant/recalcitrant. And unfortunately, they vote. Sometimes, enough to make a majority.
Granted, Ron Paul would never, in any imaginable future, be elected to the Presidency. There are just too many of the sheeple that crowd together in the herd to allow that. But his voice is like the lone holdout on the jury, that has this one little niggling thought at the back of his mind, that the evidence just does not add up. And eventually, either the jury comes back unanimous with his point of view, or it remains hung, 11-1.
Ron Paul is the voice that sets the other candidates to thinking, and just possibly, finally steers them back (if only by a little bit), to face the thing they should be considering.
The Stiletto isn’t deciding anything. The people are deciding. Poll after poll shows that the “second tier” candidates are the choice of 1 or 2 percent of Republicans (not even 4 or 5 percent). And it’s not just the polls. Money talks and no meaningful Republican money (grass roots or otherwise) is flowing to any of these candidates. You might not want to believe it, but the “second tier” candidates are dead men walking.
If Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich enter the race there will be 12 people on stage trying to give meaningful answers to questions. It is impossible. I, for one, would much rather hear what Fed Thompson and Newt Gingrich has to say than what Ron Paul or Tommy Thompson have to say.
Nah leave him in there. We need something to laugh at.
I think Rudy riposted quite nicely.
I’m thinking that if the amnesty program passes Duncan Hunter is suddenly a contender.
That's fine. At least give them the dignity of an up or down vote.
I, for one, would much rather hear what Fed Thompson and Newt Gingrich has to say than what Ron Paul or Tommy Thompson have to say.
I would have to hear a lot more about what Thompson actually stands for. AFA I am concerned, Newtie jumped the shark on Global Whining.
I, for one, would like to hear more from Tancredo. Hunter is ok, but does not have the indefinable something that presidents must have to lead. At least not that I've seen so far.
Leaving aside Ron Paul’s simplified assertion on stage, Rudy blatantly lied in his ripost.
Or Rudy has never read any of several thousand of the most important analytical reports regarding Middle East policy. Which means his entire platform of “hard on terror” is blown to bits, or he blatantly lied to the Republican base because he thinks they’re stupid.
Still, if I ever needed a trial attorney for a criminal case, I would feel a lucky man to have Rudy defend me. Saying that, you can’t lie on national TV, especially when you’re breaking decorum while trying to make a soundbite, while say something so blatantly and demonstrably false, and expect to get away with it.
You know what I am afraid of: That without being able to hear the candidates answer questions at length - and have to respond to challenges to their answers - that people will not get enough meaningful information about the candidates’ positions know who/what they are voting for. Just like a Dem who might vote for Hillary because she is a woman, what if there are Republicans who vote for Romney just because he “looks” presidential, nevermind that he has flipflopped on every issue that conservatives care about? Is that what you all want? Because that’s what you’re going to get if all we are exposed to is soundbites instead of a rough-and-tumble debate.
Rudy was a pretty successful prosecutor; you would need a defense lawyer who could beat him.
"I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Breen"
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.