Posted on 05/17/2007 8:01:52 AM PDT by 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."
Yes, a real debate and a nutjob debate. Something for everybody.
Ron Paul’s performance was absolute lunacy, but I don’t think he should be banned.
I personnally am glad I got to hear him so I can really appreciate what a complete jackass he is.
There is a big flaw in your logic. We are talking about libs. They are not "smart people" - they will tar the entire GOP with the Ron Paul brush.
how can they do that when they agree with him?
I thought the 9/11 attack happened because Osama figured we were weak due to non response to previous attacks. Why in the world does Paul think that it has anything to do with “bombing Iraq for 10 years” (to which I also reply HUH? I know Clintoon lobbed two over there to take out minds off Lewinsky but I didn’t think we done anything more than chase or shoot their planes out of the no-fly zone).
There is also the case where you have to treat each situation differently. We know that we can have a better chance of changing those elements in Saudi Arabia from the inside, as recent history has shown us with their cutting off funding to these groups.
Iraq was a different story. They were a direct sponsor of many terrorist groups including Hezzobllah, Islamic Jihad, Al Axa Martyers Brigrade, Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, Ansar al-Sunna, Asbat al-Ansar, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and I’m sure many others I cannot remember at this time.
Iraq even had training camps established.. such as Salman Pak. They may not have been directly sponsoring Al Quada per say, but they were behind almost everyone else..
If you want to stop organized crime, you can’t just go after on family, you have to take out the entire structure.
So what if our goals conflict with goals of Muslims. Are we supposed to give up our goals to please Muslims? Not. Let Muslims change their goals to please us.
Ron Paul has always been a Rosie O’Donnell with a male appendage, but censoring him does no good.
Let the nutburger spout his defeatist rhetoric so that voters can see for themselves for the neo-Chamberlain appeaser he really is.
1400 years of muslim history shows them to be bent on expansion and domination. Our presence in the mideast is nothing more than a convenient excuse for them to continue to do what they’ve always done. If we weren’t there they would still do the same things and simply use another convenient excuse.
When muslims overran north Africa and much of southern Europe the USA didn’t even exist. We haven’t got anything to do with terrorism in India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Indonesia, or the Philippines.
At this point I’m just waiting for the Zawahiri tape quoting Ron Paul. You know it’s coming.
Why stop with excluding Ron Paul?
We should start by excluding the 75 percent of Americans who oppose the War in Iraq.
Then, we should exclude those pro-choice on abortion Americans who are among the 25 percent of Americans who support the War in Iraq. (Starting with Rudy Guiliani.)
Then, we should exclude people like John McCain who, while they’re pro-war and pro-life, are soft on immigration.
I think these three simple steps would get the Republican Party down to where it could compete “mano a mano” with the Libertarian Party for 3th place, following the Dmocrats and the Greens, well ... at least in most states.
Then that should tell him his lunatic politics are unwelcome in the US by the majority voters. Either change his ideology or go back to clerking at Walmart.
Not even close. Ron Paul has some very good ideas about what we need to do to the Federal Reserve, get rid of it. It’s no more Federal than Federal Express. Why on earth we pay a cartel of private banks a $$$trillion+ dollars a year for the privilege of issuing our own currency back to us is insane. Think there’s any gold in Fort Knox??? Nope. It now belongs to the Federal Reserve as collateral for all of the bank notes that it has issued. Ron Paul has some good ideas too, he shouldn’t be omitted.
So being 100% pro-life, 100% pro-2nd Amendment, and 100% pro-border security is out of the question, then.
But people like Hagel and Specter and Collins are welcome in your exclusive club. Gotcha.
Paul voted in favor of military action in Afghanistan.
To win an election you have to run as a Democrat or a Republican, generally. That does not mean you have to *be* one or the other, you just wear their hat during the campaign. With districts so carved up that one or the other party is guaranteed all too often to win, I think it is funny.
What an idiot.
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.