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
The only reason to ban him is because you are afraid of him.
Paul isn’t anti-American, you are.
I agree that this idea stinks! Let the process proceed, and all will be well. Where is the petition of outrage over the fact that Duncan Hunter was given less time to speak at the last debate than any other candidate??
Lots of effort you took in telling that story.
Truth is that a running original 1940 Ford Coupe is worth much more then a customized piece of crap that breaks down all the time because your friend has no sense or respect for the car. If he wanted to take it home, he should have trailered it.
Do NOT post pictures - or links to pictures - suggesting the identity of another poster.
To each their own. Correct, which is why Paul should remain in the debates.
>>The only reason to ban him is because you are afraid of him.
As you can see in the thread, there are plenty of reasons to oppose Paul’s inclusion. Also, please see my checklist on post 138. Your critics are not “afraid” of a candidate who polls less than the margin of error. Be sensible about this please.
>>Paul isnt anti-American, you are.
One does not become anti-American by opposing the inclusion of a fringe candidate in a party debate on commercial television. Apologizing for the motives of this country’s enemies....now that’s a different story altogether.
disgusting... there’s no way I’m signing anything like this. I agree with a lot of his views and even if I don’t agree with his view on the war, he has the right to express that view. Why don’t we exclude Giu-Freaking-liani ... he’s pro “choice”... That’s definitally not traditionally a republican position to take.
>>he has the right to express that view.
So you’re in favor of including all the other minor GOP candidates who are presently excluded, correct?
>>>My point was that historically a large part of the Republican Party hasn’t been that keen on foreign wars.
The only period in the party’s history where isolationism was ascendant was in the inter-war years. On either side of that period, you have the McKinley/Roosevelt and Eisenhower ages. And of course, no GOP isolationist made apologies for the motives of Japan, after it attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941 like Paul does for Al Qaeda. Nor did they suggest we must withdraw from the Pacific to accommodate those motives. Paul’s views are a radical departure from that tradition.
In fact, he’s cloaking an extremely radical view in the coat of Robert Taft, who is unlikely to have agreed with him.
Ron Paul isn’t making apologies for Al-Quada just by noting what THEY’VE said their motives were. And maybe someone should “make apologies,” by which you seem to mean recognize what motivated our enemy, in regards to Japan.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor after a U.S. embargo on Japanese oil recovery in the Sumatra crippled their economy. Another example of how the U.S. could’ve protected the lives and liberties of its citizenry by ignoring the advocates of globalism and by NOT GETTING INVOLVED in other nation’s troubles.
Yet, here we are, stuck in Iraq, appeasing Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey at the will of the globalists in the Bush administration, just as in the mid-’80’s we appeased Saddam Hussein. When in twenty years Americans are dying in warfare to curb the dictatorships we are appeasing today, Will the supporters of globalism and the war in Iraq finally be identified as the traitors they are?
Today it looks as though some people are trying to get all of the interventionists in one party and all of their opponents in the other. That's not a good recipe for success, either at the polls or in foreign affairs. It means those who could brake a dangerous intervention or those who urge action overseas at a critical time are silenced if their in the wrong party and that party simply pursues an unthinking course.
I don't like Paul, but I'd hate to see the Republican Party turned into a dependency of interventionist think tanks. A lot of people who've voted Republican up to now might agree.
How did I re-write history? The warmth and coziness between Saddam Hussein and his lapdogs Donald Rumsfeld and April Glaspie are well-documented! We had a posting here on FreeRepublic just a few weeks ago that noted (from a peculiar, critical perspective) that Nancy Pelosi supported legislation identifying and castigating Turkey for their genocidal campaigns against the Kurds - The poster thought we should ignore Turkey’s assaults on liberty, however, as it was not advantageous to our operations in Iraq.
Pakistan is known to have WMDs, harbors terrorists, and is a despotic state. THEY ARE NOT OUR ALLIES. No matter what George W. Bush says.
>>>Japan attacked Pearl Harbor after a U.S. embargo on Japanese oil recovery in the Sumatra crippled their economy. Another example of how the U.S. couldve protected the lives and liberties of its citizenry by ignoring the advocates of globalism and by NOT GETTING INVOLVED in other nations troubles.
Glad you brought that up. What more needs to be said, really? Paulists don’t even support the US cause in World War II and will voluntarily defend the grievances of Imperial Japan. Pathetic is all that can be said about that.
Why was the US embargoing Japan? Was it because they were trying to impose a brutal fascist empire across Asia perhaps and had long sought to usurp our role and seize our territories there? I suppose we should have just allowed that to pass without objection and thus made our security all the stronger no? Ah yes, we should all yearn for the halcyon days of the Nanjing massacre. Moonbattery.
You guys are so fundamentally at odds with with an conception of what constitutes a sound or moral security policy it almost defies belief.
At the very least, it has no place in this party. Take it back to the LP and plug it in alongside the other nutballed Libertarian ideas like legalizing incest and privatizing sidewalks.
>>>Today it looks as though some people are trying to get all of the interventionists in one party and all of their opponents in the other.
I think this is actually a good point frankly. But it has nothing to do with Paul’s specific policies, which are the focus of this petition. It’s one thing to say the United States should be less interventionist abroad. It’s another entirely, to assign and then embrace the arguments of the enemy.
Usurp OUR role and seize OUR territories in Asia? We had NO business in Asia, and our imperialism was as foolish as Japan’s. (Thoough not as cruel.) We should not have been in Asia, any more than we should be in the Middle-East. I can only hope one day Americans finally heed George Washington’s words and root the globalists, imperialists, and other elements who hate America and the American ideals of sovereignty and civil rights out of power.
And here is a sound and moral security policy: Protect the United States. Leave despotic nations to their own devices. If certain Americans wish to conduct business in despotic nations, let them handle the repercussions, and if those repercussions threaten other Americans, deport those who wished to conduct business with nations whose values are contrary to our own.
Coddling the scum that is Saudi Arabia’s leadership, now, that is not sound or moral.
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.