Petition Against Ron Paul’s Inclusion in Future Republican Presidential Debates

Posted by: Ion | May 16th, 2007 · 11:16 AM

Like just about everyone with an “R” on his or her voter registration card, Jason and I were deeply offended by Ron Paul’s anti-American tirade in last night’s Republican debate.

For disclosure, in the past we’ve been sympathetic (if unsupportive), of Paul as a candidate in the Republican field. We viewed his Neo-isolationism as a quaint, but legitimate throwback to Robert Taft Republicanism of an earlier era. This was not without foundation, as Paul himself often cites Taft as an inspiration for his views. Thus we considered his contributions to the evolving debate on the GOP nomination to be interesting, if not agreeable.

We possess no such illusions after hearing his remarks last night.

It would have been unthinkable for Robert Taft to argue that Imperial Japan was justified in attacking the United States in 1941, or that we should modify our policies to accommodate the demands of that hostile foreign foe. Yet Ron Paul did exactly that on both counts last night. Thus we believe he has completely invalidated any remaining value to his continued presence or contribution in future Republican presidential debates.

We have drafted this petition for your consideration, which requests the media and RNC to make efforts to prevent his inclusion in future debates conducted under the name of our party. Rather than wishing to censor Paul, we merely wish he was expressing his views in a party forum which is at least somewhat consistent with that party’s principles (such as the Libertarian Party).

The petition:

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.

Signed,
Lee I. Garnett
Jason M. McBride

Sign the petition here>>>

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

16 comments to “Petition Against Ron Paul’s Inclusion in Future Republican Presidential Debates”

newrepublicans.us » A Petition to remove Ron Paul…, May 16th, 2007 at 4:25 pm:

• […] A Petition against Ron Paul’s inclusion in future Republican Presidential debates has surfaced on the internet. While some of our staff may not be participants of this petition, we feel that this is news worthy. We expect that our readers will make their own informed decision to sign or not. Written by Staff Writer - Visit Website […]

Brian Miller, May 16th, 2007 at 4:38 pm:

• Why are you comparing Iraq and Japan? Iraq didn’t attack us. That was his whole point. You are acting like a liberal the same way Giuliani does unless he’s running for the Republican nomination for President - stifle other points of view. You were offended? Unreal.

Lee, May 16th, 2007 at 5:20 pm:

• I don’t know if you happen to have seen the debate last night Brian, but it was Paul who equated Al Qaeda’s attack on the United States with Iraq. He did so by suggesting that our policy of enforcing the UN mandated No-Fly Zone over Iraq, provoked Al Qaeda to attack on 9/11. Specifically he said, quote: “Have you read the reasons they attacked us? We’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years.” A direct concord between Iraq and Al Qaeda’s motives and plans.

  Consequently, your point is a little strange, as you seem to be in disagreement with Paul, in an effort to defend him.

  Onto the other matter, it’s not stifling views to fail to invite Paul to future debates. He can say whatever he wants, but when he does so under the pretension of speaking to and for the Republican party, as a registered member of that party, I do have a say in that. As I submit in the petition, it’s not that I want Paul’s views suppressed, I just don’t want them in my party. They’re good enough for the Libertarians. He should take them back there.

Brian Miller, May 16th, 2007 at 5:54 pm:

• Ron Paul never said anything about the no-fly zone in Iraq causing al-Qaeda to attack us. I’ve watched it about 4 times now. You are twisting his words. He’s obviously referring to the middle-east as a whole. It’s sad you’re willing to twist his words and even sadder that you may just not understand what he’s saying. Iraq and al Qaeda…that is classic. I agree with Paul 100%.

  “Don’t want them in your party”? Guess what - it isn’t your party buddy.

NH, May 16th, 2007 at 7:33 pm:

• This is a total twist of Ron’s words as to what he was saying.

  This call to exclude him is suppression of freedom of speech and very UNREPUBLICAN and shows the Giuliani people are just scared that Ron is elevating the conversation and talking about things the others don’t want to talk about.

NH, May 16th, 2007 at 7:41 pm:

• Ron Paul is the only TRUE American and for you to call him anything but is just sour grapes. All Rudy knows how to do is invoke fear through 911 ‘terrorism’ and he’s a johnny one note on that and we’re all sick of him!

  I think I speak for much of the republican party on this…seeing as NH lost 80 years of Republican rule over this stupid WAR!

Lee, May 16th, 2007 at 7:46 pm:

• So far Brian, I’m the only one who has quoted Paul directly. What you’re suggesting is that he didn’t mean what he clearly said in that quote. I quote him again: “Have you read the reasons they attacked us? We’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years.”

  The trouble with this of course, is that Rudy challenged him on exactly this matter –whether he meant it– and he defended it further.

  As to the party, of course it’s my party Brian. And every member of it can say the same. Can you? Are you a registered Republican? You’re rare cat of a Ron Paulist if so. You’ll notice Mr. Paul isn’t exactly winning any scientific opinion polls among registered Republicans.

NH, May 16th, 2007 at 7:54 pm:

• And we haven’t been bombing them for 10 years? Is there something wrong with wanting to re-examine foreign policy? What makes it your business to get into another country and tell them what to do? Did they ask us to come there?

  Rudy could not defend HIMSELF except to say he was there at 911, big deal, so were many others. How does this make him some sort of hero? He did nothing to prevent it. I’m tired of hearing him with that goofy retarded lisp, saying over and over again ‘terroriTHm’… LOL

  Most of our supporters here are registered Republicans because Ron is the only one with a real conservative record on taxes, spending, the UN, guns, and life…

  LEE I am suspecting you think more like a Democrat who got us into plenty of wars.

Lee, May 16th, 2007 at 8:03 pm:

• Well look NH, please don’t make exclusionary, template fanatical arguments like “Ron Paul is the only TRUE Amemrican ” and then claim Paul’s critics are treating him disingenuously. I mean with such stuff, it kind of vandalizes the ole moral authority.

  >>LEE I am suspecting you think more like a Democrat who got us into plenty of wars.

  Your powers of perception are somewhat limited if you suspect as much, given the nature of postpolitical. Methinks you like to call people names. Particularly in light of your remarks about Mr. Giuliani. I’d urge you to clean them up, before you go bye-bye.

NH, May 16th, 2007 at 8:26 pm:

• Well isn’t your premise for trying to exclude Ron based on the fact you think he is anti-war therefore must be anti-American and anti-Republican?

  I am merely pointing out the irony that plenty of Democrats have waged wars that we couldn’t win. Should they then become Republicans?

  When I say Ron is genuine, he is willing to re-examine our foreign policy, which is more American to me than standing your ground even after you lost whole states like NH thanks to this war.

Lee, May 16th, 2007 at 8:49 pm:

• Well isn’t your premise for trying to exclude Ron based on the fact you think he is anti-war therefore must be anti-American and anti-Republican?

  Yep.

  I am merely pointing out the irony that plenty of Democrats have waged wars that we couldn’t win. Should they then become Republicans?

  With the possible exception of 1812 and the Revolution, there is no war in our history that the United States “could not win” had she genuinely sought to. There are only victories that the United States has declined for one reason or another. And I’ve yet to have heard a good reason for losing a war….and Ron Paul is not singing a novel brand of defeatism.

  When I say Ron is genuine, he is willing to re-examine our foreign policy, which is more American to me than standing your ground even after you lost whole states like NH thanks to this war.

  Well, given your screen name, I can’t begrudge you a little wounded feelings in the loss of the Granite State NH! Clearly she’s home, so that’s excused without mention. And while it should be observed that New Hampshire has been changing along with the rest of New England toward increasing Democrat inclination anyway, that scarcely matters too. I like most Republicans, are willing to trade the votes of a few New Hampshirites, for a vigorous security policy any day of the week. Heck, I’ll trade entire elections for the chance to be right on that subject, rather than perilously wrong, or even worse….pusillanimously wrong.

postpolitical » A Paroxysm of Paulism, May 17th, 2007 at 5:58 pm:

• […] Yesterday, we drafted a little petition calling for the exclusion of Ron Paul from further Republican debates on the grounds that his views had proven to be simply too incompatible with Party principles. I sent out a notice to a few friends and other bloggers and didn’t expect much to come of it. A few people signed and then came the flood of the angry Paulists shouting “censorship” and “fascism.” To such an extent, that I shut down the open signatures of the petition. […]

Jason, May 18th, 2007 at 12:03 am:

• NH… I’m a little late into this debate, but I must say, have you bothered to even read our little blog?

  To suggest that we are “Giuliani people” is funny, considering that I spend about half of my posts attacking the man as inadequate to lead “my” party.

  Ron Paul, as much as you may wish he were, is not a serious candidate, nor a serious intellectual man for that matter. He is a scatterbrained old kook, whom I would agree with from time to time as he rants about “shutting down departments” in Washington mind you, but who has absolutely zero idea of how to lead a majority of Americans back to the days he longs for. He is, quite frankly, not a Republican, and thus serves to only cheapen the process, and our right, to picking a credible nominee without distractions.

  Paul, and those like him, get their jollies from throwing bombshells out at debates such as this particular bombshell, and then go on to live their irrelevant lives outside of the mainstream of politics while the rest of us are actually trying to change things for the better.

  Paul’s supporters, such as yourself obviously, care more for remaining as outsiders in this process, which is why you will never win an election. If your views are so strong on these matters, than enter the realm of credible forums and state your claim. But you shouldn’t get upset over the fact that 98% of Americans, who live pretty lucky lives, disagree with your wacko politics when they vote on a election day every year.

LeeL, May 19th, 2007 at 1:49 am:

• Well now, lemmesee…

  As of 23:50 EDT
  http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/AgainstRonPaul
  All of a whopping **14 ** votes to ban Ron Paul in all future debates.

  http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?RPRNC08&1
  Over *** 12,500 *** votes and counting to NOT ban Ron Paul from any debates from here to the primaries.

  This is a parody site, right?

  “A few people signed and then came the flood of the angry Paulists shouting “censorship” and “fascism.” To such an extent, that I shut down the open signatures of the petition. […] ”

  Oh, I see. and with only 14 votes logged! That was quick! And you were surprised by such a response for your action to try to ban Ron Paul? And probably even more surprised that this raised interest in Ron Paul. Unintended consequence, eh?

  Whoa! Tell me again about “irrelevant lives”?

  Ron Paul is so conservative that he reveals Bush and every other NeoConArtist masquerading as ‘Republican’ as the bloated big government frauds they are! Boosh has run up more government debt than ALL previous presidents. You don’t seriously with a straight face call that ‘conservative’ do you?

  Own up! You don’t know a defender of the Republic and US Constitution when you see one! If Ron Paul is ‘incompatible’ for what it is to be a Republican, then I suggest you’re in the wrong party. NeoConservative is not Conservative. NeoConservative is not Republican but it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. aka Republican In Name Only. The Real Republican Party has been hijacked by RINOs.

  Due to lack of candidate choices and disillusionment, real Republicans voted Democrat in 2006 or didn’t vote at all. I’ve been hoping for 4 years that Ron Paul would run for president. Some of us have been following him for while, before it was cool to be a Paulist. Now everywhere I read, people are willing, yea anxious to register as a Republican to vote for Ron Paul in their state primaries to get him to the general election! Just read through the petition comments to see evidence of this. http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?RPRNC08&1 This is a bad thing? And you would ban him from the debates!? Methinks you’re all RINOs here.

  Support for Rudy McRomney is continued support for ever growing federal, bloated, inefficient, what’s-in-it-for-me business as usual. If that defines ‘Republican’ for you, I’m sorry for you.

  Own up! Americans are not at fault for 911, but American foreign policy surely is! It is not un-American to recognize that we don’t need troops tromping around in 130 other countries in the world! Non-intervention is NOT isolationism. It’s called minding our own damn business. It’s part of being a Republican. It’s what we expect from every other country but ourselves.

  Your petition to ban Ron Paul or anyone else is irrelevant. This is America, after all! Everyone gets their say. No one abrogated their right of free speech to you or any ‘party’. You shouldn’t assert that those who favor a different candidate from you, lead irrelevant lives. It just makes you sound juvenile.

  Ron Paul is a Republican and has broad support across the spectrum of political affiliation. Rudy McRomney doesn’t. Get over it.

  Lee Lafferty

Lee, May 19th, 2007 at 3:07 am:

• Firstly Mr. Lafferty, relax. If the petition is irrelevant (which it is, there is no binding authority) there’s no need to get so worked up, now is there?

  As to the irrelevant lives Jason mentioned…you just wrote an eleven paragraph rant, against a petition that has no influence on anything. A simple, “I disagree” would have probably sufficed.

  And no, everyone does not get their say at a formal Republican Debate. There is a vast distinction between having the right to speak freely and mandating a platform for those views in a party debate. To argue the opposite, that because you have a view, it is compulsory that you must be included, is actually as much an infringement on speech rights as a prohibition against speech. Were such a principle implemented fairly, there would be fifty candidates on the platform with views ranging to UFO conspiracies.

  As to the popularity of Paul, this is a common joke in the party by this point. The only people we’ve met who support Paul are Libertarians. Just about every Republican says the exact same thing too. Every attack on the petition came from a Libertarian message board. No one’s organizing mass emailings against us from any historically Republican sites.

  And as a note to Paulists: do stop with all the capitalizations and exclamation points. It makes all of your responses look like they came from the same person.

postpolitical » Rethinking Inclusion: John Cox and the Republican Debates, May 22nd, 2007 at 8:01 pm:

• […] We’ve received quite a reaction to our Petition Against Ron Paul’s Inclusion in Future Republican Presidential Debates. Paul’s following yields a particular class of people (ehmm), and thus we saw the intellectually dishonest charges of censorship coming a mile away. […]

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.