posted
Sometimes while I am driving I listen to Hannity or Limbaugh. My cd player went out and I am just waiting till I buy a new car and I am stuck with only the radio.
One of the things they claim about the Republican Party is that we debate substantive issues. *I am a registered Republican.* Limbaugh and Hannity do NOT speak for me tho.
quote:"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.
None of them represent the party yet. He does represent a dissatisfied faction in the party.
quote: "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."
Here is a man who defends his conservative stance with reason and history, has had a consistent vision of America, and seems to be winning the debates. Why would the GOP try to silence him? If he is fringe, debate him on what makes him fringe. Talk about the futility of trying to get rid of the Federal Reserve and income tax. Attack him on issues.
There are plenty of reasons to not vote for him, but to call him not a conservative or Republican when many of his ideas historically were republican seems a stretch.
I don't get the movement to bar him from being heard. There seems to be a significant number in the base that are craving something new.
Anyway, whether you are Republican or Democrat and think he is a nut job or badly needed in America, I think you should support him in the debates. Defending contrary positions is the whole purpose of debate. I think it is a cop-out to say he is not conservative.
posted
He's more of a Conservative, in the traditional sense, than most of the people on the stage. Before Bush changed the party I mean.
Paul's 9/11 remarks might not be dead-on, but they have a lot of merit to them. It's about UNDERSTANDING your enemy rather than just villifying him, and it's a valuable tool. Apparently the entire leadership of the Republican party thinks the best idea is to couch all their reasoning in platitudes and one liners without looking at the roots and causes of issues. That's dangerous and stupid, and convinces me more than ever that their simplistic solutions would be disastrous in the White House. If Giuliani and the others are blind enough to believe that baseless hatred is the ONLY motivation behind terrorist attacks and their supporters, then I really fear for whatever decisions they would make in office.
Paul might not be a 21st Century Republican, but he still has a voice that represents a part of the Republican base. Just like Gravel might not have a chance at winning the Democratic primary, but his candor and straight talk are immensely valuable. Removing Paul from the debates would be ridiculous, and would lower my already low opinion of the Republican leadership.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul handed Guiliani a wonderful opportunity during the debate to really look strong. While I agree with some of Guiliani's views, he doesn't always come accross as a decisive leader. Getting to thunder about New York gave him his moment.
So to be a total cynic about it, I'd assume the Michigan GOP leader is pulling for someone else and doesn't want Paul helping Guiliani look good again. But I'm suspicious like that.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul is my representative for my district. I voted for him, I've met him, and he's come to speak to my students. I may not always agree with his decisions, but he has proven to be very consistant. He is a strict constructionalist and votes accordingly (He's called Dr. No for a reason).
I agree with you, IEM, that his voice should be heard. Wanted to bar him from debates seems petty at best. Makes me wonder why people are intimidated by him...
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Republicans may debate issue, but at least since Bush took over they have become the Head-In-The-Sand Party when it comes debating the facts. It is shameful that a member of the GOP would want to silence Paul for pointing out something that is rather plainly true. It is not worth losing the War on Terror just to stroke America's collective ego and convince outselves that terrorists pulled their hatred of America out of thin air.
If Guiliani's remarks reflect his true views, then I think we can safely speculate he's dedicated to taking that same Head-In-The-Sand approach that Bush does. Nevertheless, that Paul would so bluntly say what most Republican leaders seem afraid to say is encouraging.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Paul handed Guiliani a wonderful opportunity during the debate to really look strong. While I agree with some of Guiliani's views, he doesn't always come accross as a decisive leader. Getting to thunder about New York gave him his moment.
That is interesting. I found Guiliani to look ignorant and weak. Ron Paul's answering questions on CNN nailed the finale nail in Guilini's coffin in my opinion.
quote: The Republicans may debate issue, but at least since Bush took over they have become the Head-In-The-Sand Party when it comes debating the facts.
Yeah, we really need to wean ourselves from Rush Limbaugh's teat.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Republican party has developed over the past 15 years or so into one that relies on having a consistent message. It might not necessarily make sense sometimes, but you hear it from every source so much that it seems like it does.
Including Ron Paul in the debates breaks this consensus and introduces complexity to an issue that I think they were planning on using a simplistic presentation of to hammer the Democrats.
They're trying to get rid of anyone who isn't being Republicanly Correct.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that a phrase you coined, MrSquicky? I generally don't like labels, but it looks quite useful to illustrate the concept. (I am snagging it briefly to use elsewhere. Thanks!)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's all mine. I like irony, especially the unacknowledged kind. But feel free to use it as much as you want.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, no attribution necessary. It would tickle me pink or at least a very light shade of red for this to get picked up.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just out of curiosity is anyone planning on signing the petition I linked to in the first post? I hope enough people sign it that the republican party is stunned.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I signed it, but I don't really think it's necessary. They'd look really, really bad if they excluded Ron Paul from the debates because of what he said. Now that he's established himelf through the debates, removing him might actually give him more prominence and damage the other candidates if it is handled correctly by his people.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the thing, the only people who are sticking up for Ron Paul are his independant supporters (a very tiny number of Repubs.) and liberals. I have said this once and I will say this again:
The only good numbers Ron Paul gets is on unscientific web polls. Everywhere else there is a poll (national and straw) he doesn't even show up on the radar screen. On top of that, those that lead the Republican party and therefore hold sway with what they say and support have spoken out against him. He doesn't have even a chance. Most Republicans hate him.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: On top of that, those that lead the Republican party and therefore hold sway with what they say and support have spoken out against him. He doesn't have even a chance. Most Republicans hate him.
I know he doesn't have a chance, but I hope he stays in the debates long enough that the base that is watching the debates can start to see a different direction to take the party. He can incite change, even if it is slow and not realized in the upcoming elections.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lem, from people I have talked to (not scientific itself) he is making Republican's views more intrenched.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Paul handed Guiliani a wonderful opportunity...to really look strong...Getting to thunder about New York gave him his moment."
Sounded like a shrill and inarticulate hissy fit to me. Reads the same way. Guiliani was my favorite amongst the Republican field. That Guiliani was given such an opportunity, then appeared to be utterly unprepared for the totally foreseeable debate point, indicates weakness both intellectual and temperamental.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Here is the thing, the only people who are sticking up for Ron Paul are his independant supporters (a very tiny number of Repubs.) and liberals.
Which is sad, because Paul and McCain seem to be the only Republican candidates refraining from out-Bauering each other. Once Paul is out, the chest-thumping will only get louder.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
