Rep chairman petitioning Ron Paul from debate 3 HELP

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just FYI the guy who brought up barring him from the debate dropped it heading into the weekend. He didn't exactly find a lot of support.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true and do you have a link?

Good news.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://migop.blogs.com/blog/2007/05/...bate_peti.html

Yeah, but now he is trying another back door angle saying that ok, well, I won't sensor anyone, but we need to cut the debates down to the top three or four. (And in his polls Ron Paul is doing about 2%). So keep hounding them. Tell the Michigan GOP that we all see through this crap and we want Ron Paul heard.

They had to shut down their switchboard the first day because of so many calls. But we can't let them think this new tactic will work either. So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.

I guess the GOP is experiencing its own blowback.

The publicity is great. Really helping.

I spoke to a guy in Paul's camp and he said they are guaranteed for the next debate, but the ones after that could be in jeopardy. Right now they just need money.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Should we really quote the post-debate text-phone results as if they represent the electorate? Perhaps we should reference the results in terms of the preference of the viewers, then discuss the need for a true limited-government conservative's participation.

[TheEngineer]

Townhall.com article

But Who Was Right -- Rudy or Ron?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday, May 18, 2007

It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.

Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke format and exploded:

"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.

"I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what he really meant by it."

The applause for Rudy's rebuke was thunderous -- the soundbite of the night and best moment of Rudy's campaign.

After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.

Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.

"I would ask the congressman to ... tell us what he meant," said Rudy.

A fair question and a crucial question.

When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.

Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahideen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.

What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?

Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us.

Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation.

Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective.

What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9-11?

Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate our freedom? Is it that simple?

Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.

Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?

Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in confession, "If I had only known then what I know now ..."

Rudy implied that Ron Paul was unpatriotic to suggest the violence against us out of the Middle East may be in reaction to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."

Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, but it also came out of the troubled history of U.S.-Japanese relations going back 40 years. Hitler's attack on Poland was naked aggression. But to understand it, we must understand what was done at Versailles -- after the Germans laid down their arms based on Wilson's 14 Points. We do not excuse -- but we must understand.

Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.

By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq.

[BIG NIGE]

I'm gonna write an email to Paul's campaign with some suggestions for what points to make and language to use in the next debate. I know I'm just another political junkie with an opinion, but hopefully since it's a grass roots campaign that's not controlled by big corporation, they'll read and consider it.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm gonna write an email to Paul's campaign with some suggestions for what points to make and language to use in the next debate. I know I'm just another political junkie with an opinion, but hopefully since it's a grass roots campaign that's not controlled by big corporation, they'll read and consider it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ron Paulonly spent $100k on his campaign in the 1st quarter. Ron Paul might personally read the e-mail because he can't afford any staff. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Paul would kill to get that big campaign aparatus that you despise.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Should we really quote the post-debate text-phone results as if they represent the electorate? Perhaps we should reference the results in terms of the preference of the viewers, then discuss the need for a true limited-government conservative's participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Should we really quote the post-debate text-phone results as if they represent the electorate? Perhaps we should reference the results in terms of the preference of the viewers, then discuss the need for a true limited-government conservative's participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being flippant.

[vinyard]

[ QUOTE ]
Townhall.com article

But Who Was Right -- Rudy or Ron?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday, May 18, 2007


[/ QUOTE ]
*snip*

It must be noted that correct or incorrect on his take on the Paul-Rudy argument (and I agree with Buchanan that Paul is more right than wrong) Buchanan has effectively endorsed Paul in this primary.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Should we really quote the post-debate text-phone results as if they represent the electorate? Perhaps we should reference the results in terms of the preference of the viewers, then discuss the need for a true limited-government conservative's participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being flippant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with it?

[BIG NIGE]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm gonna write an email to Paul's campaign with some suggestions for what points to make and language to use in the next debate. I know I'm just another political junkie with an opinion, but hopefully since it's a grass roots campaign that's not controlled by big corporation, they'll read and consider it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ron Paulonly spent $100k on his campaign in the 1st quarter. Ron Paul might personally read the e-mail because he can't afford any staff. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Paul would kill to get that big campaign aparatus that you despise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't mind if he was backed by companies or interests which were consistent with his own beliefs; that way, he could have campaign money to spend, but it wouldn't affect his policy decisions if he actually got elected.