Scott Paul on Repub attempts to ban Ron Paul

scott paul rails against the attempt to banish ron paul from the republican debates...

Ron Paul and I have very few things in common besides our last name. We agree on very little, and we defend those few policy positions we happen to share on very different ideological and philosophical grounds.

My namesake and I agree on one thing, though: Ron Paul has every right to participate in the Republican primary debates.

Saul Azunis, the Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, wants Paul out of the GOP debates simply because he finds Paul's ideas objectionable. Here's the direct 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."

What nerve.

If candidates should ever be excluded from debates - and I leave that as an open question - it should be based on measured levels of support, simply so voters can get better acquainted with the more viable candidates. Interestingly, since Paul commented that the 9/11 attacks were motivated by U.S. military activity in the Middle East, interest in his candidacy has gone through the roof.

Clearly, the campaign to exclude Paul isn't based on his waning support or viability. This effort to exclude him on the basis of his ideas is more than absurd - it's an affront to democratic principles.

i - almost - completely agree... ron paul is a duly elected republican congressman from texas and a legitimate, declared candidate for the presidential nomination of his party... and the problem with that would be what, exactly...? we simply cannot tolerate this kind of overt censorship... ron paul is entitled to his views, to his party affiliation, and to his constitutional right to seek to represent his country by running for the highest office in the land...

now, for the "almost" part... allowing or disallowing a declared candidate to appear in a debate based on "measured levels of support," while sensible on its face, still troubles me... who decides what "levels of support" a candidate has to have to be considered debate-worthy...? and this is not just a problem of republican and democratic candidates, it also extends to third-party candidates... unity '08 comes to mind...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet