Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“There are no such things as limits to growth, because there are no limits on the human capacity for intelligence, imagination and wonder.”     Ronald Reagan

May 16, 2007

Republicans: The Party Of Censorship

by Doug Mataconis

Or so it would seem based on this report:

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.

Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates. At a GOP candidates’ debate Tuesday night, Paul drew attacks from all sides, most forcefully from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, when he linked the terror attacks to U.S. bombings.

(…)

Anuzis called the comments “off the wall and out of whack.”

“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.

“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.”

Anuzis said his petition would go to debate sponsors and broadcasters to discourage inviting Paul.

Because, of course, the last thing we want at a Presidential Debate is an actual, well, debate.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/16/republicans-the-party-of-censorship/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

14 Comments

  1. As a Michigan resident, I have met Anuzis on a few occasions. I don’t know what he is thinking with this idea, but it certainly smacks of stupidity. Last year, he was a big supporter of ideas to help Michigan in its economic troubles. Seems odd he wants to eliminate the one guy actually promoting ideas to better the country and bring it back to the vision created by the Founding Fathers.

    Comment by trumpetbob15 — May 16, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
  2. This is stupid. Let Ron Paul and his ideas be defeated in an open debate, not forced off the stage. Republicans face a Third Party challenge from the far right if there is any attempt to close off Ron Paul from the debates and the process.

    Comment by Kevin — May 17, 2007 @ 12:32 am
  3. I don’t entirely agree with Ron Paul on what he said about our Middle East policies but I understand where he was comming from and what he was trying to say. Guliani, Hannity, and others either do not understand his point or are puposley demagaguing what he said. Paul’s statement deserves serious discussion.

    Foreign policy has consequences (both good and bad) whether its one of isolationism or interventionalism. Would the terrorist attacks have happened on 9/11 if not for America’s interventions in the Middle East? Its impossible to know for sure (though I beleive the attacks would have happened either way).

    I find this to be a very important discussion and I plan to write more on this soon.

    Comment by Stephen Littau — May 17, 2007 @ 12:41 am
  4. I agree Kevin. Though I don’t believe I can support Ron Paul because of his stance on the war on Islamofascism, I want him in the debates as long as possible. He raises important questions that need to be part of the debate.

    As far as I’m concerned, Ron Paul is wrong (but not entirely wrong) on the war on Islamofascism but right on just about everything else. The other canidates are right on the war but wrong (or play lipservice) on most everything else.

    Comment by Stephen Littau — May 17, 2007 @ 12:45 am
  5. I have to say, regardless of my views of the war in Iraq, it’s rather nice to see a candidate stand up for what he believes in and not try to conform to the media. I have to give Congressman Paul credit for standing up for what he truly believes in, regardless of my own views. It’s quite a compliment taht the mainstream wants to censor him, congrats Ron Paul.

    Comment by Ryan — May 17, 2007 @ 12:45 am
  6. If I’m left with front runners then I’m not going to even bother voting. I’ll give moral support to the one I think is the most oppressive and violent. Is it even possible for the US to eliminate life from the Middle East?

    Muslims want to destroy us is the pro-war argument. My problem with it is the West is too wussy to turn the Middle East into a mass grave. I doubt even Dondero will support a real pro-war foreign policy. We just pick off a few savages, letting them breed, wasting our treasury on half-hearted adventures. I doubt any hawk will advocate a crusade to rid the world of our enemies.

    The funny thing is it is in our nature and history shows it to be true. One group comes in and kills and runs off the established group because it is wussy.

    Comment by uhm — May 17, 2007 @ 1:13 am
  7. It seems like Saul of Tarsus, Saul Anusiz is trying to kill truth. Sauls have been doing this for 2000+ years.

    Comment by Dan — May 17, 2007 @ 5:18 am
  8. Anuzis would feel right at home working for Mao or Mussolini. There are two forces in America today. One side is pro-Big Brother, pro-corruption and anti-freedom. This is where just about all the higher-ups in the Republicrat and Demopublican parties reside.

    Ron Paul has long been one of the leading figures in the freedom side. His straight, honest answers and willingness to deal with reality and unpleasant truths are like sunlight to the Beltway vampires and their fellow coffin dwellers.

    Giuliani is strongly anti-Second Amendment and supports a national ID card. Heil Rudy!

    Comment by Al Doyle — May 17, 2007 @ 7:53 am
  9. Maybe Saul has forgotten that we have freedom of speech in this country. I suggest Saul dust of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Comment by Jim Pappas — May 17, 2007 @ 9:08 am
  10. Guys, this is not censorship nor a violation of anybody’s rights to freedom of expression.

    Political parties are free to invite people to join them or to kick them out for whatever reason they wish. The Republicans do not have to do business with Ron Paul. They are not a governmental organization, and so the strictures of the U.S. Constitution do not apply to them.

    Imagine if Ron Paul was replaced by some white supremacist, who railed about Jews and Catholics and mud-people etc, and called for a return to Jim Crow and spoke out in favor of lynchings. In such a scenario, Mr Anuzis’ maneuver would not only be non-controversial, it would seem positively statesman-like.

    This move is a blatant attempt to shut Ron Paul up and to deprive the populace from exposure to his foreign policy ideas. Mr Anusiz deserves to be mocked and ridiculed for attempting to get Ron Paul off the stage. However, he is well within his rights to do so.

    Comment by tarran — May 17, 2007 @ 9:25 am
  11. Gotta go with tarran on this one. This is nothing new in the GOP, though. They have been doing the same thing at the national convention for decades–preaching “unification” and “solidarity” instead of good old fashioned political debate and squelching any dissenters and banishing them to the margins.

    Comment by Vogel — May 17, 2007 @ 9:41 am
  12. I think the question of why the Sept. 11 attacks happened has never been fully addressed, the neo-cons always assumed that it must be because terrorists “hate us for our freedom”, which is of course a statement made to induce fear and make us think of our enemies as irrational. Even though the media coverage of this question and how the republican party is trying to ban Ron Paul is disgusting and anti-american, it is important to actually have the debate so the facts can come out into the public consciousness.

    Comment by Nick — May 17, 2007 @ 10:18 am
  13. See also:
    Rudy Giuliani vs. Ron Paul II
    “Rush Limbaugh says Ron Paul is “spamming polls” (Link)
    Meanwhile, online, there is a strong buzz (Link) that Ron Paul has been ignored by the mainstream media in regard to his impressive Internet demonstrated accomplishments”
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Rudy_Giuliani_vs_Ron_Paul_II/blog

    Comment by Alex Hammer — May 17, 2007 @ 10:54 am
  14. No, the question is not if Ron Paul should be in the Debates! The question is not that the Republicans want or don’t want Ron Paul……..The question is are you going to accept the NWO without a fight?

    Will you let this “Saul” dictate who can or can not be in a Debate?

    He needs to GO NOW!!! I vote that SAUL goes and Paul stays……if you agree, DEMAND Saul resign Today!!!

    This is the link to the Michigan Republican Party
    http://www.migop.org/contact_us.asp

    If it works let them know how you feel!

    Comment by RonPaul PeoplePower — May 17, 2007 @ 11:12 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML