Gary E. Johnson and Ron Paul may be excluded from 2012 GOP debates, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

Topic started on 4-4-2011 @ 02:41 PM by Misoir

Will Ron Paul and Gary Johnson Be Included in 2012 Presidential Debates?

Link

Last week, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus formed a committee comprised of RNC member Jim Bopp, former RNC Chair Mike Duncan, former Florida GOP Chair Al Cardenas, and former Congressman Dick Armey to decide whether the Republican National Committee should sponsor debates to raise money for themselves. According to James Bopp, “The RNC or its designee may at its discretion determine the time, place, co-sponsors, format , subject matter, moderators and participants” for the debates.

And should the conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt has his way then Gary E. Johnson, Buddy Roemer, and Ron Paul will all be excluded from the debates.

“Bar the stage to those candidates who simply cannot win the nomination, even under Iowa-upset circumstances. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania are long-shots, but they have a plausible path to the nomination. Former Rep. Buddy Roemer of Louisiana and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson do not. If Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, asks for another giant chunk of valuable time, the RNC should say no, and put up with the howls from the 1 percent who will scream.“

Link

The RNC proposes to select the times, places, and participants, and this could yield a renaissance in campaign coverage. Imagine one or two debates on foreign affairs, moderated by a senior statesman and featuring questions from public intellectuals like Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson and Liz Cheney.

People if you want Ron Paul or Gary E. Johnson in the debates you better make your voices heard because the RNC may just lock these candidates out of the debates.

edit on 4/4/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-4-2011 @ 02:47 PM by DaMod

reply to post by Misoir

Of course they will be locked from the debates.. Cannot have candidates that actually give a rat's cheese about the well being of the USA can we? That would just be un-American....

Besides they'll start using words like "Federal Reserve" and "Social Security" and we just cannot have that...

reply posted on 4-4-2011 @ 02:53 PM by strawberry91

reply to post by Misoir

Reading things like this literally makes me sick :/ is there anything we can do? I dont see how they can say who has a chance to win the nomination anyway! Thats OUR job!

edit on 4-4-2011 by strawberry91 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-4-2011 @ 02:56 PM by DaMod

reply to post by strawberry91

I guess you didn't get the memo....

It hasn't been our job for a while now... Why do you think we get 2 evils to pick the lesser of... If there is such a thing..

reply posted on 4-4-2011 @ 02:58 PM by Maxmars

... featuring questions from public intellectuals like Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson and Liz Cheney.

"Public" intellectuals?...... says who?

reply posted on 4-4-2011 @ 03:23 PM by Misoir

reply to post by Maxmars

Charles Krauthammer… Neoconservative

Victor Davis Hanson… “"I came to support neocon approaches first in the wars against the Taliban and Saddam, largely because I saw little alternative."

Liz Cheney… Neoconservative, founder of “Keep America Safe”

Gee… I wonder why these three were chosen as ‘intellectuals’.

edit on 4/4/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-4-2011 @ 05:35 PM by DaMod

reply to post by Misoir

It doesn't take a rocket scientist, brain surgeon or political "expert" to figure it out.......

reply posted on 4-4-2011 @ 09:02 PM by FortAnthem

Yeah smart, lets exclude the folks who really represent the base of the party and only allow people who can "actually win" to participate.

That's how they ended up with that RINO McCain in the last election and, as a result, the base stayed home and we got one party control for the last two years with disastrous effects.

These people never learn from their mistakes but, then again, they're only following the script their masters are giving them. Allowing a candidate who might go off script cannot be allowed.

reply posted on 4-4-2011 @ 10:24 PM by TinfoilTP

I vote for seeing the 1% scream.
Seriously Ron Paul is a joke and when he fails to get nominated GOP again, his 1% screamers will just vote Obama again anyway so why should they be wasting airtime?

reply posted on 5-4-2011 @ 12:02 AM by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
I vote for seeing the 1% scream.
Seriously Ron Paul is a joke and when he fails to get nominated GOP again, his 1% screamers will just vote Obama again anyway so why should they be wasting airtime?

Seriously Ron Paul is a joke and when he fails to get nominated GOP again,

Ron paul isn't a joke i could say the same thing about the whole democratic process the system is seriously a joke a vote for a GOP or Dem candidate is a vote for 4 more years of the same elites.

All the other GOP candidate share the same elite plan, just like obama.

edit on 5-4-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 5-4-2011 @ 01:37 AM by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
I vote for seeing the 1% scream.
Seriously Ron Paul is a joke and when he fails to get nominated GOP again, his 1% screamers will just vote Obama again anyway so why should they be wasting airtime?

Seriously Ron Paul is a joke and when he fails to get nominated GOP again,

Ron paul isn't a joke i could say the same thing about the whole democratic process the system is seriously a joke a vote for a GOP or Dem candidate is a vote for 4 more years of the same elites.

All the other GOP candidate share the same elite plan, just like obama.
edit on 5-4-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)