Debates @ MindSay

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
 About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went
- Omar Khayyam (~1050 -1132)

Apparently there is NOT a debate tomorrow at  8:00 PM ET, so be sure NOT to tune in. It has apparently been canceled.

Talk about boobs....

Anyone closely following the Republican presidential debates knows that there is a huge contrast between the position of nine of the 10 Republican candidates and that of Congressman Ron Paul on the subject of war. That contrast was strikingly illustrated in a YouTube video that was recently forwarded to me. Entitled “Preemptive Nuclear War vs. Christianity,” the video depicts a nuclear attack while also showing clips of remarks by some of the Republican candidates including Ron Paul.

For example, the YouTube video shows clips from the June 5 Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire, where candidates were asked if they would use tactical nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike against Iran. Congressman Duncan Hunter said: "I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons." Rudy Giuliani said: "You shouldn’t take any option off the table." And Mitt Romney responded: "You don’t take options off the table."

Ron Paul was not asked that particular question. But later in the same debate, he got his opportunity to comment about preemptive nuclear war when he was asked: "What’s the most pressing moral issue in the United States right now?" He responded emphatically: "I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that's part of the American tradition. We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody, but now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just-war theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security."

The YouTube video also shows Ron Paul commenting on the floor of the House: "I remember something about 'Blessed are the peacemakers.' Some of the strongest supporters of the war declare that we are a Christian nation, yet use their religion to justify the war. They claim it is our Christian duty to remake the Middle East and attack the Muslim infidels. I have been reading from a different Bible. Christian teaching of nearly a thousand years reinforces the concept of the just-war theory."

What is Christian just-war theory? Paul summarized:

• "War should be fought only in self defense";

• "War should be undertaken only as a last resort";

• "A decision to enter war should be made only by a legitimate authority";

• "All military responses must be proportional to the threat";

• "There must be a reasonable chance of success; and"

• "A public declaration notifying all parties concerned is required."

Obviously, these criteria for a just war do not match what we have been doing in Iraq. Nor are they in harmony with the concept of a preemptive nuclear war against Iran. Yet the Republican presidential candidates who support the concept of preemptive nuclear war also claim to be Christians and men of faith. How can that be? Have they studied Christian just-war theory? Are they even familiar with it? Ron Paul made a very astute observation when he commented: "I have been reading from a different Bible."

 

By Gary Benoit from JBS

The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, Saul Anuzis, tried to get Ron Paul barred from the debates. He has given up thanks to Paul's supporters who flooded his office with calls and emails. Here is Saul Anuzis' blog entry explaining himself:

 

-After consulting with my fellow RNC members, I believe there isn’t anything to be gained by advancing a petition aimed solely at removing Congressman Paul from the debates.  The primary is and will continue to work itself out.

I do however think we should continue to look at the bigger picture, the problem of how our party is going to adapt to the new realities of this very long primary season.

Congressman Paul’s controversial statements about the United State and who’s to blame for 9-11, combined with the splendid reaction of Mayor Giuliani and then my own heated reaction, stole the spotlight from the bigger point I really wanted to make and still think is important – continuing these “debates” as they are currently structured is not to our benefit, nor to our candidates, not to our party, nor to the country.

This is a very important process and it’s critical that we get a chance to get to know our leading and most viable candidates better.  The idea of 10 candidates each getting a little over 6 minutes each and competing for the best “sound bite” of the evening isn’t very helpful in determining who our nominee should ultimately be.

NO one, at NO time, ever implied or said we should censure, restrict or deny any candidate the right to Free Speech.  Specifically, Ron Paul, who is a sitting Congressman, will always have the same right as any other American and/or anyone in America has to express themselves.  However, there is no constitutional right to participate in a party run debate or forum.

Although my initial response and what prompted me to action were the Congressman’s comments blaming America’s policies for 9-11, this discussion should really have NOTHING to do with the positions individual candidates take.  We obviously have a difference of opinion on many issues…and I expressed my personal outrage and let that get in the way of the bigger question.

I am and have always been a big supporter of open primaries, open discussion and the sharing of broad and diverse opinions.  At the same time, I think it makes sense to at least discuss various options of making these debates/forums more useful and informative.  Setting certain standards or criteria for folks to participate is NOT censorship or infringing on anyone free speech.  Everyone has the right to run a commercial, put up a website or buy soapbox.

 

Every candidate has the right to run…some with a chance of actually winning the nominations and others just for the sake of making a point or two.  But the party also has the right to arrange their venues in such a way that best serves this interest of the party.  We have given 10 candidates 3 hours of national TV time.  Our many local and state parties have opened our doors to them.  And we have certainly invited all them to help us raise money J.  In short, the so called 3rd tier candidates have had their chance to make an impression and if they cannot poll beyond 1 or 2 percentage points of support, they are simply getting in the way of the real debate of how to move our party and our country forward.

Finally, I want apologize to the RNC and our State Committee leadership (and my wife) who received obnoxious, annoying and disruptive emails or phone calls.  My best advice to you is to ignore them (and/or just blame me).

 

Saul Anuzis

 

 

You brought it on yourself, you fascist pig! Perhaps you should stop worrying about the party and start worrying about the nation.