Fascinating censorship of insufficiently pro Israeli views.
I don’t really see the problem with that. Ron Paul is an extremist crank who doesn’t have a shot of winning the Republican nomination, and his views on Israel and US security are so far outside the Republican Jewish Forum’s that they don’t need to give him a platform for views they find abhorrent.
I’ll also point out that they didn’t invite him in 2008 either, so they’re being consistent.
Are there actually enough people in this coalition to make this an important date for candidates? I’m not being snarky, I’m really curious.
But is the purpose of the debate to show the views of the candidates, or to support the platform of the RJC?
I can see how Obama might find the comparison insulting, but what grounds does Paul have for being upset by it?
First of all, it’s not censorship. Secondly, I guess they can invite whomever they choose. I think they should invite him, if this is supposed to be a forum for GOP presidential candidates. He’s got as much of a chance of getting the nomination as Santorum does. But it’s their decision, and they have to live with the consequences of that decision. I don’t know much about them, but my opinion isn’t very high based on this petty action.
Which of Paul’s views might they be talking about?
I’m not sure who the author is, but this is posted on the frontpage of the RJC, so I assume its a fair summary of why they’re not letting him participate.
Before you click on that link, I’ll let you guess if they call him a Nazi sympathizer or not. Have you locked in your guess? OK, click away.
I’m sure the support by Don Black doesn’t help either, as well as the fact that Paul kept his donation.
The purpose of the debate is to show the views of the candidates, but it’s also to give them a platform to express those views. That’s why candidates participate in debates; to get their message and views out to the nation and try to convince people that they should be chosen as president. I don’t think the RJC has a responsibility to do that for Ron Paul if they don’t want to.
I dunno, I think saying your hosting a forum for GOP candidates implies your going to invite at least all those candidates who draw significant support in the GOP, not just those whose views you agree with. Especially if you advertise it as a chance to “Be a part of history - hear from the top GOP candidates for President all in one day”.
Obviously there’s no legal obligation for the RJC to invite anyone, but I think there’s a certain moral obligation to either allow all the top GOP contenders in or call its something else.
Well, if Paul was a “top GOP candidate for President”, maybe. But the guy is a joke candidate with no chance of winning who only gets attention because of a small core of fanatics and cranks who hang on what he says.
Looks like we live in a bizarre world where “the guy who is a joke candidate” declined an invite to “a serious debate” from a former “serious contender” Donald Trump.
Looks like you and Trump agree as Trump said of Paul:
This, for some reason, reminds me of McLuhan quote:
“Far more thought and care go into the composition of any prominent ad in a newspaper or magazine than go into the writing of their features and editorials.”
Think about it in terms of how media shapes your 1st reaction to a candidate.
Well, I certainly wouldn’t put money on him winning. But he’s between the top three or four in polling, is a sitting Congressman, has better name recognition then many of the invited candidates, does well in fundraising, etc. etc. And with the odd GOP primary process this year, I wouldn’t even totally rule him out as a nominee. I can’t really think of any definition of “top GOP candidate” that would exclude him (well, other then “supports aid money to Israel” I guess).
I can live with that.
Are we talking about Don Black the convicted felon/Klan boss?
I guessed right!!
Man, that’s some serious rationalizing. It wouldn’t have been nearly as bad, though, if he hadn’t ended it with:
Nice.
This is insane. Who are these people?
One thing is for sure they would never, never attack so brazenly and openly if they were not sure that they will win.
But… viewing this historical review of who said what and when - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Gfzgxh3ZQ - it all becomes clear.
To me all of these little pieces, when put together, point to a collusion of certain forces in US political and media establishment to control and manage. But, there will always be this mass of oh so enlightened folks whose mentality is of those of a drug addict - anything is better than cold turkey.
What a shame!
Err, he’s currently polling around third in New Hampshire and second in Iowa.
Yes.
I’ll bet you an ounce of gold he won’t win the nomination.