February 21, 2008

'What Is There To Debate?'

Every time we suggested dropping Ron Paul from the national debates, his supporters would go nuts. They claimed in the one instance where he did get dropped, the January 3rd debate just before Iowa, that a grand conspiracy existed to keep his message from the people and to stop the 4% revolution. They demanded boycotts of Fox and of the Iowa GOP. Paul himself complained bitterly about his exclusion, and not without some justification.

Now that Paul's focus has returned to his own Congressional race, he seems much less enthusiastic about debates. After declining to hold a debate with his primary challenger, Chris Peden, Paul got asked yesterday about this seeming hypocrisy at a town-hall meeting in his district. Check out Paul's predictably hysterical response:

Peden needs to debate himself first? Maybe Paul has a habit of arguing with himself, but that doesn't mean Peden needs to follow suit. It's a strange response from a strange man.

Peden has a lot more credibility in this race than Paul had in the presidential campaign. If Paul and his supporters almost literally made a federal case out of ensuring that Paul had a chance to engage with constituents and with the other candidates in the race, what possible justification can they have for rejected a debate with Peden? It smells like fear coming out of the Paul campaign, and that's not the first thing that's stunk about it. (via Eric Dondero)


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'What Is There To Debate?':

Please note that unverified Disqus users will have comments held in moderation. Please visit Disqus to register and verify your account. Comments from verified users will appear immediately.