Here is yet another sign of how our politics have fallen in terms of allowing the free exchange of ideas that don’t fit into a perceived, informally required or existing cookie cutter pattern:

Next week, the Republican Jewish Coalition is planning a forum to be attended by all of the Republican candidates… with the notable exception of Ron Paul. Mais why?

Well, RJC executive director Matt Brooks told the Washington Jewish Week that Paul was not invited to attend because the organization “rejects his misguided and extreme views” concerning Israel. In addition, “he’s just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization” that inviting him to attend the forum would be “like inviting Barack Obama to speak.”

A few thoughts:

  • So Ron Paul who was in all these other debates and who in fact is showing some strong polling numbers in this place is excluded because of his views from a forum that is set up to get the views of the key candidates running for the GOP Presidential nomination?
  • As I’ve said here before, opposing ideas do not cause brain cancer.
  • If Paul’s ideas are so batty and extreme then given the fact he is in other debates why isn’t he allowed to attend and then given questions so he can be peppered with some tough, challenging questions — and try to them? What is the FEAR here? How can he uttering what he did about aid to Israel be so dangerous, such a threat that he is excluded from the forum? How does excluding him possibly convince Ron Paul’s followers that perhaps Paul is all wet and the better view is the one held by the RJC?
  • I’m Jewish and there are other TMV readers who are Jewish and this does not reflect the attitude of us. The world — and Israel — would not end if Paul was in the forum.
  • Unless I’m mistaken, a)Paul’s views are not like Barack Obama’s on many issues, b)Obama has not cut off aid to Isarel.
  • So this is basically a case of not liking a candidate’s stand and then excluding him. So him being just like Obama is pure political polemics.

    Now, let me get this straight: this now means that ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News would be justified in not letting a candidate on if they didn’t like their views?

    This would narrow it a bit for Fox — and an awful lot for the three networks.


    I wonder if the Republican Jewish Coalition was aware, when it made its decision, that Ron Paul has something of a dedicated following whose members enjoy seeking revenge on, or simply annoying to death, those who snub their candidate. In early 2008, some may recall, Ron Paul was abruptly kicked out of a Fox News debate. Shortly thereafter, a livid mob chased Sean Hannity out of a restaurant and through the streets of Manchester, New Hampshire, all the way back to his hotel. We recommend that these RJC folks wear comfy running shoes at all times for the next week or so, just in case. They should also not be surprised to receive a few hundred thousand angry emails.

    JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
    Click here for reuse options!
    Copyright 2011 The Moderate Voice
    • Allen

      Oh I see, it’s all about Israel, not the United States, even though it’s an American election. What arrogance. People are not supposed to take offence at this? Fat chance.

      Maybe Christians should go to Israel and lobby against begging money from the U.S. and openly financially support politicians advocating Christian policies good for America instead of Israel.

      I would have great respect for the Republican party if all the candidates publicly refused to go to this laughable debate.

      Jews are only 1.7% of U.S. Population. There are as many Mormons here as Jews. We need to give the Mormons equal billing!

      When is the Mormon debate??

      Besides they are missing the opportunity to ask Ron Paul why he thinks the way he does toward Israel for the world to see.

    • ShannonLeee

      There are more than a handful of American lobbyist groups that place Israel over America.

    • Quelcrist Falconer

      Ron Paul actually means it, if he were elected the US would stop being Israel’s sugar daddy, and Israel would have to cut a deal with the Palestinians and treat them like human beings.

    • JohnM

      The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC)has just offended a significant number of people. The polls in the early voting states, where people are paying closer attention to the candidates currently, show Ron Paul with 12-25% of the votes. Is the RJC calling all of these people misguided and extreme as well? If his views are indeed extreme, the public will get an opportunity to see this during a debate. This type of censorship of a major leading presidential candidate has a large potential to backfire on the RJC no matter who gets into office. Shame on the RJC.
      Are the other candidates willing to stand for this? If they do, what does this tell us all about their integrity?

    • Texas Chris

      I guess the RJC wouldn’t allow Benjamin Netanyahu to speak either. He shares Ron Paul’s opinion on US aid to Israel.

      The RJC is afraid that, given a chance to explain his stance, Ron Paul will actually make a convincing point: US aid to Israel weakens BOTH states.

    • Jim Satterfield

      I disagree with Ron Paul on most things. I disagree with him being left out of any of the debates even more.

    • Education through suppression.

      Hosting a debate is a big chance to do some PR. That spotlight is a great opportunity to get their message out. I’ve got a feeling that, like Cain, they’re missing some of the dangers that come with it.

    • biased1

      The article makes some good points, but I’d be very surprised if Repub Jewish Coalition hasn’t already considered them all. More important, the RJC must have decided that by giving Paul a platform for his well-argued moderate policies, they will pay a higher cost than they do by excluding him. We’re not talking about gentlemanly differences here, we’re talking about whether or not to start WWIII – a.k.a. Armageddon, as RJC’s bedfellows the CUFI call it. These people are fanatics – it’s an honor and a victory to be excluded from their sick cult rallies.

    • marty

      I am a Jew and I am really angry that Dr. Paul has been excluded from the debate. A debate is supposed to be a chance for the American people to hear differing viewpoints, so they can make a decision for themselves. It’s bad enough that the major media news outlets have blacklisted Dr. Paul as a result of his views on Israel. It is also amazing that despite, he has enough people who agree with him that he is actually a top contender in the upcoming Iowa primary. This shows that differing viewpoints are not what this Israeli lobby is looking for. They only want to give a forum to people who agree with them. That is not a debate. Will each of the candidates debate how they will help Israel? Voters will have nothing to compare that to. This not only damages the debate, but the RJC as well. They may not realize it but they are actually helping Ron Paul. It’s like every time you hear that Ron Paul can’t win, it makes you want to see him win even more. His campaign is not stupid and they use this themselves in their ads. They know that if enough people keep hearing that Ron Paul can’t win, people will want him to win all the more. I am a Jew and now I know who I’ll be voting for him.

    • Allen


      You are absolutely right. I’m starting to shift from Herman Cain to Ron Paul already. I’m a sucker for the underdog.

    • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

      “I’m a sucker for the underdog.”

      Then you’ll love Rick Santorum …

    • merkin

      I agree that Ron Paul should be invited to the debate. I don’t think that allowing Paul in to a debate with Michele Bachman and Rick Perry could make the party seem any more extreme. I think that the Republicans have gotten where they are by staying firmly on message and they just can’t stand anyone who drifts off.

      I seriously doubt that the debate format would allow any serious insight or damage to Ron Paul’s views. The appeal of libertarianism is its simplicity. Economics is complicated and requires some intellectual rigor. “Have faith in the free market” is easy and straight forward even if tragically naive. And it just echos the standard Republican line, even if their actions and other positions say “Use the government to make the rich richer.”

    • merkin

      One of the problems with our two party system is the degree to which each party must accommodate their more extreme elements. The Republicans have successfully pushed the country to the right. Ironically the shift rightward has meant that the Republicans must accept more extremist views into their mainstream while the Democrats have become more moderate and are able to distance themselves from their extremists.

      It is now a balancing act for the Republicans. To win the Presidency they must rely on substantial support from the true moderate independents. Support that they stand to lose the more extreme that they appear, no matter who wins the nomination. But to win the nomination the nominee must stroke all of the extremists in the party. Except for the libertarians, who will not vote for anyone but Ron Paul as long as he is in the race. And he has enough money and support to stay in until the convention.

      This means that the Republicans can safely snub the libertarians. There is little chance of the libertarians defecting to the Democrats in November.