If Dr. Paul wants to win the debate on 1/30...

[dreicher]

If Dr. Paul wants to win the debate on Wednesday and he is allowed to again ask a question, I think he should say...

"Senator McCain, since you have shown a complete lack of understanding of both domestic economic policy and foreign military policy, maybe you will be able to answer for the American people exactly how much wood a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"

[michaelwise]

My question to McCain would be as follows:

John, the current Federal budget of the US is $2.9 trillion with a deficit of about $300 billion, probably more after adding in the stimulus plan. In my first year in office I would cut the Federal budget to $2.6 trillion in order to balance the budget. How much would you cut the Federal budget in order to bring it into balance in your 1st year?

[Cinderella]

If Dr. Paul wants to win the debate on Wednesday and he is allowed to again ask a question, I think he should say...

"Senator McCain, since you have shown a complete lack of understanding of both domestic economic policy and foreign military policy, maybe you will be able to answer for the American people exactly how much wood a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"

lmfao!!!

im sure hed say something clever like "i have advisors for that stuff....iraq for the next 100 years!!! hooray!!!"

[atthegates]

he's hardly going to get asked any questions in the first place

[TER]

"Senator McCain, since you have shown a complete lack of understanding of both domestic economic policy and foreign military policy, maybe you will be able to answer for the American people exactly how much wood a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"

Senator McCain:
http://punchup.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/john_mccain.jpg

[BLS]

Easily the best question Ron could ask is this:

"Mitt Romney....you've said in the past that you ran for Governor of Massachusetts on a Pro Choice platform. You also now state that you have changed your position to Pro Life and have claimed that even though you ran on a Pro Choice platform, you always voted for life and supported a Pro Life platform. So my question to you is this: Was it the people of Massachusetts or us that you lied to?"

[cien750hp]

all he simply needs to ask is "We cannot afford the war, and everyone here wnats to start reducing the deficit as well as reduce taxes, so where is the room for an extravagent foreign policy we cannot manage? How do you intend to fund the war and commit generations of young americans to hostile territory for however long, at least 100 years like you want?"

[Lord Xar]

I have to be honest. I don't think Ron will pull out that magical bullet or that "phrase" to end all phrases. I hoped he would, 2 or 3 debates ago - he just won't. He gets a question, and answers it. That is great! But it doesn't draw news. It doens't draw headlines.

He does NOT need to do the Edwards move "this is not about arguing..." or whatever.. He needs to be BOLD and he needs to STRIKE HARD. But he won't. He'll be that loveable Ron Paul we all know. But alas, the general public won't be moved by the format.

[GoDrNo]

I have to be honest. I don't think Ron will pull out that magical bullet or that "phrase" to end all phrases. I hoped he would, 2 or 3 debates ago - he just won't. He gets a question, and answers it. That is great! But it doesn't draw news. It doens't draw headlines.

He does NOT need to do the Edwards move "this is not about arguing..." or whatever.. He needs to be BOLD and he needs to STRIKE HARD. But he won't. He'll be that loveable Ron Paul we all know. But alas, the general public won't be moved by the format.

I'm not so sure about that, in some of his past congressional runs I've read about he seems to have really hit hard when needed. He just bides his time and waits until the time is right, and lord knows the time is right.

[angrydragon]

I just hope CNN will have a fair debate.

[Ara825]

I have to be honest. I don't think Ron will pull out that magical bullet or that "phrase" to end all phrases. I hoped he would, 2 or 3 debates ago - he just won't. He gets a question, and answers it. That is great! But it doesn't draw news. It doens't draw headlines.

He does NOT need to do the Edwards move "this is not about arguing..." or whatever.. He needs to be BOLD and he needs to STRIKE HARD. But he won't. He'll be that loveable Ron Paul we all know. But alas, the general public won't be moved by the format.

I was talking to my brother about Ron Paul a few weeks ago. He told me he likes Ron Paul on the issues but thinks he is too timid. He said Ron Paul lets the others run over him and should be more aggressive. But he supports him anyway so all is good.

[mmink15]

I just hope CNN will have a fair debate.

Not likely remember the CNN/Youtube debate where Ron Paul stood silent for 40 minutes before getting his first question, which was about conspiracy theories.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Dr. Paul should just turn around and tear down the curtain behind him, revealing the wizard who is giving hints to Mitt Romney.

[virginiakid]

Ron Paul should but in and start to talk. If he doesn't get questions asked in a timely manner. Butt in.

[westmich4paul]

I think it is either time to break out and strike while the fire is hot and just before Super Tuesday or he will be hard pressed to win the Rep nomination. I think he could strike any of the other candidates with relative ease but since he gets very limited time i think he needs to strike hard and fast and keep jabbing with every rebuttle, cut them off interrupt and command the debates no matter what they say.

Make America stand and take notice! Make his supporters gush with admiration, make his opponants fear even trying to take him on. He has the guns, he has the ammo, and they are in the cross hairs. Just take a breath and pull the trigger.

[jabrownie]

Instead of asking a question to a candidate, can he flip it and ask a question to the Republican party voters....

For the past 30 years in congress, I have been consistantly conservative on all the important issues; small government, pro-family, pro-life, protecting second amendment rights, cracking down on illegal immigration. The only issue some of you seem to disagree with me on is the war in Iraq. So, here is what I'm wondering: Iraq is one of the top issues of this election and over 2/3rds of Americans want us out of Iraq. In 2006 America voted Republicans out the House, they voted Republicans out of the Senate, because of this war. Now we find ourselves in a position where every other candidate on this stage has said they will continue the war. That doesn't bode very well for our chances in 2008. So, tell me this republican party: Are you willing to let a democrat take the white house because of this war? Are you willing to let several Pro-Choice Supreme Court justices get appointed because of this war? Are you willing to let illegal immigrants overrun our country because of this war? Are you willing to let universal socialized healthcare plunge our country into even more debt over this war? If things keep going like they are, a democrat will win and with it this war will end. The only question that you need to ask yourself now is if you would rather have Hillary or Obama run the country after the war has ended, or if you would rather have a pro-life, pro-family, small government, 2nd amendment supporting, illegal immigration ending, pro constitution, Regan conservative in the white house. That's what I'm offering, I hope you'll think about it and decide to join our campaign.

[idrake]

Easily the best question Ron could ask is this:

"Mitt Romney....you've said in the past that you ran for Governor of Massachusetts on a Pro Choice platform. You also now state that you have changed your position to Pro Life and have claimed that even though you ran on a Pro Choice platform, you always voted for life and supported a Pro Life platform. So my question to you is this: Was it the people of Massachusetts or us that you lied to?"

Asked and answered, he changed his mind (again).

Why I REALLY hate Romney for is his universal health care plan, or as we like to call it in Mass, health care at gun point.

"Mitt, why do you applaud your universal health care plan in MA by saying it's a private sector solution, when in fact the government is FORCING its citizens to buy health care from private companies? Do you understand how a captive audience will effect price pressure? Why do you refuse to see this as the worst example of corporatism?"

[FireofLiberty]

Ask McCain about his efforts to block information about MIA/POW soldiers from being released.

[VoluntaryMan]

This is the question Dr. Paul should ask, to any of the 4 stooges, but McCain and Rmoney are as good choices as any others:

"Since all the so-called "top tier" candidates have abandoned traditional conservatism and embraced gun control, socialized medicine, and chicken little environmentalism, are you now willing to renounce your membership in this once Grand Party, and to call on your fellow socialists on this stage to join you in that renunciation? And, if not, how do you rationalize running as a Republican, while espousing political views not substantially different from those of Senators Clinton and Obama? In fact, how can any of you hope to beat the Democratic nominee in the general election, when you are each essentially running on a watered down version their platform? Have you considered switching parties? I mean, there's no shame in it. After all, Ronald Reagan spent a good portion of his adult life as a Democrat. I'm sure America will understand if you gentlemen decide to end the charade and spend your remaining days in a party more befitting your political views."

[gregl26]

Instead of asking a question to a candidate, can he flip it and ask a question to the Republican party voters....

For the past 30 years in congress, I have been consistantly conservative on all the important issues; small government, pro-family, pro-life, protecting second amendment rights, cracking down on illegal immigration. The only issue some of you seem to disagree with me on is the war in Iraq. So, here is what I'm wondering: Iraq is one of the top issues of this election and over 2/3rds of Americans want us out of Iraq. In 2006 America voted Republicans out the House, they voted Republicans out of the Senate, because of this war. Now we find ourselves in a position where every other candidate on this stage has said they will continue the war. That doesn't bode very well for our chances in 2008. So, tell me this republican party: Are you willing to let a democrat take the white house because of this war? Are you willing to let several Pro-Choice Supreme Court justices get appointed because of this war? Are you willing to let illegal immigrants overrun our country because of this war? Are you willing to let universal socialized healthcare plunge our country into even more debt over this war? If things keep going like they are, a democrat will win and with it this war will end. The only question that you need to ask yourself now is if you would rather have Hillary or Obama run the country after the war has ended, or if you would rather have a pro-life, pro-family, small government, 2nd amendment supporting, illegal immigration ending, pro constitution, Regan conservative in the white house. That's what I'm offering, I hope you'll think about it and decide to join our campaign.

nice. this rocks

[Steve_New_Jersey]

What ever he says he had better make sure he says it in a way so that ALL those waching of voting age can understand it. He is to smart for most and your average smuck is intimidated by RP's grasp of things. He needs to be VERY blunt and very simple.

[MGreen]

McCain would bomb the hell out of that woodchuck.

It won't be easy, and we're all going to have to make sacrifices, but we will prevail. 'Cause we're all friends.

[Knightskye]

What are you talking about? Ron wins every debate. :)

He should ask McCain how he'll afford his 100-year war in Iraq.

[luvthedoc08]

For the past 30 years in congress, I have been consistantly conservative on all the important issues; small government, pro-family, pro-life, protecting second amendment rights, cracking down on illegal immigration. The only issue some of you seem to disagree with me on is the war in Iraq. So, here is what I'm wondering: Iraq is one of the top issues of this election and over 2/3rds of Americans want us out of Iraq. In 2006 America voted Republicans out the House, they voted Republicans out of the Senate, because of this war. Now we find ourselves in a position where every other candidate on this stage has said they will continue the war. That doesn't bode very well for our chances in 2008. So, tell me this republican party: Are you willing to let a democrat take the white house because of this war? Are you willing to let several Pro-Choice Supreme Court justices get appointed because of this war? Are you willing to let illegal immigrants overrun our country because of this war? Are you willing to let universal socialized healthcare plunge our country into even more debt over this war? If things keep going like they are, a democrat will win and with it this war will end. The only question that you need to ask yourself now is if you would rather have Hillary or Obama run the country after the war has ended, or if you would rather have a pro-life, pro-family, small government, 2nd amendment supporting, illegal immigration ending, pro constitution, Regan conservative in the white house. That's what I'm offering, I hope you'll think about it and decide to join our campaign.

awesome

[fez2008]

Instead of asking a question to a candidate, can he flip it and ask a question to the Republican party voters....

For the past 30 years in congress, I have been consistantly conservative on all the important issues; small government, pro-family, pro-life, protecting second amendment rights, cracking down on illegal immigration. The only issue some of you seem to disagree with me on is the war in Iraq. So, here is what I'm wondering: Iraq is one of the top issues of this election and over 2/3rds of Americans want us out of Iraq. In 2006 America voted Republicans out the House, they voted Republicans out of the Senate, because of this war. Now we find ourselves in a position where every other candidate on this stage has said they will continue the war. That doesn't bode very well for our chances in 2008. So, tell me this republican party: Are you willing to let a democrat take the white house because of this war? Are you willing to let several Pro-Choice Supreme Court justices get appointed because of this war? Are you willing to let illegal immigrants overrun our country because of this war? Are you willing to let universal socialized healthcare plunge our country into even more debt over this war? If things keep going like they are, a democrat will win and with it this war will end. The only question that you need to ask yourself now is if you would rather have Hillary or Obama run the country after the war has ended, or if you would rather have a pro-life, pro-family, small government, 2nd amendment supporting, illegal immigration ending, pro constitution, Regan conservative in the white house. That's what I'm offering, I hope you'll think about it and decide to join our campaign.


Can someone get this to the campaign please?

[A. Havnes]

Dr. Paul should just turn around and tear down the curtain behind him, revealing the wizard who is giving hints to Mitt Romney.

Wonder who it is?

[Gimme Some Truth]

I have to be honest. I don't think Ron will pull out that magical bullet or that "phrase" to end all phrases. I hoped he would, 2 or 3 debates ago - he just won't. He gets a question, and answers it. That is great! But it doesn't draw news. It doens't draw headlines.

He does NOT need to do the Edwards move "this is not about arguing..." or whatever.. He needs to be BOLD and he needs to STRIKE HARD. But he won't. He'll be that loveable Ron Paul we all know. But alas, the general public won't be moved by the format.


I agree. However, the fire IS still in there somewhere:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

:D

[pacelli]

I have to be honest. I don't think Ron will pull out that magical bullet or that "phrase" to end all phrases. I hoped he would, 2 or 3 debates ago - he just won't. He gets a question, and answers it. That is great! But it doesn't draw news. It doens't draw headlines.

He does NOT need to do the Edwards move "this is not about arguing..." or whatever.. He needs to be BOLD and he needs to STRIKE HARD. But he won't. He'll be that loveable Ron Paul we all know. But alas, the general public won't be moved by the format.

Every debate he DOES say something that could change some minds, but, it is never played or reported after the debate. He could have 12 "I paid for this microphone" moment PER DEBATE and it would NEVER be hyped. I agree with you-- he could come out on the attack from the 1st question throughout the entire debate and the only bullet the media would grant him would be the one with "kook" written on it.

[idiom]

He trounced McCain in the last debate, but all th epeople who would have realised that were not watching due to giving up on politics.

Dr. Paul has to find a way to step up as a national leader. It is not enough to be right all the time. People don't vote for the guy who is right, they vote for the guy they want to follow.

He needs to say that he is the only one who can lead us out of this economic crisis etc.

[lasenorita]

"Senator McCain, since you have shown a complete lack of understanding of both domestic economic policy and foreign military policy, maybe you will be able to answer for the American people exactly how much wood a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"

Don't underestimate McCain. He'd obfuscate things by saying something like "A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as he could if a woodchuck could chuck wood." And then add something about having a friend named Huck. :rolleyes:

[pacelli]

Wonder who it is?

China.

[pacelli]

Don't underestimate McCain. He'd obfuscate things by saying something like "A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as he could if a woodchuck could chuck wood." And then add something about having a friend named Huck. :rolleyes:

"As president I would consult with Secretary Paulson, and Jack Kemp.."