I Was Disappointed!

[lapi7]

I watched the ABC Republician debate today and found myself somewhat disheartened...

As much as I dearly love and admire Dr. Paul, I am shocked with his usual brilliant answers to debate questions!

As usual, I was very angry at the limited time he was given as well as the horrible selection of questions he received.

As usual, being voted “The Taxpayers Best Friend” by the NTU year after year, and his adamant stand to abolish the IRS, when it came to the tax issue he was left out!

As usual, being the only medical doctor on stage, when it came to health care he was left out!

But, at the end, when they gave all the candidates the opportunity to answer the question “If elected what would you restore to the Oval office?” I almost came out of my skin waiting and anticipating Ron’s turn knowing he would hit a Grand Slam!

Here is something along the lines that I believed he might have said:
“I would restore the Constitution to the Oval Office.”
“I would restore the original vision of our Founding Fathers.”
“I would restore the Constitution by abolishing the IRS.”
“I would restore the Constitution by bringing all our troops from around the globe.”
“I would restore the Constitution by not policing the world and forcing our democracy on others at the point of a gun.”
“I would restore the Constitution by not starting needless pre-emptive wars.”
“ I would restore the Constitution by securing our own borders first.”
“I would restore the Constitution by abolishing the Federal Reserve.”
“I would restore the Constitution by abolishing the Patriot Act and any other laws that allow any branch of government powers not allowed them by the Constitution.”
“I would restore the Constitution by not allowing the government to snoop in on every Americans personal information and intrude on their privacy.”
“I would restore the Constitution by not allowing National ID Cards.”

The list is endless…but what I wrote as an example above could have been spoken in 30 seconds or less.

But he did not mention almost any of these things.
His somewhat obscure answer was to mention that he would restore openness and stop government secrecy. Allow privacy for the people and not allow executive privelage to deny information to the congress. Also transparency in government...I'm sorry to say that I personally do not think that this was the Grand Slam he could have hit with this very open question...and I'm also very sorry to say that I believe that this has cost him some points in Iowa.

Also, after the question was posed Ron was almost at the very far end, giving him plenty of time to think of those brilliant, awe provoking answers he usually provides.

Dr. Paul also seemed a bit tense and spoke quite rapidly when answering questions.

As I mentioned before, as much as I dearly love and admire Dr. Paul, I am disappointed in how he handled himself in this debate…but he’s still my hero.

[trispear]

In the long and short run, this debate is completely and utterly irrevelent - an old media debate early on a Sunday morning doesn't mean squat. What will win IOWA is boots on the ground and what RP does there at a local level.

We need to do well in the Straw Paul!

[Kuldebar]

Well, he wasn't given many opportunities and wasn't even asked about taxes or medical care.

Also, for his last answer, he probably was trying another tack instead of the usual. It's not like you won't hear Paul refer to the Constitution anywhere else lol.

Mitt Romney mentioned the Declaration of Independence in his answer, which is kind of dumb, because it's not the law of the land, the Constitution is...

[Thor]

The debate was joke, and I am sure many Iowas watched it or recorded it.

If the poll numbers from Iowa that they gave in the beginning are anywhere near right, Dr Paul is way down in the order.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

And you need ask why ABC's ratings is like TThompson's polling? This is why.

[theantirobot]

I think at this point, it is actually better that Ron Paul not speak out on health care. Not that he doesn't have a strong position, but it's a complicated issue which would not do well condensed to the time limited debate.

I was extremely disappointed they did not let him speak on taxes. Even after George Stephanopolus said the goal was to find the differences in the candidates. That is one of the places where Ron Paul contrasts the other candidates.

[kalami]

I was underwhelmed by Paul's performance, but I think it's mostly due to the debate format with their 30 sec responses.

[Kuldebar]

I think the debate format sucked. The questions were actually good...but 30 seconds to answer? And this debate was only 60 minutes right? Not 90 like the others.

Paul didn't do bad, he just never had any great opportunity.

And, he did look tired.

[mport1]

I was completely shocked by his answer to the last question. I would have bet my life savings he would have brought up the Constitution and our liberties.

[Slugg]

In some way's I agree. The fact is with such limited time any 'mistake' in the debate is huge. That last answer was a bit wimpy in presentation. The concept is huge, and people love the concept...but the presentation was weak. BUT, he addressed this in his, "Biggest Mistake" question. "I need to be more forceful when speaking about Liberty." Good answer...it is also correct (unfortunately).

His answers were strong...he was forceful on Iraq and he didn't let Mitt step on his toes...but after that the questions he received were crappy and he didn't quite make lemon-aide out of the lemons....

My support for Ron Paul didn't wane one bit, but I'm not sure he picked up the number of people he was hoping to with this debate. Just my opinion though.....I don't think it 'hurt' him, but I don't think he'll see the bump from this one we saw on the last one.

[cac1963]

to him and his campaign. Time to generate those letters to the editor explaining that the pisspoor media overlooked the only expert qualified to answer the questions put forth in the debate, and drive the point home to readers all across the country who didn't even know there was a debate this morning. Not only will it expose more people to his campaign, but also alert them to the dreadful media manipulation they're subjected to on a daily basis.

Keep it short and sweet and directly on point, two good sized paragraphs is about all most local papers will accept.

[Wyurm]

It's ok, really it is. First, Giuliani hurts himself the more time he gets to speak, Romney goes back and forth so much the more time he gets. RP gets only a small amount of time, but he said things that have always made me look up and pay attention. He used the phrase "transperant government", and he answered the Iraq question "just leave". I would love to see him get more time, but for his campaign, he got better quality attention than the others. Its funny, but the others get more but just use it to hang themselves.

[Ronstock '08]

In the long and short run, this debate is completely and utterly irrevelent - an old media debate early on a Sunday morning doesn't mean squat. What will win IOWA is boots on the ground and what RP does there at a local level.

We need to do well in the Straw Paul!

Agreed.... because of the time slot this will probably be the least watched of all the debates.

I thought RP did fine.....but I agree he could have given a stronger answer in the final question.

[UCFGavin]

I was underwhelmed by Paul's performance, but I think it's mostly due to the debate format with their 30 sec responses.

30 seconds? seemed like romney and giuliani got about 20 minutes

[ARealConservative]

It pains me to have to agree.

He was second to last to speak at the end and had a soap box given to him.

This is a debate - you can attack the positions of every other candidate during your time.

If he ended by pointing out that we are nearly 10 trillion in debt and every other candidate on this stage can't solve that problem because they are sticking to Bush's failed foreign policy and will only make the problem worse. That would be huge.

He could point out that our healthcare problems are greatly caused by the erosion of our dollar and corporate welfare. He could point out how much more government spends per capita today then we did 20 years ago, 50 years ago and 100 years ago. No other candidate speaks of these problems. That would be huge.

He could of pointed out how bad shamnesty would of been for the nation. He could of pointed out how strong he is on border security and immigration issues. Mention Guliani suing the federal goverment over enforcing immigration law. Mention McCain (and Thompson's) role in campaign finance reform and shamnesty.

He could of mentioned how he doesn't particpate in the congressional pension program - no other sitting congressman on that stage can say the same.

Government transparency is a good thing, but I didn't feel it scored points at that moment in the debate - especially considering how little face time he got up to then.

oh well - I'm driving to Fairfield, IA this afternoon regardless!

[lapi7]

Well, he wasn't given many opportunities and wasn't even asked about taxes or medical care.

Also, for his last answer, he probably was trying another tack instead of the usual. It's not like you won't hear Paul refer to the Constitution anywhere else lol.

Mitt Romney mentioned the Declaration of Independence in his answer, which is kind of dumb, because it's not the law of the land, the Constitution is...

Yes, I agree with you Kuldebar. AS USUAL, he was given not much opportunity at all.

However, as a one who teaches such things...many folks believe that repeating an answer continually in the same manner can be detrimental. However, just the opposite is true.

In any public discourse to motivate or sway a group of people to embrace your issues or ideas, it is always best to stick to easy, simple rudimentary answers that got you to where you are. Repetition may seem dull at times but professionally speaking it actually gains more positive results than you can imagine. Even when one feels that they're hearing "the same old thing “again, keep the simple, easy repetition going...it works!

All the great motivational and even spiritual speakers and teachers have known and applied this basic little secret for centuries.

[Kuldebar]

Positives:

DES MOINES, Iowa - Republican presidential contenders sparred over abortion on Sunday while generally agreeing the United States must remain in Iraq to help win the war on terror.

"Just come home," dissented Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the lone advocate of a quick troop withdrawal on a presidential campaign debate stage. He said there had never been a good reason to go to war in the first place. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070805/ap_on_el_pr/republican_debate)

VIDEO: Ron Paul: ‘We achieved much more in peace than…unconstitutional, undeclared wars (http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3958)

Notice how Mitt seems to need a history lesson or maybe he is practicing for that Family Guy spot about 9/11 being the answer to everything.

[lapi7]

I was completely shocked by his answer to the last question. I would have bet my life savings he would have brought up the Constitution and our liberties.

I agree completely mport1, as you must have already gathered from my original post.

[stevedasbach]

The debate and AP article will further establish him as the only Republican prepared to bring the troops home. If he gets Republicans who oppose the war to come out and vote for him, he'll win. This is the issue that provides maximum contrast with the rest of the field.

His views on traditional Republican issues like cutting taxes and shrinking government reassure voters that Republicans that he really is one of them, but his views on the war and civil liberties are what makes him stand out from the rest of the field.

[Captain Shays]

It became obvious to me early on that Huchabee who has been floundering is gasping for his last breath of air by grabbing onto Ron Paul's message of minding our own business, small government, low taxes etc. He almost sounded like Ron Paul for a minute or two there.

[SeanEdwards]

I was extremely dissapointed. Worst debate performance by Paul by a big margin. He needs to stop behaving like he is there by himself lecturing on libertarian philosophy and start lighting fires under the other fools as way to illustrate how he is different.

Why doesn't he challenge any of those clowns on their connection to lobbyists? Or on the big money backers of their campaign? Why doesn't he hammer Romney, the flip-flopper, by contrasting his own rock-solid consistency with Mitt's transparent vote pandering? Why doesn't he call them on their ridiculous and stupid pie-in-the-sky promises, such as Thompson promising to cure cancer?

Paul needs some serious coaching on how to throw rhetorical punches. He isn't going to win by letting those losers walk all over him.

He also bungled his last question. The question was, what will you bring to the oval office, and the complete correct answer should have been: "Respect for the U.S. Constitution. Period." Instead he mumbled some vague stuff about transparency in government. Very dissapointing. I hope this debate isn't widely viewed.

[bobmurph]

His answer to the last question was horrible. I can't believe he didn't talk about the Constitution or the massive federal budget...and to boot to talk about "government secrecy"????? WTF! Talk about throwing more ammo to the pundits trying to link RP to conspiracy theorists.

The format sucked. Ridiculous to leave him out on the Tax issue. He did definitely look like he was mentally & physically drained.

[mport1]

He MUST attack! If he doesn't pick up steam soon, we have no chance, and how exactly do we expect to pick up steam if he doesn't do this. The media will only cover him if he gets into it with the "top tier" guys. Do we really expect that we can win this thing by winning over a few people at a time through completely grassroots means and no media coverage? We don't have a shot in the world of converting millions to our side without him getting media coverage.

He can still be the nice guy but expose the hypocrisies of all the other candidates. He doesn't need to attack them personally.

[Captain Shays]

Nice guys finish last. Its true.

Ron. Stop being so frigging nice!!!!!

[Lord Xar]

I was completely shocked by his answer to the last question. I would have bet my life savings he would have brought up the Constitution and our liberties.

I am with you a 100% on this...

He brings up government transparency??? huh?

No FIERY speech about Liberty and freedom and the constitution.. huh?
These other candidates are stealing his message, yet when its his turn he resorts to something that DOES NOT RESONATE with anyone on a real level.. arghhhh

[Lord Xar]

He MUST attack! If he doesn't pick up steam soon, we have no chance, and how exactly do we expect to pick up steam if he doesn't do this. The media will only cover him if he gets into it with the "top tier" guys. Do we really expect that we can win this thing by winning over a few people at a time through completely grassroots means and no media coverage? We don't have a shot in the world of converting millions to our side without him getting media coverage.

He can still be the nice guy but expose the hypocrisies of all the other candidates. He doesn't need to attack them personally.

I am with you too.. For the life of me, who is coaching him? Does he have a plant in his organization that is feeding him dummy data or something...

Ron Paul needs to start exposing these imbeciles! And coming out strong..

can someone talk to his sons or wife???? talking to anyone in HQ does no good.... arggghhhh soooooooooooooooo frustrating!

[pennycat]

I was extremely dissapointed. Worst debate performance by Paul by a big margin. He needs to stop behaving like he is there by himself lecturing on libertarian philosophy and start lighting fires under the other fools as way to illustrate how he is different.

Why doesn't he challenge any of those clowns on their connection to lobbyists? Or on the big money backers of their campaign? Why doesn't he hammer Romney, the flip-flopper, by contrasting his own rock-solid consistency with Mitt's transparent vote pandering? Why doesn't he call them on their ridiculous and stupid pie-in-the-sky promises, such as Thompson promising to cure cancer?

Paul needs some serious coaching on how to throw rhetorical punches. He isn't going to win by letting those losers walk all over him.

Yeah, I gotta agree this is not a winning performance by our Champion of the Constitution. But hey, I've had those kind of days too;-)

Seriously, this brings up what our strategy needs to be now. Debates aren't going to give us the opportunity to stand out. My advice: Start an old fashioned whistle stop tour. Make each meetup responsible for doing the advance work of getting crowds to every city. We'll also get some media coverage. Dr. Paul is at his best when he more than 30 seconds to give an answer. I saw him live in South Carolina recently. He was spellbinding. Put RP in a luxury motor home. Then start driving.

But barring the campaign doing this, I am going to go out hand out some slim jims right now!

[Kuldebar]

His last answer wasn't horrible, it just wasn't what most of us expected him to say.

I agree it seemed to break from the norm, it was a surprise to me and I wondered what he was thinking. But, I don't think his answer was bad. Maybe he was worried for time or simply trying to say something different.

He should have stayed on point though.

[rp4prez]

The debate was joke, and I am sure many Iowas watched it or recorded it.

If the poll numbers from Iowa that they gave in the beginning are anywhere near right, Dr Paul is way down in the order.

remember the poll was out of 402 people of which only 100 could answer.. not really a poll if you ask me.

[mport1]

Can somebody close to the campaign PLEASE convey this message to him? If he doesn't attack, we have no shot. He needs to swing for the fences. Right now he isn't even taking the bat off his shoulders.

[Douglass Bartley]

Narcissus says no more carping about Dr.'s performance. See http://rxpaul.townhall.com/g/6398a9e1-66b3-4ca9-9b33-0e128e91fff3

[MozoVote]

It's really tough to address these questions in 30 seconds, and I think Ron did a good job. It will get better after Ames when there are fewer competing voices on the stage and he has more time.

[Mister Grieves]

Gravel has been calling out other dem's on their hypocrisies and it has done nothing but been looked at as an oddity and largely ignored by the media. I'm glad Paul doesn't resort to that at this stage in the debates.

On almost every issue all of the other candidates had the same stance, Stephanopolous actually pointed that out several times, which I think helped Paul.

As someone else said, the other candidates are basically hanging themselves the longer they talk about things. At this point Paul has laid a pretty solid foundation for himself, and has had no major miss steps.

Overall this was a par debate for the doctor, not much gained, but more importantly, nothing lost. I just hope at least 2 more people drop out by the next debate so Paul can have more time to explain his stances.

[Douglass Bartley]

His answers were modest, just like he is. He didn't for example promise to end breast cancer in x years, even though he might as an Ob-Gyn. (In case Rounds Out is watching, that was a little joke, son.) Dr. Paul has not the narcissism that you see in all the other candidates who wear their egos and Uriah-Heap humility on their sleves.

[Perry]

Can somebody close to the campaign PLEASE convey this message to him? If he doesn't attack, we have no shot. He needs to swing for the fences. Right now he isn't even taking the bat off his shoulders.

Did you hear Pauls answer to the "big mistakes" question?

He basically acknowledged that he is not being aggressive enough.
I don't think he'll make that mistake again.

[MozoVote]

I do NOT want to see Ron imitating Gravel's pit-bull style. Gravel makes himself look like his main reason for being there is to hold a knife. (Kind of like how Alexander Haig would present himself versus Bush #1 in 1988)

[Ron Paul Fan]

I think Paul did a decent job. He said his biggest mistake was not being aggressive enough and it showed in this debate. Other candidates spoke up when they hadn't gotten to speak on an issue and they usually got time. His last response was weak, but I don't think he hurt himself in this debate. Hopefully the first half of the debate about the Iraq war helps him. He was very assertive and aggressive about the war and I wish he would have continued that throughout the debate. I guess we'll see what people in Iowa think at the straw poll next week.

[Kuldebar]

His answers were modest, just like he is. He didn't for example promise to end breast cancer in x years, even though he might as an Ob-Gyn. (In case Rounds Out is watching, that was a little joke, son.) Dr. Paul has not the narcissism that you see in all the other candidates who wear their egos and Uriah-Heap humility on their sleves.


Does anyone ever feel ill when they hear pols like Tommy Thompson say things like that?

I shiver with disgust and have to resist turning the TV off.

[MozoVote]

Does anyone ever feel ill when they hear pols like Tommy Thompson say things like that?

I shiver with disgust and have to resist turning the TV off.

Yeah, I hate hearing politicians promise the world and deadlines they have no control over. It's called "pandering". :mad:

[Douglass Bartley]

Kb: I agree, but a lot of this discussion here made me shiver. Why take shots at your own candidate. This discussion ought to be put under lock and key.

[Douglass Bartley]

We need to get a timer on the time he was allowed. It would seem to be very little.

[rg123]

I watched the ABC Republician debate today and found myself somewhat disheartened...

As much as I dearly love and admire Dr. Paul, I am shocked with his usual brilliant answers to debate questions!

As usual, I was very angry at the limited time he was given as well as the horrible selection of questions he received.

As usual, being voted “The Taxpayers Best Friend” by the NTU year after year, and his adamant stand to abolish the IRS, when it came to the tax issue he was left out!

As usual, being the only medical doctor on stage, when it came to health care he was left out!

But, at the end, when they gave all the candidates the opportunity to answer the question “If elected what would you restore to the Oval office?” I almost came out of my skin waiting and anticipating Ron’s turn knowing he would hit a Grand Slam!

Here is something along the lines that I believed he might have said:
“I would restore the Constitution to the Oval Office.”
“I would restore the original vision of our Founding Fathers.”
“I would restore the Constitution by abolishing the IRS.”
“I would restore the Constitution by bringing all our troops from around the globe.”
“I would restore the Constitution by not policing the world and forcing our democracy on others at the point of a gun.”
“I would restore the Constitution by not starting needless pre-emptive wars.”
“ I would restore the Constitution by securing our own borders first.”
“I would restore the Constitution by abolishing the Federal Reserve.”
“I would restore the Constitution by abolishing the Patriot Act and any other laws that allow any branch of government powers not allowed them by the Constitution.”
“I would restore the Constitution by not allowing the government to snoop in on every Americans personal information and intrude on their privacy.”
“I would restore the Constitution by not allowing National ID Cards.”

The list is endless…but what I wrote as an example above could have been spoken in 30 seconds or less.

But he did not mention almost any of these things.
His somewhat obscure answer was to mention that he would restore openness and stop government secrecy. Allow privacy for the people and not allow executive privelage to deny information to the congress. Also transparency in government...I'm sorry to say that I personally do not think that this was the Grand Slam he could have hit with this very open question...and I'm also very sorry to say that I believe that this has cost him some points in Iowa.

Also, after the question was posed Ron was almost at the very far end, giving him plenty of time to think of those brilliant, awe provoking answers he usually provides.

Dr. Paul also seemed a bit tense and spoke quite rapidly when answering questions.

As I mentioned before, as much as I dearly love and admire Dr. Paul, I am disappointed in how he handled himself in this debate…but he’s still my hero.

I agree with alot of this but I think part of the problem is that he is standing there
for 90 minutes and for 87 of them he is listening to these answers from all these wannabe who actually haven't got a clue of what the hell is going on in this country and they wont let him answer a question. A doctor who delivered over 4,000 babies and not asked the healthcare question. It must be taking every fiber of his being to not be able to respond to a question. I think he seriously needs
to interupt the debate like Mike Gravel and say nicely We are all running for president here not just the other 2 guys. The American people want to hear from all the candidates

[Badger Paul]

Look, we can nick-pick all we want and I agree he can and should be more aggressive at least getting his point across (like he was with Morton Downey Jr.). But we have to remember that line "Bring them home" and the response to it is going to be a part of every newscast and every news story about the debate and I guarantee you more people will see news broadcasts and or read stories online about the debate than have watched it live and that's what we want. If the people of Iowa didn't know RP was the only Republican candidate who favors a withdrawl from Iraq, they will now and 55% of Iowa Republicans wanting a withdrawl, I like how this is setting up.

By the way, all the bloggers say that RP has the biggest crowds outside the hall. Good work to all those who stood outside in the rain.

Lets work double hard to get a good turnout for the Ames Straw Poll so we can get rid of half of these jokers and then we can have some debating.

[BillyBeer]

Ron did well in this debate. Yeah, his answer at the end was sort of puzzling but it didnt help or hurt him. He had no moments like Obama did a few weeks back when he said he would meet with all these rogue leaders.

Keep in mind that most voters, and yes even Iowa Republicans, are opposed to the Iraq war. All the other candidates offered the same platitudes about staying to win and making the Iraqis carry the load. Ron Paul truly stood out when he said bring them home. This is a refreshing and honest message. Now that Ron Paul is going thru Iowa and doing the old fashioned retail politics, his message on small government and non interventionism might resonate.

Once again, his answer was harmless.

[Douglass Bartley]

Narcissus wants to add this to his resume: I was fired by Tommy Thompson, an extraordinarily mediocre man.

[Brent]

I didnt see the debate yet, but it sounds like Dr. Paul should assert himself more

[foraneagle2]

I think the lack of government transparency is a huge issue and the root of most of our problems. I thought it was a good answer, but he didn't present it perfectly.

[SeanEdwards]

I think the lack of government transparency is a huge issue and the root of most of our problems. I thought it was a good answer, but he didn't present it perfectly.

If he'd said he wanted to restore respect for the Constitution to the oval office, that would have implied the whole transparency thing in government, along with differentiating Paul from the other statist dorks who think the Constitution is an anachronism. It would also have reminded everyone what a disaster Bush is, and why none of the Bush-lite jerks are worthy of consideration.

[Kuldebar]

If he'd said he wanted to restore respect for the Constitution to the oval office, that would have implied the whole transparency thing in government, along with differentiating Paul from the other statist dorks who think the Constitution is an anachronism. It would also have reminded everyone what a disaster Bush is, and why none of the Bush-lite jerks are worthy of consideration.

And Mitt gave Paul a great opportunity: Mitt referenced the spirit of Declaration of Independence for gawdsakes...completely ignoring the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.

Mitt does realize that the Declaration of Independence is a separate document, right? And, that it has no actual legal status?

Or, is he encouraging us all to throw off our chains and revolt?

[Douglass Bartley]

Kudlebear: The declaration is the first statute in US Statutes at Large.

[Kuldebar]

Kudlebear: The declaration is the first statute in US Statutes at Large.

I'm not really sure what that means, lol.

But, my point was that it isn't actually a legal document codified for governance. And, it preceded the Constitution and the founding of the Republic.

[rp4prez]

Gravel has been calling out other dem's on their hypocrisies and it has done nothing but been looked at as an oddity and largely ignored by the media. I'm glad Paul doesn't resort to that at this stage in the debates.
Agreed, but did you see how RP shut down stupid Romey when Romey was trying to get in a word about 9/11! That was freak'n AWESOME!


As someone else said, the other candidates are basically hanging themselves the longer they talk about things. At this point Paul has laid a pretty solid foundation for himself, and has had no major miss steps.
Agreed here too! I think McCain really did terrible. He fumbled with just about everything asked to him and pretty much brought up the "Islamic Extremest" and the Iraq War and his service on every question because that's all he knows. He would be asked about health care and poof it was to the war and terrorists. Crazy!?

[wolv275]

I think he did a great service to anyone who was reading between the lines of those statements.

Yes he could have had a hit on all the departments we need to be rid of, but he mentioned quite a few very specific and controversial things done by the current administration.

That will cause more debate, i believe more so than if he stated getting rid of D. Education. People who influence allot more people will talk about that and notice hes a heavy hitter and not just a fringe maverick.

Smart move imho, crazy, but smart.

[Bradley in DC]

Paul not included in the article linked here:


Positives:

DES MOINES, Iowa - Republican presidential contenders sparred over abortion on Sunday while generally agreeing the United States must remain in Iraq to help win the war on terror.

"Just come home," dissented Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the lone advocate of a quick troop withdrawal on a presidential campaign debate stage. He said there had never been a good reason to go to war in the first place. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070805/ap_on_el_pr/republican_debate)

VIDEO: Ron Paul: ‘We achieved much more in peace than…unconstitutional, undeclared wars (http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3958)

Notice how Mitt seems to need a history lesson or maybe he is practicing for that Family Guy spot about 9/11 being the answer to everything.

[david.griffus]

Personally, this debate made me want to throw up. These guys are all freakin' idiots, with the exception of the Good Doctor. Tommy Thompson said he was going to cure cancer by 2015! Are you serious? You have got to be kidding me. I just sat on my coach pulling my hair out the entire time. I am now bald.

I love Dr. Paul, but he's got to speak up. People WANT to hear his message. They NEED to hear it. Pipe up, Ron!

[wolv275]

Personally, this debate made me want to throw up. These guys are all freakin' idiots, with the exception of the Good Doctor. Tommy Thompson said he was going to cure cancer by 2015! Are you serious? You have got to be kidding me. I just sat on my coach pulling my hair out the entire time. I am now bald.

I love Dr. Paul, but he's got to speak up. People WANT to hear his message. They NEED to hear it. Pipe up, Ron!

Oh man im waiting till later to watch them on c-span. Statements like that are enough for me to just want to watch RP vids online. WoW and those have been my choices for so long, yikes!

[torchbearer]

Digg story about debate becoming popular, needs your vote to stay on front page!
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_Blasts_Unconstitutional_Undeclared_Wars_a t_GOP_Debate

[0zzy]

I was so pissed at these debates. I was yelling at the TV when they gave him like 2 questions and everyone else like 17, everyone had more time then him to speak. I also love the fact that they showed the polls, nice ABC, nice.

Also, I think Ron Paul did as much as he could. He had a total of like 2 minutes to speak, he tried to cram something different in each answer. The last one was probably his biggest mistake and should of went for the constitutional aspect of his campaign.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I was really disappointed with his performance. I knew he was gonna get screwed time-wise, but I think he also blew the little time he got. I think he tried to be aggressive but since it's not in his nature he came off as just angry. He's much better when he keeps his cool and explains things like a kindly uncle. He should use that. A kindly, yet very disappointed, uncle. Shame the other guys, not attack them.

Whenever he says "We marched in and we can march out" and goes on about undeclared illegal wars, he needs to add "But if Congress definitively votes to declare war in Iraq, I'll fight to win it with overwhelming force and as fast as possible."

I did like how George immediately set them all against each other. That other dude with him was totally biased. Almost every question he had was for Huckabee first.

Best line... I hate to say it but Romney's comment on Obama "He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."

[LibertyEagle]

///

[ThePieSwindler]

Meh, it wasn't his best performance at all, but he did very well with the Iraq war questions, and also talked about how he DID vote for the authorization to go after "the" al Qaeda. I wish he would have used Mitt's "what about 9/11" interjection to buy another minute or two for himself, to talk about foreign policy more. And his last answer was good but he should have interjected how the constitution was written to limit government and defend liberty, not limit freedom and protect the government - government secrecy perverts the whole idea of democracy. Had he framed it that way, it'd have been a much better answer. At least he realizes his own faults though! :D

Time to get out on the ground and bring the message to the good people of Iowa!

PS does anyone have a timechart for the debate? Seems like ron got 3 minutes and Romney got 20.

[beermotor]

In the long and short run, this debate is completely and utterly irrevelent - an old media debate early on a Sunday morning doesn't mean squat. What will win IOWA is boots on the ground and what RP does there at a local level.

We need to do well in the Straw Paul!

Very true. This far out, nobody is much paying attention except for the partisans and all of us Remnant who've woken up. We have a huge task to keep waking more folks up to joins us in the fight, that is the only thing we should keep focusing on, on a daily basis.

I pity Ron Paul for having to get on stage with those folks and pretend they don't make him want to vomit, even when they are absurd, rude little idiots. I'm a much lesser man, I would have denounced him loudly right there - but then, I'm not even an eighth of the politician that Paul is, heh.

[BenIsForRon]

Does anybody know where John McCain is getting all this evidence that we're doing better in Iraq?

Ron Paul's problem is that he's using logic in these debates and the debates are clearly designed against the viewer actually using their brains.

[angelatc]

Does anybody know where John McCain is getting all this evidence that we're doing better in Iraq?

Ron Paul's problem is that he's using logic in these debates and the debates are clearly designed against the viewer actually using their brains.

I wondered about that too! That was the Anbar province they were talking about, wasn't it?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/alanbar_06-01.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2007/07/iraq-070720-afps02.htm

[angelatc]

Does anybody know where John McCain is getting all this evidence that we're doing better in Iraq?


Here's one that implies it's not as good as they're pretending it is.

http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Analysis/2007/07/23/eye_on_iraq_anbar_fantasies__part_1/3083/

[Paulitician]

I'm disappointed that he received such little time. I also expected to say something to the effect he'd bring back constitutional values to the oval office but I don't fault him because he didn't. Overall, his debate performance was fine. It is disappointed there were no shining moments in the debate a la Paul vs. Giuliani on foreign policy that would have drawn in sky rocketing interest and support, but I guess you can't expect that every time, especially not in this morning debate which many didn't even watch or know about. All in all, at least Ron Paul didn't shoot himself in the foot or anything like that. The way I see it, this debate will only help Ron Paul by giving him more recognition. Hopefully he'll do well at Ames, two maybe three other candidates drop out, and he gets more time at debates and even more coverage.

[Kuldebar]

I think the quotes, video clips and sound bites from this debate will be golden for Ron Paul.

The parts are greater than the whole because the debate was mediocre but Paul got some great points across.

Think about it, unless he's got the stage to himself, he's never going to have enough time to talk.

Part of what we are fighting in this movement is the silly notion that non-substantive and fluff spouting empty headed soulless dimwits can actually provide real solutions and change.

[Oregon 4 RP]

I think the debate format sucked. The questions were actually good...but 30 seconds to answer? And this debate was only 60 minutes right? Not 90 like the others.

Paul didn't do bad, he just never had any great opportunity.

And, he did look tired.

I think we, and the campaign handlers, need to pay much closer attention to this.
Dr. Paul is 71. He simply does not have the energy of a 30 year old. If you are in your 30's imagine being up, without sleep, for 3 days and then having to perform in a debate that is the most important in your life. I'm not saying there is any real problem with age, quite the contrary, Dr. Paul has exactly the experience and wisdom that comes with age that this country so desperately needs. I think he is intellectually at the top of his game today, but he does need adequate rest to perform at his max. The campaign needs to make sure that he gets it in this grueling race. ;)

[Joe Knows]

Think about it, unless he's got the stage to himself, he's never going to have enough time to talk.



I have watched most of his speeches which range upwards and over an hour. Most politicians you have to shut down after a few minutes. I could listen to Ron Paul all day.

[Kuldebar]

I have watched most of his speeches which range upwards and over an hour. Most politicians you have to shut down after a few minutes. I could listen to Ron Paul all day.


I agree, because most politicians say a lot of stuff without actually saying anything. Ron Paul actually talks about real ideas and principles not squishy feel good terms or verbal tap dances.

[Lesgov]

I though Ron did pretty well, keep in mind he is not talking to us "die-hards" that want some real meat, he is trying to reach people that have probably never heard of him.
My niece watched the debate( she knows little about him). The biggest thing she noticed was that he got little time. This in itself will tell the thinking person that there is something wrong in this picture.

[Lesgov]

I thought the biggest comedian on stage was Rudy when he said he was for the second amendment.