Huckabee vs RP Who won? - Be objective please!

[ghemminger]

The fireworks were set off by Chris Wallace, who asked the isolationist Paul a question that led to Paul delivering an answer that sounded to many in the Republican audience as though he were blaming the U.S. for the 9/11 attacks, a position anathema to many Americans, even beyond the Republican base.

MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- (interrupted by cheers, applause) -- Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who have staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?
REP. PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They've been wrong on everything they've said. Why not ask the people -- (interrupted by cheers) -- why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.

Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don't want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.

I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It's the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in 30 more and reducing by five, totally irrelevant. We need a new foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend -- (bell sounds) -- our borders --


MR. WALLACE: So if --
(Interrupted by cheers, applause.)

MR. WALLACE: So, Congressman Paul, and I'd like you to take 30 seconds to answer this, you're basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (Laughter.)

REP. PAUL: No! (Cheers, applause.) I'm saying -- (laughter) -- I'm saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war -- (cheers, applause) -- we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war, and it's illegal under international law. That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (Cheers, boos.)


After a couple of other candidates had a crack at the question, Wallace let Huckabee get a little action.


MR. WALLACE: Governor Huckabee, the latest National Intelligence Estimate, which is out recently, says that even if we continue the troop surge -- and we're going to put it up on the screen -- Iraq's security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months, but levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high, and the Iraqi government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance.

Governor, if that's the best we can hope for, should we continue the surge?

MR. HUCKABEE: We have to continue the surge. And let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me. If I picked something off the shelf of the store and I broke it, I bought it.

I learned don't pick something off the shelf I can't afford to buy.

Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It's our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away because something is at stake. Senator McCain made a great point, and let me make this clear. If there's anybody on this stage that understands the word honor, I've got to say Senator McCain understands that word -- (applause, cheers) -- because he has given his country a sacrifice the rest of us don't even comprehend. (Continued applause.)


Wait a minute, isn't this the famous Colin Powell Pottery Barn rule? Are we supposed to now call it the Mama Huckabee rule? Anyway, Huckabee continued...


And on this issue, when he says we can't leave until we've left with honor, I 100 percent agree with him because, Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion that historians can have, but we're there. We bought it because we broke it. We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. HUME: Go ahead. You wanted to respond? He just addressed you; you go ahead and respond. (Continued applause.)

REP. PAUL: The American people didn't go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservative hijacked our foreign policy. They're responsible, not the American people. They're not responsible. We shouldn't punish them. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can't be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America. (Cheers.)

REP. PAUL: No. When we make a mistake -- (interrupted by applause) -- when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people through their representatives to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake! (Cheers, applause.)

MR. HUCKABEE: And that's what we do on the floor of the --

REP. PAUL: No! We've dug a hole for ourselves and we dug a hole for our party!

We're losing elections and we're going down next year if we don't change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact.

MR. HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important to the Republican Party.

REP. PAUL: We're losing -- we've lost over -- (cheers, applause) -- we have lost -- we have lost 5,000 Americans killed in -- we've lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan and Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? How long -- what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing is saving face. It's time we came home!

MR. HUME: Okay, gentlemen. Gentlemen, thank you. (Cheers, applause.)


Britt Hume could have just as easily said "Gentleman, back to your corners" and it would have seemed equally as appropriate.

[nullvalu]

Paul. Two wrongs don't make a right. I wish Paul had said that. He did say "it is the obligation of the people through their representatives to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake!" which was great.

[PaleoForPaul]

The media keeps cutting this part out, and ending with Huckabee's line.

REP. PAUL: We're losing -- we've lost over -- (cheers, applause) -- we have lost -- we have lost 5,000 Americans killed in -- we've lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan and Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? How long -- what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing is saving face. It's time we came home!

[jj111]

Paul won, AND Huckabee won.
They both got positive points from that interchange.
Pro-war die-hards will like Huckabee's answer.
Anti-war people (70% of population) will like Paul's answer.

[maxmerkel]

hmmm, i think huckabee won but paul is of course right.

the "we have to stand together" "united not divided states" and the "honor" thing unfortunately make great soundbites - every newspaper prints them as the last lines and don't mention pauls response ecause it's no hard punch but an explanation.

paul should resort to saying "we already won, we defeated saddam and checked for weapons of mass destruction" "we didn't find any, so we leave" "we HAVE won already"
or something like this - its better than saying "i want to win elections".

[Kuldebar]

It's apparent to me that Paul won the exchange, but it helps if the media actually carries Paul's final statement in the face off.


"How long - what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing, is saving face. It's time we came home," Paul said.

Vietnam lasted from 1959 until 1975...Nixon ran on ending the "war" with honor, we didn't leave Vietnam until 7 years later

[BuddyRey]

In all sincerity, if I was an undecided voter, Ron Paul would have absolutely won me over with his performance last night. Huckabee spewed meaningless homilies and buzz-phrases like a career politician, whereas Paul spoke from the heart and off the cuff!

BTW, Why do articles KEEP ON referring to Ron as an "isolationist"? I'm an isolationist, Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. A WORLD of difference separates the two.

[fourameuphoria]

I think both won.

[jj111]

hmmm, i think huckabee won but paul is of course right.

the "we have to stand together" "united not divided states" and the "honor" thing unfortunately make great soundbites - every newspaper prints them as the last lines and don't mention pauls response ecause it's no hard punch but an explanation.

paul should resort to saying "we already won, we defeated saddam and checked for weapons of mass destruction" "we didn't find any, so we leave" "we HAVE won already"
or something like this - its better than saying "i want to win elections".

At first I do like the answer: "we HAVE won already," but I like it less after thinking about it.
I am not sure it really is true that we have won.
Have we won anything in Iraq?
Paul was against the policy of regime change in 1998.
Paul was against the war from the start.
What have we gained?
Look at all we have lost.
I am not sure it is fair to say that we have "won" the Iraq War. Paul says it was a mistake to go in, it was under false pretenses, it was illegal and immoral.
We did not win the Iraq War.
We made a mistake and we have to admit it and change policy.

[Ron Paul Fan]

I would agree that they both won. They are both going to get publicity from this which is good. We know that Paul is right, but the neo-cons believe otherwise. I wish Paul had gone into something about not following bad policy blindly because we're suppose to be "united." But I think he did a good job of getting his point across and he was adamant about his stance. I liked his question earlier that went something along the lines of, Why should we believe the pro war advocates when they say things will work when they've been wrong this whole time? Don't remember the exact quote, but it was very effective. Huckabee probably won over some pro war Republicans, but as someone else already said, 70% of the American people want us out of Iraq.

[ghemminger]

Paul won, AND Huckabee won.
They both got positive points from that interchange.
Pro-war die-hards will like Huckabee's answer.
Anti-war people (70% of population) will like Paul's answer.

I didn't think of this one - Not a bad compromise

Huckabee had this all rehearsed and I thought - he had most of the crow with his "honor" crap and "divided States of America"

RP could have come back with " Your HONOR, our Soldiers BLOOD and sacrifce..." and then go into the saving face comment - but RP did well in the heat of the momnet

[Elwar]

Ron Paul won, in that Huckabee may have gained a few more pro-war votes that might have gone to one of the other top-tier pro-war candidates that Ron Paul is competing with.

[PongGod]

I would agree that they both won. They are both going to get publicity from this which is good. We know that Paul is right, but the neo-cons believe otherwise. I wish Paul had gone into something about not following bad policy blindly because we're suppose to be "united." But I think he did a good job of getting his point across and we was adamant about his stance. I liked his question earlier that went something along the lines of, Why should we believe the pro war advocates when they say things will work when they've been wrong this whole time? Don't remember the exact quote, but it was very effective. Huckabee probably won over some pro war Republicans, but as someone else already said, 70% of the American people want us out of Iraq.

I thought Ron did an excellent job in handling that exchange. While Huckabee muttered something nonsensical about "our honor" (while all but admitting that we WERE wrong to go there in the first place), Ron came back with the question (paraphrasing), "who many more American lives are willing to lose and how much more money are we willing to spend just to save face because that's all we're trying to do over there."

Paul 1, Huckabee 0

- Robert -

[Santana28]

it depends on your perspective.

i think Mr. Huckabee analogy works well in a perfect world, but just cannot be applied to this situation.

The ONLY way to correct a mistake is to:

A) STOP DOING IT
B) Learn what you did wrong
C) Don't repeat it!

We cannot force the Iraqis to let us use them to redeem ourselves. It is very clear that they do not want us there. Even if they wanted our material and monetary help, they do not want an occupation by US troops.. which is what they have.

So even if you buy into his "you break it, you buy it" analogy - you either believe one of the following:

A) We now OWN Iraq - We conquered them, and they are now our property.

or B) We are responsible and should do all we can to fix Iraq - but we should first "honor" the requests of our victims to "get out and leave us alone!"

This isn't rocket science... i dont know why its even a top of conversation....

[Johnnybags]

Its the leadership in Washington that deserves the dishonarable discharge. War profiteers and incoherent imbeciles who made this clusterF#ck what it is has nothing to do with honorably serving troops. Its the policy and failed strategy from DC that is the only dishonorable thing and congress is riding the same bus of shame.

[jj111]

From the interchange and the debate as a whole:
Huckabee went from low second tier to high second tier;
Paul went from "longshot" to a clear frontrunner.
IMHO

[maxmerkel]

At first I do like the answer: "we HAVE won already," but I like it less after thinking about it.
I am not sure it really is true that we have won.
Have we won anything in Iraq?
Paul was against the policy of regime change in 1998.
Paul was against the war from the start.
What have we gained?
Look at all we have lost.
I am not sure it is fair to say that we have "won" the Iraq War. Paul says it was a mistake to go in, it was under false pretenses, it was illegal and immoral.
We did not win the Iraq War.
We made a mistake and we have to admit it and change policy.

you are right, he should clarify that it was wrong from the beginning and unconstitutional, but then say that the mission pres. bush wanted his military to do is already accomplished and there is no reason to stay.

[Starks]

In all sincerity, if I was an undecided voter, Ron Paul would have absolutely won me over with his performance last night. Huckabee spewed meaningless homilies and buzz-phrases like a career politician, whereas Paul spoke from the heart and off the cuff!

BTW, Why do articles KEEP ON referring to Ron as an "isolationist"? I'm an isolationist, Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. A WORLD of difference separates the two.RP is a career politician too... The difference is that he isn't a scumbag. He actually does his job.

[RevolutionSD]

Paul's answers were detailed and sophisticated, Huckabee was speaking in slogans like "divided we fall" and "honor".

Paul won.

[Akus]

As much as I enjoyed the discoruse between the two, I think Ron Paul wasted a good opportunity. While mentioning killed Americans was a good 1-2 punch, he should have stressed that we are running ourselves bankrupt.

Huckabee attacks with emotions. "When I was a little kid"... "we have to fix what we broke".... "we can't lose honor".....

Ron Paul should have counter attacked with "We are running our asses broke" theme. People respond to emotions, but they are just as responsive to $$. And I don't care if you're Hannity himself, you can't argue that bucket loads of money is spent on this war. Money that isn't even ours.

If Ron Paul started talking finances and money, he'd destroy Huckabee, instead of merely having a rebuttal for him.

[jj111]

you are right, he should clarify that it was wrong from the beginning and unconstitutional, but then say that the mission pres. bush wanted his military to do is already accomplished and there is no reason to stay.

It is debatable to say that there is "no reason" to stay.
They give a lot of reasons to stay, but they either are
1) based on false premises
2) based on unproven predictions
3) simply unsound or
4) counterproductive when weighed against costs.

I would not say there is "no reason" to stay. Perhaps, there is no "necessary reason" to stay.....

[emilysdad]

Paul's answers were detailed and sophisticated, Huckabee was speaking in slogans like "divided we fall" and "honor".

Paul won.

exactly. Ron wanted to debate!! Huck played the safe and true "patriotism" angle. How could Huck possibly have won, he didn't say anything. Looked great on the tube, but when you read the transcript, the exchange was an obvious victory for RP.

Best debate so far.

[maxmerkel]

People respond to emotions, but they are just as responsive to $$. And I don't care if you're Hannity himself, you can't argue that bucket loads of money is spent on this war. Money that isn't even ours.

"your fuckin honor costs ordinary americans $1 trillion every year"

maybe we yould supply pauls campaign with nice punchlines :)

[Paulitician]

Paul's answers were detailed and sophisticated, Huckabee was speaking in slogans like "divided we fall" and "honor".

Paul won.
Indeed. Huckabee never explained why we must stay there. Ron Paul quickly shot down his argument with the "saving face" comment. Plus, Ron Paul has tons of other reasons why we should not be there anymore (unfortunately the American people didn't really get to hear them.)

[rajibo]

As much as I enjoyed the discoruse between the two, I think Ron Paul wasted a good opportunity. While mentioning killed Americans was a good 1-2 punch, he should have stressed that we are running ourselves bankrupt.

Huckabee attacks with emotions. "When I was a little kid"... "we have to fix what we broke".... "we can't lose honor".....

Ron Paul should have counter attacked with "We are running our asses broke" theme. People respond to emotions, but they are just as responsive to $$. And I don't care if you're Hannity himself, you can't argue that bucket loads of money is spent on this war. Money that isn't even ours.

If Ron Paul started talking finances and money, he'd destroy Huckabee, instead of merely having a rebuttal for him.


I think Paul counterpunched with more powerful emotions when he brought up all the lives being lost in this thing. You could actually hear the real emotions in his voice as he was saying it, and it's why the MSM is refusing to play that part of the exchange. They don't want to admit that to themselves. So much for being Pro-life.

[Natalie]

At first I thought Ron Paul won. But then I saw that graph, that showed Huckabee won. Huckabee is the clear winner.

[slantedview]

it was even for the most part, but honestly, huckabee seemed to get better cheers towards the end. unfortunately the cheers were for some fluffy statement, nothing of substance. given that he closed with a fluffy statement lacking substance, i give it to Dr. paul.

[slantedview]

At first I thought Ron Paul won. But then I saw that graph, that showed Huckabee won. Huckabee is the clear winner.

the graph was measured by a few people in a room who used clicker buttons. it wasn't reflective of the entire audience or their applauses. it was a hell of a lot closer if taking the entire audience into account.

[BIG_J]

I think it was sarcasm:)

[katao]

We have lost, not won, because the primary pretext of the war (WMDs) has proven false, and the secondary purpose (a more stable Middle East) has proven to be counterproductive. We went in to be more safe and now are far less safe.

[shadowhooch]

I'm all about Ron Paul. But if I was an undecided voter, I'd honestly have to say Huckabee won the exchange.

No offense, but Ron Paul ducked part of the question of our obligation to the Iraqi people and the potential bloodbath by saying, "why should I believe you". It is a definite possibility. And even I, who have been against the war from the start, am a little leary about not caring what happens to the Iraqi people.

We DID, afterall, create this mess. There is no changing that. We do have a bit of an obligation to help the Iraqi people. Does that mean a troop presence? Maybe not. But it does paint Ron Paul as cold and selfish to not address it directly.

That being said, I still think troop withdrawal is the best and only solution to Iraq and all the other countries we are in. But he needs to have a response to what he will do if the radicals take over or Iran invades.

I don't know the perfect answer. Maybe simply saying that troop withdrawal is the best current solution because troops are not designed for police action. But maybe leave the door open for controlled strikes against the aggressor if a genocide begins to occur. I think if we did nothing to respond, it would severely damage the US reputation with the world (even more than it is now).

I hate that we created this mess and only Ron Paul can prevent us from getting into this situation in the future.

[Magsec]

I was kinda hoping Huckabee's analogy turned against him. Iraq, he says, is a "Broken Glass" now he wants to go to war with IRAN and do the same thing all over again, break that glass! Buy the whole Middle East!

[angelatc]

The thing is, when we pull out there will be an uprising. If we stay there for two weeks or two centuries, it doesn't matter.

[Bossobass]

'We' ARE standing together. A majority of us, anyway. 70% of us stand together screaming, "Out of Iraq NOW!", but people like Huckabee are ignoring us as they have throughout American history, while talking 'We're winning', 'escalation is the answer'.

76% of us wanted immediate withdrawal from Vietnam. We fought physically, demonstrated in record numbers, burned draft cards, withheld taxes, went to jail and screamed at the top of our lungs...FOR 10 YEARS, while first, a Democrat and then a Republican President ignored us and escalated the war.

RP is right. We the People, through our representatives, should JUST LEAVE.

If it turns out later that the situation deteriorates to the point that our National Security is endangered, let Congress declare war, then, let's hit the war with all of our might, win it and come home...PERIOD.

The rest of the neocon rhetoric on this subject is propaganda from the bastards who are looting our treasury by this illegal aggression against a helpless third world country, the same bastards who looted our treasury in the Vietnam fiasco, which also nearly tore the American population to shreds in the process.

We have never paid the debt from Vietnam, let alone ever having a chance in hell of paying the debt incurred in Iraq.

I want us OUT. F%$K the draft. I want my money back from those thieving pukes.

Huckabee has so painfully obviously been brought into the fold. He's been given the position of the sacrificial lamb whose job is attacking RP. He's been given an obviously false boost in the 'polls'. Just look where he's from, and how he got there. Look at what he did while in office there.

Maybe they promised him the VP spot, or a cabinet spot, or a lucrative lackey's position, or a Minister of Stealing position in the NAU. I don't know. I just know that only an imbecile who has no knowledge of post WWII 'Police Actions' would see Iraq as anything more than what it is: a money-maker and energy monopoly power grab by the scum who are destroying the USA.

I'm just sayin'...

Bosso

[adpierce]

At first, everybody had thought Rudy Gulliani had won the exchange, but the principled answer with intelligent thought won out after people had time to reflect on what actually had been said. What Ron actually said is the value of human life is superior to that of any perception of honor or ability to save face. To pull out now is to save American lives, which is the only obligation that the politicians of this country have right now. There is no obligation to the people of Iraq, we didn't break their country as Huckabee insisted, their country was already broken. We did them a favor by ousting Saddam, their own government is their own responsibility. We don't force them to kill each other, that was a result of their own latent bitterness and hatred toward one another. If we hadn't gone in and ousted Saddam, eventually given time this same situation would have happened regardless of our involvement. The added tragedy that our involvement brings besides the loss of our troops is that we're building more animosity towards us in the region and Jihadists have more ammunition than ever to attack the United States. Any temporary solution "the surge" can give us will be outweighed by the future waves of salafists who I can promise won't forget that we are set on permanently occupying their holy land. If we don't tackle the issue of "responsibility over Iraq" now, it'll for sure be a slam dunk for the Dems when the nominees are finally chosen.

[Shink]

Saying the word "honor" does not an argument make. I know you're hoping everyone plays devil's advocate, but that's all Huckabee made himself look like. THINK ABOUT IT.

[slantedview]

Saying the word "honor" does not an argument make. I know you're hoping everyone plays devil's advocate, but that's all Huckabee made himself look like. THINK ABOUT IT.

EXACTLY. How exactly does the all knowing Huckabee suggest we leave without honor? What's honorable about maintaining a situation where our men and women are being killed every day?

We must leave we honor. Empty words, completely empty.

People should know better than to fall for that stuff.

[Shink]

I'm STILL pumping adrenaline from seeing Ron's dominating performance last night. We should have a thread devoted to listing/gauging all the new references to him/articles/media, etc. Sorry you guys, but Huckabee had nothing but an emotion-invoking word and some downright IDIOTIC ideas about how this country should deal with the world. LET'S BREAK AND BUY IRAN, SYRIA, LEBANON, RUSSIA, BRAZIL...THE WHOLE WORLD!

[kylejack]

I'm all about Ron Paul. But if I was an undecided voter, I'd honestly have to say Huckabee won the exchange.

No offense, but Ron Paul ducked part of the question of our obligation to the Iraqi people and the potential bloodbath by saying, "why should I believe you". It is a definite possibility. And even I, who have been against the war from the start, am a little leary about not caring what happens to the Iraqi people.

We DID, afterall, create this mess. There is no changing that. We do have a bit of an obligation to help the Iraqi people. Does that mean a troop presence? Maybe not. But it does paint Ron Paul as cold and selfish to not address it directly.

That being said, I still think troop withdrawal is the best and only solution to Iraq and all the other countries we are in. But he needs to have a response to what he will do if the radicals take over or Iran invades.

I don't know the perfect answer. Maybe simply saying that troop withdrawal is the best current solution because troops are not designed for police action. But maybe leave the door open for controlled strikes against the aggressor if a genocide begins to occur. I think if we did nothing to respond, it would severely damage the US reputation with the world (even more than it is now).

I hate that we created this mess and only Ron Paul can prevent us from getting into this situation in the future.

A perfect answer would have been something like:
"They don't even want us there. The prime minister said that they're ready to take over any time we want to leave. Why are our men and women dying for a country we harmed, a country that doesn't even want us there any longer?"

Selfish, you say? Selfish is to tell a mother her son has to go to Iraq and die because neo-conservatives made bad decisions. Selfish is to promote your own country's interests over the desires of a country that you've mistreated, a country that doesn't want you there anymore, and then tell that country its for their own good. After Abu Ghraib, public opinion in Iraq did a 180 and nearly everyone wanted the Americans to leave, so don't piss on the Iraqi's heads and tell them its raining.

[Paulitician]

If we should be the United States and not the "Divided States" isn't it easier to persaude 30% of the people instead of 70% who want us out of Iraq and realize that we went under false pretenses, it's not working, and it's only making us less safer? Sorry Huck, your argument doesn't hold up.

[RockEnds]

I think this is going to come back and smack Huckabee in the face so hard his head is going to spin.



"Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important to the Republican Party."

?????? I guess Huck's not in it to win. ??????

Ron Paul defended the party with sincere and noticeable emotion. Huckabee made the fatal mistake. RP said nothing WRONG. Huckabee did. Huckabee could have said support of the war will not lose the election. Instead, he chose to say that the election was less important than his position. Major oops. It won't play well in the long run.

Huckabee is the big loser.

[LibertyEagle]

REP. PAUL: No! (Cheers, applause.) I'm saying -- (laughter) -- I'm saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war -- (cheers, applause) -- we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war, and it's illegal under international law. That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (Cheers, boos.)

Really? The only time he mentioned the Constitution was at the beginning? It almost makes it sound like he's saying he takes his marching orders from international law.:confused:

[austin356]

Huckabee's Honor?


I wish Paul would have came back with a line like "The Republican party's honor is not worth the blood of a single American soldier" or something of that nature.

[austin356]

If we should be the United States and not the "Divided States" isn't it easier to persaude 30% of the people instead of 70% who want us out of Iraq and realize that we went under false pretenses, it's not working, and it's only making us less safer? Sorry Huck, your argument doesn't hold up.



Some on here would argue in favor of a "divided states of America" :) :D

[FSP-Rebel]

Huckabee played it smart last night: he knew everyone was rippin on FT + Rudy and Mitt were having a bad debate. Thus, he tried to step up and make himself a little more known. The only conceivable way that he one last night's scuffle is when the media edits out RP's final answer and applause. BTW, it's not the American people that owe anything to the Iraqis, it's the neo-cons.

[kylejack]

Huckabee played it smart last night: he knew everyone was rippin on FT + Rudy and Mitt were having a bad debate. Thus, he tried to step up and make himself a little more known. The only conceivable way that he one last night's scuffle is when the media edits out RP's final answer and applause. BTW, it's not the American people that owe anything to the Iraqis, it's the neo-cons.
Yeah, I'd be delighted to ship them over there to sort this out.

[axiomata]

Both.

[SeanEdwards]

No offense, but Ron Paul ducked part of the question of our obligation to the Iraqi people and the potential bloodbath by saying, "why should I believe you". It is a definite possibility. And even I, who have been against the war from the start, am a little leary about not caring what happens to the Iraqi people.

I think we've done quite enough for the Iraqi people. :rolleyes:

Its totally appropriate to care about all the people who have suffered and will suffer as a result of this disastrous fiasco. However, I think everyone should recognize that the eventual solution will not involve U.S. military power. Our military presence in the region, and in Iraq specifically creates more problems than it solves.

At least by getting out, we can save the lives of our troops, and give the Iraqis a chance to find some equilibrium that is organic to their society and not distorted by the presence of an evil empire of infidels up in their junk all the time.

[Cindy]

They both did. Paul won more anti Iraq war supporters and Huck won more Pro Iraq war supporters. They helped each other and I'm not bothered by the sort of help Huck got because all he did was steal support from Romney and Giuliani. Huck being pro war still doesn't have a shot at the Presidency with 77% of Americans agaisnt what he is for.

Paul appearantly won more anti-war/anti-neocon democrats to his support.

That makes him the ultimate winner to me over their tango.

I saw something cooler to me out of it all.

Huckabee had to pull a manuever to get NOTICED. The way to do that is to launch an "I'm better then you" attack, against the biggest boy in the field that all of the watching eyes are on.

Huck didn't do it with Romney or Giuliani to get a claim to fame. To get noticed, he went for Paul. :cool: Watching a no name come at Paul implies Paul is a name worth attacking.

Had Huck attcked Hunter, no one would've cared.

How great that the great debate clip being played over and over from the debate doesn't even have any of the medias "top tier"darlings in it.

Ahahahahahahahahaha


Don't Fret Paul and Hucks mixxing it up on the dance floor. I say in this case, better to be in the spot light dance/debating with all you've got then a to be a wall flower no one took notice of at the dance.

Pauls name was said more time in the spin room then anyone elses!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[expatriot]

What do you by 'who won'?

The technical answer is crystal clear:

Amongst all else,
Ron Paul referred to the ultimate authority - the Constitution.

Huckabee's authoritative reference was 'momma' (plagiarism)
------------------------
If you are referring to hairstyle, cosmetics, apparel, attractiveness
and all the other drivel that drive such things as network tv,
then it was a draw. (watch the video without sound to get the drift)
------------------------
Having been in fierce extemporaneous entanglements I empathize
with both candidates but I recognize one thing very clearly:
Huckabee was up against his grammar and vocabulary limit
whereas Ron Paul was fiercely lucid and, given his timing constraints,
miraculously clever in how quickly and accurately he was in riposte.
------------------------
One note on the whole event:
The entire stage was perfectly aligned against Ron Paul with one
minor exception offstage we won't discuss here.
The perception he left was that of a vociferously angry firebrand
which is exactly counterpoint to the camaraderie exhibited by
those who collude for interventionism.
This is indeed the best way forward toward attracting the disillusioned.
Ron Paul is doing exactly that in an eloquence that is marvelous.
------------------------
All in all, he made a 99% performance which is astonishing
for such an event.

The rough edges do not hurt anything at all.
As a matter of fact, the rough edges merely highlight his credibility
as opposed to being merely some stage-prop mannequin like the others.

You will see repeated over and over the term 'resonate' as if it is some
special mantra applied to each of the candidates, but resonate as a term
loses its grip when applied to someone puppeteered.

No one can resonate with a puppet.

Ron Paul rEVOLution

[BenIsForRon]

Here's something interesting I've noticed. All mainstream papers referring to the debate between Paul and Huckabee always give Huckabee the last word.

Here's NY Times:


“Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It’s our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away.”

But Mr. Paul argued: “The American people didn’t go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy.”

Mr. Huckabee responded: “Congressman, we are one nation. We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation, under God. That means, if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America.”

Of course there was more to the discussion after that statement, but it seems all the papers end on a Huckabee statement instead of where it actually ended, where Ron said "We're just saving face". It's a very subtle tactic but it seems they're trying to write the only interesting part of the debate as a win for Huckabee. Just like in the first Fox debate when everyone said the 9/11 comment was a win for Guliani.

[joonjoon]

I couldn’t believe the words that were coming out of Huckabee’s mouth. We broke it so we buy it? Since when did an entire country full of people become a piece of property? What if they DON’T want us to “buy” them?

To me a better analogy would go like this:

I think you’re about to hurt me so I attack you and now in serious medical trouble.

I feel bad so I try to get you better. After years of trying to “fix” you, you’re not getting any better - actually it’s possible the treatment I’m giving you is making you worse.

You get tired of me trying to help while making things worse, and say: JUST LEAVE ME ALONE!

No, I won’t leave you alone, I’ll keep “fixing” you to save my “honor.” I’m so honorable that I’m going to ignore your pleas, ignore the fact that my “fixing” is making things worse, and continue dictating your life.

Some honor.

[ButchHowdy]

SPIRITUALITY (Ron Paul) always trumps RELIGION (Mike Huckabee)

[Bro.Butch]

In all sincerity, if I was an undecided voter, Ron Paul would have absolutely won me over with his performance last night. Huckabee spewed meaningless homilies and buzz-phrases like a career politician, whereas Paul spoke from the heart and off the cuff!

BTW, Why do articles KEEP ON referring to Ron as an "isolationist"? I'm an isolationist, Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. A WORLD of difference separates the two.

THX, Buddy I don't know why anyone in this forum would use the "negative" term isolationist to label Dr. Paul. I too am an isolationist, but know it is used in a negative way by the MSM, non-interventionist is a much more favorable of a term among the general public...

It just seems to me that this debate, just like the last Fox debate was setup to make RP look bad.:mad: I do think he handled it well as usual !!! :)

Hickabee is a media driven candidate, that IMO is being pushed to draw off christian votes from RP. Ron is ahead of him and if he can raise more money in Q3 Hickabee will slowly fade away. However if he raises more money than RP in Q3 he will be in it for the long haul causing trouble for us all the way(With the Q3 jump in money the MSM can justify the coverage for Hickabee). Remember when given the opportunity to attack RG & WR on abortion he declined and stated his AR amendment. When given the chance to attack Ron he didn't hesitate. He can hurt the RP campaign more than RG,WR & JM because he can pull christian conservatives that RP needs to get the nomination.

For any of you that think you are supposed to blindly follow a President in an UNDECLARED "conflict" plz do some research. There are many members of this forum that can point you to dozens of books to help you to learn that you need to question authority. That's the "true" american way !!! RP won the exchange over Hickabee HANDS DOWN...In fact I was glad to see RP show some spunk !

Anyway good post BuddyRey !!! :cool:

[speciallyblend]

Objectively RON PAUL kicked his A$$

[rjl]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20614865/site/newsweek/

This ought to really piss everyone off. Gee, who's missing from the photo of the candidates?

Not to mention the "Huckabee wins the Ron Paul Lightning Round" bullshit.

[dantheman]

I was drinking the Kool-Aid trying to think for a change about who won between these two. Then Sean Hannity and co. came along to explain it to me. Apparently Ron Paul's an idiot and Huckabee was right about this little dispute. Nevermind that this might have been the only REAL moment in the debate, I was just happy Fox News was there to tell me who won. As long as they're there to tell me what to think so I don't have to, my life will be just dandy.

[ghemminger]

At first I thought Ron Paul won. But then I saw that graph, that showed Huckabee won. Huckabee is the clear winner.

Welcome to the Revolution!

So, you have just discovered Ron Paul. Congratulations and welcome to the revolution! Many of you have never been involved with a political movement before. I was you merely six months ago. I expect that you are much like I was a few months ago, unsure of what to do next. Hopefully this will give you a little orientation to the Ron Paul Revolution!

1)There is no national direction for our grassroots campaign- so don't wait for instructions.

This may come as a surprise to you, but we are a true grassroots movement. The signs you see, the fliers you have received, and the Internet dominance we have achieved have been independent from the national campaign. So what does this mean to you? Since no one is in charge, we have to take charge for ourselves. Ideally this would be done through your local Meetup group. These small groups are the smaller cells that make up the body of the campaign. You can access Meetup directly, or go through the www.RonPaul2008.com website. Join a local group and see what they are doing. You may find that working with a small local group is better than going it alone. This does, however, lead me to my second point

2)Ron Paul attracts many different types of people, so understand that you will disagree with some of the people you meet.

Don't feel intimidated or get angry with people who feel differently than you. Focus on the main goal of getting Ron Paul the Republican Nomination, and then the Presidency. If political differences become too much, don't be afraid of starting your own group. The worst thing you can do is give up on the movement because of disagreement with some of its members.


3)Think and operate as locally as possible, starting with friends and family

Do you know two people who are unsatisfied with our government? I doubt you could find two people who ARE satisfied. If at all possible, try to “Double Yourself” which is to say, find two people to support the Ron Paul campaign and will “Double” themselves. This sort of growth is exponential, and has been the key to our success thus far. While some meetups and online communities are collaborating on large scale media advertising, don't overlook the importance of convince your own circle of influence. Here is a little joke that might give you some insight

Q: How can you tell you are in a room with a Ron Paul supporter?
A: He'll tell you.

4)Use your talents, abilities, and skills.

During the Revolutionary War, heroes were made out of seamstresses, orators, soldiers, financiers, shopkeepers and more. There is even a place in history for Molly Pitcher, who brought water to soldiers, and manned artillery after her husband fell. Don't try to be someone your not, just use who you are to support the campaign. Bake cookies for neighbors with Ron Paul fliers, talk to your friends or pastor at church, the possibilities are as diverse- and that gives us strength.


5)Don't Forget the Basics

Put a Ron Paul bumper sticker on your car. When possible, wear a “Who is Ron Paul?” T-shirt (people WILL ask you), and keep campaign literature at the ready to give out.


Where you go is up to you. This is new territory for all of us.

Stay informed, Stay Motivated, and most of all Stay Excited!

Useful Sites:
www.RonPaul2008.com
www.Ronpaulforums.com
www.RonPaul.Meetup.Com
www.freeme.tv
www.youtube.com Ron Pauls videos under the YouChoose '08 category

Please Donate to MarchAcrossAmerica.blogspot.com

[Qiu]

Paul won hands down. Huckabee's answers were the same bloated patriotic slogans that the Bush people have been saying for years.

[MsDoodahs]

Some on here would argue in favor of a "divided states of America" :) :D

Not arguing for it, but I honestly believe we're headed for 'Balkanization.'

[Bro.Butch]

At first I thought Ron Paul won. But then I saw that graph, that showed Huckabee won. Huckabee is the clear winner.

- Plz don't fall for that graph "CRAP". The people are screened !!!!!!! I will bet anyone on here ($2,300-LOL) that anyone leaning toward RP were NOT allowed on their panel or diner discussion group. That snake oil salesman Luntz uses his bunk to brainwash and spread propaganda.

Think about it, the MSM is pushing Hickabee (www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/08/01/us/politics/20070802FOX_GRAPHIC.html MSM FACE TIME) and it seemed they wanted to get McCain back in the race last night. So all they have to do is screen participants and only invite Hickabee and McCain leaning voters to their panel.

Remember-don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see-LOL there is a lot of truth to that statement. Anything on TV can be manipulated ! MIC won't die easily, don't fall for their lying, cheating ways... :D

[fj45lvr]

If you have any knowledge of the region you know that Paul "won" intellectually.....however, Huckabee won the debate as to presentation and demeanor.....saying the right things doesn't always "win" because it is in a context of demeanor, control, etc. Paul screwed up using International Law as reasoning (immeadiately losing Republican credibility....they mock the international court system).

Paul is RIGHT

Huckabee "won"

[Original_Intent]

Recognize "the graph" for what it was - a tool to tell the sheeple who they should think won.

I will say, to the average uninformed person, Huckabee probably DID win the exchange. Not because he was right but because he pushed people's "hot buttons" extremely well during that exchange.

Paul did extremely well though, and I think if there were fence-sitters concerning the war, they would fall our way rather than Huckabee's. Just my opinion though.

I thought Paul's BEST moment of the night was responding to Walllace's jab about Al-Qaeda dictating our actions and RP saying NO, the constitution should dictate our actions. (I know that is a mis-quote, but general idea)

[Akus]

undone4937 was being sarcastic everybody

[John of Des Moines]

- Plz don't fall for that graph "CRAP". The people are screened !!!!!!! I will bet anyone on here ($2,300-LOL) that anyone leaning toward RP were NOT allowed on their panel or diner discussion group. That snake oil salesman Luntz uses his bunk to brainwash and spread propaganda.

Think about it, the MSM is pushing Hickabee (www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/08/01/us/politics/20070802FOX_GRAPHIC.html MSM FACE TIME) and it seemed they wanted to get McCain back in the race last night. So all they have to do is screen participants and only invite Hickabee and McCain leaning voters to their panel.

Remember-don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see-LOL there is a lot of truth to that statement. Anything on TV can be manipulated ! MIC won't die easily, don't fall for their lying, cheating ways... :D


- Plz don't fall for that graph "CRAP". The people are screened !!!!!!! I will bet anyone on here ($2,300-LOL) that anyone leaning toward RP were NOT allowed on their panel or diner discussion group. That snake oil salesman Luntz uses his bunk to brainwash and spread propaganda.

Think about it, the MSM is pushing Hickabee (www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/08/01/us/politics/20070802FOX_GRAPHIC.html MSM FACE TIME) and it seemed they wanted to get McCain back in the race last night. So all they have to do is screen participants and only invite Hickabee and McCain leaning voters to their panel.

Remember-don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see-LOL there is a lot of truth to that statement. Anything on TV can be manipulated ! MIC won't die easily, don't fall for their lying, cheating ways... :D

During the ABC / Drake Debate a Sean Hannity producer and crew set up shop at a nearby diner, see http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=105642#post105642

[Broadlighter]

As much as I enjoyed the discoruse between the two, I think Ron Paul wasted a good opportunity. While mentioning killed Americans was a good 1-2 punch, he should have stressed that we are running ourselves bankrupt.

Huckabee attacks with emotions. "When I was a little kid"... "we have to fix what we broke".... "we can't lose honor".....

Ron Paul should have counter attacked with "We are running our asses broke" theme. People respond to emotions, but they are just as responsive to $$. And I don't care if you're Hannity himself, you can't argue that bucket loads of money is spent on this war. Money that isn't even ours.

If Ron Paul started talking finances and money, he'd destroy Huckabee, instead of merely having a rebuttal for him.

I actually liked Huckabee until this moment. If you go into a store to steal something valuable and you break a porcelain vase, do you stay there until you fix it because of honor?

That's some pretty twisted logic.

Ron Paul scored big, but I think he should have challenged Huckabee's 'honor' nonsense more strongly.

Huckabee probably scored well with the Neo-Con crowd, but then they are a bunch of pirates and thieves anyway. They have no legitimate claim to honor anyway you cut it.

[abstrusezincate]

You guys are looking at this the wrong way.

Both won, but they're pursuing different strategies. Mike Huckabee's strategy is to try to enter the top-tier by making himself the conscience of social conservatives, and putting himself in place of Giuliani or Romney who have flaws in the eyes of that group. The exchange elevated him as sympathetic to the values that the others try to draw strength from.

Ron Paul is running a much more insurgent strategy, as evidenced by his first quote about Thompson. To succeed, he has to continue to draw the sharp distinction, to highlight the differences, and to use the enthusiasm garnered to get more people into the movement and into his support. He needs to mobilize as many people as possible, especially amongst sympathetic independents, and last night would not only firm up Ron's devoted support, but it will bring people in who were not aware of the message.

We are still at a point where getting our name out there is a positive. The media will try a hatchet job, but the campaign has set itself up where the more they attack, the more it reinforces the idea that this is unfair, and the harder the supporters work. I don't know if this strategy alone is enough to win, but I think it is the best play at this time, and I'm very happy with how the debate went.

Both men won by capturing attention.

[Richandler]

If you use logic Ron Paul won.

If you use emotion Huckabee won.

Common piece of advice people usually give: Calm yourself down and clear your head before you do anything stupid.

[propanes]

There's a high resolution photo at the Baltimore Sun's website featuring the two.

By clicking on the photo at

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/wanted_ron_paul_vs_mike_huckab.html

Direct link:
http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/ron%20paul%20mike%20huckabee%20ap%20jim%20cole.jpg

[Mesogen]

I think in the short term for the pro-war crowd Huckabee won.

BUT, now he's re-animated the "peace with honor" crap from Vietnam.

Ron Paul won in the long run because he exposed that line for what it really is, Americans dying to save face.

And Huckabee's crap about "one nation under god" is supposed to mean what? That the soldiers in Iraq should keep fighting and dying because we're in this together?

[Rivington Essex]

Well, all I can say is the NY MeetUp group got 10 new members today and the Austin group also got 10 new members.

I will take it.

[Richandler]

I really wish we had the money to run tv adds about how Huckabee is using Nixon's line.

[Nathan Hale]

Huckabee won. Not because he showed more logical clarity than Paul, but because he manipulated the exchange better than Paul. He got to appear both anti-invasion (we broke it...), and anti-"cut and run". The media has been consistently editing out Paul's final "saving face" line that garnered the most applause, but that's irrelevant. Paul finally crossed the line - he was TOO angry. He needed to show a little more control.

[lucius]

Huckabee is a worker/minion of Rick Warren who is a CFR member and hard core supporter of NWO policies targeting Southern Baptists. Normally the MSM treats anything religious as equating with insanity, yet this relationship explains the kid-gloves for Huckabee. Huckabee divides much Christian support from Dr. Paul, a demographic that Dr. Paul absolutely owns; we just have to keep papering churches on Sunday with his 'Statement of Faith'.

Huckabee/Warren connection:

Huckabee quote:

"Our church in Little Rock is very similar to Rick Warren's. We've gone from 25 members to about 5,000 in eight years. Our focus has been to minister to people who were otherwise neglected. We built a ministry center before we even had a sanctuary. We held our services in warehouses until a year or two ago." The center contains a range of faith-based initiatives: welfare to work, job training, programs for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, a food bank. "We are a multicultural, multiracial congregation, with rich and poor,"…"I play the bass in the Praise band."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...599708,00.html

Dr. Paul owns non-503(c) Christian demographic.

[Dary]

Clearly Congressman Paul won in that exchange.

Huckabee believes that the honorable thing to do is lose to Hillary.

On another subject, Huckabee is no conservative either. That is if conservative means to be strong on states rights. Huckabee is no fan of states rights.

[peruvianRP]

As much as I enjoyed the discoruse between the two, I think Ron Paul wasted a good opportunity. While mentioning killed Americans was a good 1-2 punch, he should have stressed that we are running ourselves bankrupt.

Huckabee attacks with emotions. "When I was a little kid"... "we have to fix what we broke".... "we can't lose honor".....

Ron Paul should have counter attacked with "We are running our asses broke" theme. People respond to emotions, but they are just as responsive to $$. And I don't care if you're Hannity himself, you can't argue that bucket loads of money is spent on this war. Money that isn't even ours.

If Ron Paul started talking finances and money, he'd destroy Huckabee, instead of merely having a rebuttal for him.

Listen, die hard pro-wars don't care how much we spend , how much lives we loose "there" as long as "we win with Honor" crap.

This people will destroy this country!

[Benincasa]

They both one because they are both minor candidates who got lots of media exposure because of it. Ron did a great job in the debate (as did Huckabee). Between the two, I do think that Ron may have came off a bit shrill, but his message is what matters and that got out.

[Ninja Homer]

I'm all about Ron Paul. But if I was an undecided voter, I'd honestly have to say Huckabee won the exchange.

No offense, but Ron Paul ducked part of the question of our obligation to the Iraqi people and the potential bloodbath by saying, "why should I believe you". It is a definite possibility. And even I, who have been against the war from the start, am a little leary about not caring what happens to the Iraqi people.

We DID, afterall, create this mess. There is no changing that. We do have a bit of an obligation to help the Iraqi people. Does that mean a troop presence? Maybe not. But it does paint Ron Paul as cold and selfish to not address it directly.

That being said, I still think troop withdrawal is the best and only solution to Iraq and all the other countries we are in. But he needs to have a response to what he will do if the radicals take over or Iran invades.

I don't know the perfect answer. Maybe simply saying that troop withdrawal is the best current solution because troops are not designed for police action. But maybe leave the door open for controlled strikes against the aggressor if a genocide begins to occur. I think if we did nothing to respond, it would severely damage the US reputation with the world (even more than it is now).

I hate that we created this mess and only Ron Paul can prevent us from getting into this situation in the future.

I think Ron Paul won the exchange with Huckabee hands down.

Sorry, but we didn't create the mess in Iraq. The Middle East has been at war forever. All we did was plop our military down in the middle of them in a feeble attempt to keep the people from trying to kill each other. Their feuds still exist, and they still want to kill each other, but we're in their way. If we pulled out now, they will be killing each other. If we stay there and set up a democracy they will still try to kill each other when we leave. If we never went there in the first place, they would be killing each other at this very moment. If they ever unite, it will be so that they can fight the US and get rid of the big fucking base in the middle of their country... and then they'll resume their feud.

We just can't begin to understand the politics of a country that has pretty much been at war since the beginning of time. By sending our army to the Middle East, all we're doing is joining their feud. They believe that honor is more important than human life, like Huckabee, which is why their feuds have no end, just as our War in Iraq will have no end if we start to value honor over the lives of our soldiers.

If we somehow managed to set up a democracy (yeah, I know, republic... I'm using their words) in Iraq, it probably wouldn't last that long. Consider this:

Imagine that the American Revolutionary War was started by some other country, and they fought all the battles for us, set up the republic, made all the laws, and kept their army around to maintain order. How long would that republic have lasted? Sorry, but a revolution has to come about by the people of that country or there is no pride or spirit in it, and it will never last.

That's what will happen with a democracy set up by us in Iraq. It will last maybe 5 years (unless we keep a large army there indefinitely) and then they'll come back to us and say, "Hey, USA, we fucked up our country again. Can you give us a few trillion dollars to straighten it out?" And then taxes in the US go up, a few thousand more soldiers die, and the oil companies keep on shipping oil out of Iraq.

***Sorry for the long rant. It's been long due. This isn't all aimed at you, shadowhooch. Just general frustration I needed to let out. ;) ***

As for that stupid-ass graph thing, it's all a pile of shit that Fox threw together so that they can try to validate whatever message they want to sell to their viewers "scientifically". The chubby guy running it might as well have hooked the inputs of that thing up to his nut sack for all the good it did.

In the exchange between Ron Paul and Huckabee, it was like 2 seconds Paul, then 2 seconds Huckabee, back and forth. Did they take people's reaction times into consideration? For some of the deep things that Ron Paul takes about, it probably takes at least 10 seconds to process. On top of that, have you ever seen old people trying to play video games? Easily 3+ second reaction times, assuming they even turn the paddle in the right direction.

I can't wait until Ron Paul is in office! :D

[zhughes315]

Save lives or save America's honor, which will it be? I think it is clear who won.

[ThePieSwindler]

They both one because they are both minor candidates who got lots of media exposure because of it. Ron did a great job in the debate (as did Huckabee). Between the two, I do think that Ron may have came off a bit shrill, but his message is what matters and that got out.

You've got to be kidding me. People have been complaining all along about how he doesnt have enough fire, and he gets stepped all over. Then when they rachet it up a notch and blatantly attack him with strawman arguements and fallacies, he shows that fire and attacks back, and now people are criticizing him for being "too angry"? Mike gravel is too angry, he mumbled and roars at everything. Ron Paul was attacked and rebutted handily. This just proves no one will ever be pleased with how he performs. Ron Paul clearly won in that he woke people up to the fact that the republican party is going to shit, and he got his message out with pathos AND logos. He was brilliant! The only peolpe who would think huckabee won are the gung-ho idiots who honestly want the ship to sink so long as we "fight the terrorists to the ends of the earth" and "end it with honor", not that there is any honor in staying in a war that has drained our budget and resulted in thousands and thousands of casualties, in a country where they dont even WANT us to "help them out". Those types of people were lost causes anyways. Ron Paul got the message accross to the people he needed to, and defended himself very well.

[wgadget]

it depends on your perspective.

i think Mr. Huckabee analogy works well in a perfect world, but just cannot be applied to this situation.

The ONLY way to correct a mistake is to:

A) STOP DOING IT
B) Learn what you did wrong
C) Don't repeat it!

We cannot force the Iraqis to let us use them to redeem ourselves. It is very clear that they do not want us there. Even if they wanted our material and monetary help, they do not want an occupation by US troops.. which is what they have.

So even if you buy into his "you break it, you buy it" analogy - you either believe one of the following:

A) We now OWN Iraq - We conquered them, and they are now our property.

or B) We are responsible and should do all we can to fix Iraq - but we should first "honor" the requests of our victims to "get out and leave us alone!"

This isn't rocket science... i dont know why its even a top of conversation....


Wouldn't that be called "repentance" in Baptist speak?

[wgadget]

it was even for the most part, but honestly, huckabee seemed to get better cheers towards the end. unfortunately the cheers were for some fluffy statement, nothing of substance. given that he closed with a fluffy statement lacking substance, i give it to Dr. paul.

I remember a few months ago when old Rudy was getting all the cheers, too, and he suffered blowback. Maybe it just takes us Americans a little while to process things.

[bhayl]

I remember a few months ago when old Rudy was getting all the cheers, too, and he suffered blowback. Maybe it just takes us Americans a little while to process things.
That's my perspective as well. It might seem to some like Huckabee 'won' the exchange last night due to his better oratory skills, but after people digest what was said, particularly in the clips that include Ron Paul's final statement about saving face, they will realize that Ron Paul was the real winner of that exchange.

[wgadget]

THX, Buddy I don't know why anyone in this forum would use the "negative" term isolationist to label Dr. Paul. I too am an isolationist, but know it is used in a negative way by the MSM, non-interventionist is a much more favorable of a term among the general public...

It just seems to me that this debate, just like the last Fox debate was setup to make RP look bad.:mad: I do think he handled it well as usual !!! :)

Hickabee is a media driven candidate, that IMO is being pushed to draw off christian votes from RP. Ron is ahead of him and if he can raise more money in Q3 Hickabee will slowly fade away. However if he raises more money than RP in Q3 he will be in it for the long haul causing trouble for us all the way(With the Q3 jump in money the MSM can justify the coverage for Hickabee). Remember when given the opportunity to attack RG & WR on abortion he declined and stated his AR amendment. When given the chance to attack Ron he didn't hesitate. He can hurt the RP campaign more than RG,WR & JM because he can pull christian conservatives that RP needs to get the nomination.

For any of you that think you are supposed to blindly follow a President in an UNDECLARED "conflict" plz do some research. There are many members of this forum that can point you to dozens of books to help you to learn that you need to question authority. That's the "true" american way !!! RP won the exchange over Hickabee HANDS DOWN...In fact I was glad to see RP show some spunk !

Anyway good post BuddyRey !!! :cool:

Looks like it's time to plaster some church parking lots with RP's statement of faith. We oughta arrange a special day. SOON.

[wgadget]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20614865/site/newsweek/

This ought to really piss everyone off. Gee, who's missing from the photo of the candidates?

Not to mention the "Huckabee wins the Ron Paul Lightning Round" bullshit.

It seems that at least two are missing. Am I wrong?

[bhayl]

It seems that at least two are missing. Am I wrong?

Paul & Tancredo

[Cliff]

Any of you who think Huck did good need to wake up and understand what words like honor mean.

[RP4ME]

I think that anytime anyone uses teh word honor and our country and they get all patrotic and so it made ron look unpatriotic to some.....so good on Huckabee for being stealth, but his argument is illogical.. So I think Ron needs to take back that word HONOR and use it and redefine it should they debate each other again.

[wgadget]

Any of you who think Huck did good need to wake up and understand what words like honor mean.

I noticed that Huckabee used the same word in describing McCain. Hmmm.

[aknappjr]

I think both won as they both got more MSM coverage.

[Thunderbolt]

...

[Nathan Hale]

Any of you who think Huck did good need to wake up and understand what words like honor mean.

I said Huck did well, and I stand by it. Once again, I wasn't speaking to the logic, or even to the morality of his statements. Huck won because of the reaction to what he said by both the media and the audience. In politics, how well you do isn't determined by what you believe or how well you present your beliefs, it's determined by how many people support you. And Huck won more support from that exchange than Ron Paul did.

[The Good Doctor]

Huckabee is full of shit here. You don't stay on a sinking ship. There is "honor" in admitting a mistake and leaving. Huckabee was just spewing the rhetoric of the Neocons for them. Like Ron said we are just trying to "save face" He was right on the money there.


hmmm, i think huckabee won but paul is of course right.

the "we have to stand together" "united not divided states" and the "honor" thing unfortunately make great soundbites - every newspaper prints them as the last lines and don't mention pauls response ecause it's no hard punch but an explanation.

paul should resort to saying "we already won, we defeated saddam and checked for weapons of mass destruction" "we didn't find any, so we leave" "we HAVE won already"
or something like this - its better than saying "i want to win elections".

[The Good Doctor]

People are seeing through the bullshit in the news media. Just like when the people in the movie V for Vendetta were watching the news and saying "bollocks" or "bullshit". There were just as many cheers for Ron Paul during that dialogue as there were for Huckabee. People are waking up to the fact that it is just more of the same with many of the Republican candidates.

And it doesn't really matter because Ron Paul is uniting all kinds of voters and voter demographics. He is getting Libertarian, Republican, Independant, and Democratic support.

I think this is good overall as it brings attention to Ron Paul. People will look at Huckabee and go "honor"?

And I agree. Ron should say that there is no honor lost by leaving Iraq.


I think that anytime anyone uses teh word honor and our country and they get all patrotic and so it made ron look unpatriotic to some.....so good on Huckabee for being stealth, but his argument is illogical.. So I think Ron needs to take back that word HONOR and use it and redefine it should they debate each other again.

[Kregener]

I continue to be amazed at the American "voter".

Some of the replies in this thread are....dumbfounding, to say the LEAST.

[kylebrotherton]

The entire exchange was posted by a Huckabee supporter:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3-xN4BSDNNM

[The Good Doctor]

Well you really should lay a foundation to your argument.


I continue to be amazed at the American "voter".

Some of the replies in this thread are....dumbfounding, to say the LEAST.

[apropos]

The main thing I didn't like about the Paul/Huckabee exchange was the use of Huck's platitudes. His talk about honor and being united reminded me of Bush and the 'they hate us for our freedoms' bit. When you make statements that are that broad, its needs explanation.

Huckabee's responses crumbled under the least amount of inspection. They were just cliches and provided no answer to an already war-weary public. Interestingly, as someone who is not anti-war, I remember feeling that Huckabee's words sounded so ashen and drab. When people are fighting and dying for something, abstract ideas like honor and a united front tend to ring hollow. (This explains why we have had trouble winning recent wars.) I was really disheartened to hear such a bad explanation for a war - Huck sounded very politico. McCain did a much better job of defending the war.

On the other hand, I think Paul won that particular exchange because he touched on an unpleasant truth about the Iraqi war. Also unlike Huck, Paul talked about a specific, tangible element in the current state of the war. We are now fighting to save face. We aren't over there because we believe in what we are doing or because we want to be. We just don't want to look like cut and run again, which is obviously an element in our national debate.

[TheyLive!]

Paul won. Huckabee sounded like a fascist/commie with his collectivist paradigm. He also sounded insensitive and uncaring putting 'honor' above human life, which is exactly why the MSM likes to not mention Paul's reply, which made this point clear.