voteronpaul08
06-07-2007, 03:04 AM
RNC big names didn't win party's primary debates
Link to story (http://media.www.dailytitan.com/media/storage/paper861/news/2007/06/07/Opinion/Rnc-Big.Names.Didnt.Win.Partys.Primary.Debates-2912963.shtml)
He may not be as well-known as Rudi Giuliani or as outspoken as John McCain, but Ron Paul stole the scene at the Republican debate in New Hampshire on Tuesday, offering a fresh voice in a faceless crowd.
As candidate after candidate defended the decision to go to Iraq and spouted off the same opinions and views we have heard so many times before, Paul spoke out against the war in a conservative manner, continually referring to the Constitution on rights issues and questioning the current state of the Republican Party.
It was Paul who started the night off, introducing himself as a "champion of the Constitution" while the rest of the candidates spoke of being husbands and fathers, senators and governors.
It was Paul who refused to follow the group's lead on Iraq, calling for the withdrawal of troops as soon as possible, stating that if there is no progress by September that the troops should be brought home.
When asked about the church versus state debate, it was Paul who said clearly, "It shouldn't be a matter of the president or the Congress, it should be local people, local officials, the state determining these things," and finished, "We don't need somebody in Washington telling us what we can do."
It was Paul who called for the end of preemptive war in U.S. policy, criticizing the rejection of the "just-war theory of Christianity."
Though Paul's words on policy issues promised a different direction than that promised by the rest of the Republicans and may prove him to be the best candidate, the front-runners didn't let up, but still failed to steal the spotlight.
McCain, who spoke forcefully while often running past the one-minute limit, defended the decision to go to war but criticized the Bush administration of mismanagement.
Giuliani got the most laughs, joking after lightning struck outside and cut off his microphone as he defended his pro-choice view on abortion.
But Paul and other candidates were left out as most of the questions, and time, were allotted to McCain and Giuliani.
Throughout the night it was only Paul who provided answers, unlike the rest; and though he agreed with the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy of homosexuality in the military like the rest of the candidates, Paul did say, "If there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with."
In the end it was Ron Paul who was the winner of the debate, referring to the old days of the Republican Party, championing small government and the Constitution and looking to truly lead the country in a new direction.
But Paul still remains an unlikely candidate, considering his libertarian views and constant straying from Republican policy.
Even so, it's refreshing to see a candidate refuse to put on a face for voters while ignoring what he believes is right for this country. Maybe there is still hope.
Link to story (http://media.www.dailytitan.com/media/storage/paper861/news/2007/06/07/Opinion/Rnc-Big.Names.Didnt.Win.Partys.Primary.Debates-2912963.shtml)
He may not be as well-known as Rudi Giuliani or as outspoken as John McCain, but Ron Paul stole the scene at the Republican debate in New Hampshire on Tuesday, offering a fresh voice in a faceless crowd.
As candidate after candidate defended the decision to go to Iraq and spouted off the same opinions and views we have heard so many times before, Paul spoke out against the war in a conservative manner, continually referring to the Constitution on rights issues and questioning the current state of the Republican Party.
It was Paul who started the night off, introducing himself as a "champion of the Constitution" while the rest of the candidates spoke of being husbands and fathers, senators and governors.
It was Paul who refused to follow the group's lead on Iraq, calling for the withdrawal of troops as soon as possible, stating that if there is no progress by September that the troops should be brought home.
When asked about the church versus state debate, it was Paul who said clearly, "It shouldn't be a matter of the president or the Congress, it should be local people, local officials, the state determining these things," and finished, "We don't need somebody in Washington telling us what we can do."
It was Paul who called for the end of preemptive war in U.S. policy, criticizing the rejection of the "just-war theory of Christianity."
Though Paul's words on policy issues promised a different direction than that promised by the rest of the Republicans and may prove him to be the best candidate, the front-runners didn't let up, but still failed to steal the spotlight.
McCain, who spoke forcefully while often running past the one-minute limit, defended the decision to go to war but criticized the Bush administration of mismanagement.
Giuliani got the most laughs, joking after lightning struck outside and cut off his microphone as he defended his pro-choice view on abortion.
But Paul and other candidates were left out as most of the questions, and time, were allotted to McCain and Giuliani.
Throughout the night it was only Paul who provided answers, unlike the rest; and though he agreed with the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy of homosexuality in the military like the rest of the candidates, Paul did say, "If there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with."
In the end it was Ron Paul who was the winner of the debate, referring to the old days of the Republican Party, championing small government and the Constitution and looking to truly lead the country in a new direction.
But Paul still remains an unlikely candidate, considering his libertarian views and constant straying from Republican policy.
Even so, it's refreshing to see a candidate refuse to put on a face for voters while ignoring what he believes is right for this country. Maybe there is still hope.