Official post-debate discussion thread

[ForLiberty2012]

For one, Paul got the least amount of chance to speak his views.... they never asked for his input on health reform nor did they ask him about foreign policy, but they asked every other candidate. And when he did have a chance to speak, they interrupted him EVERY time. Terrible job doing a fair debate.... but they let Perry speak whenever he wanted and for as long as he wanted. I think we can all agree MSNBC had an agenda, either to expose Perry, to let him "catch up" by letting his views be known, or they just wanted to stroke him.

With that, who do you honestly believe won this debate?

I believe it was between Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich. They had good talking points, didn't make a lot of personal attacks, and gave solutions rather smearing candidates and Barack Obama.

I don't think Perry, Romney, Bachmann, or Santorum even deserve to be on stage, and that's honesty. I have no clue why those goons are "front-runners".

What did you all think about it?

[FriedChicken]

I don't think the debate helped us. There was good stuff in it but I can already hear Mark Levin and Rush bashing Ron Paul tomorrow ... O'reilly, etc. they're all going to make this like Ron's last event. Basically - I don't think it was strong enough to speak for itself so when these talking heads start telling people what "really happened" they'll believe them.

I got SO SICK of people not answering questions.
Rick Perry - can you site any actions in the past you would define as military adventurism? "It was a philosophical statement. Don't you think Obama sucks? gee I sure do!"

Michele Bachmann - do you see yourself as breaking away from the Bush foreign policy of bringing freedom to the world? "What I'd like to talk about is ...."

[JamesButabi]

I love Ron but he can't win over people with responses like that. I thought it was a poor performance and it really saddens me because Ron has all the answers inside, but they just couldn't come out.

- I thought the Perry question was a forseeable softball and he should have been ready with concrete statements. He fumbled around and got out only 1 or 2 brief points.
- I thought the border question started awesome, and then was the worst answer possible for a Republican primary. It will be dragged through the mud and supports the fringe label.

I liked the last answer in regards to compassion and liberty.

[ApathyCuredRP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLtdFtSAmLw

The campaign needs to focus on CONSISTENCY and attack these fools!

[Brett85]

- I thought the border question started awesome, and then was the worst answer possible for a Republican primary. It will be dragged through the mud and supports the fringe label.

Be careful! If you contine to say that you'll be labeled a troll by some here!

[G-Wohl]

My first post here in years.... hate to say that RP did terribly in this debate, as I expected.



1. He was inconsistent and rambled far too much. Out of the 8-9 times he spoke, only one - two at most - of his answers were coherent, on topic, and concise.

2. He didn't use any of the philosophical questions he was asked as a springboard for discussing relevant, contemporary problems. The moderators clearly wanted to get RP away from practical discussions of the issues, but had RP been better-prepared for this debate, he could have easily applied the political philosophy talk to real-world issues like the wars, disaster relief, welfare, and healthcare reform. Clearly, RP is showing his age here.

3. He didn't go after anybody. Ron Paul had the opportunity several times to point out that he'd never met Rick Perry, that all of the other candidates have been largely inconsistent in their views, and quite hypocritical with respect to what aspects of 'liberty' they support, and which ones they don't support.

4. He didn't take credit for the viewpoints that most of the candidates now share. RP should have immediately pointed out that he and his supporters are responsible for the so-called "Tea Party movement" that is so relevant in today's political climate. He also didn't mention how much more fiscally conservative these candidates have become in recent years, nor did he take credit for these occurrences.


I hate to say that RP really did poorly here, and didn't adapt to the unfair media treatment very well. We need to remember that as the GOP moves towards a more conservative frame of mind, it makes all of the 'establishment' GOP candidates more prone to attack by the media, which allows RP to take less of the flack. This entire debate was a ruthless, idiotic he-said-she-said primetime television disaster, and every other candidate on the stage handled it better than Ron Paul handled it. If this debate is a meaningful gauge of where the contenders stand in this race, RP may be a first tier candidate with respect to his ideas, but he's a poor contender when it comes to (the undeniably important qualities of) presentation, coherence, and likability.

I say without hesitation that all of the support that went into Ron Paul's 2012 run would have been much better spent supporting Gary Johnson. Oh well. Maybe next election cycle (if there is one left in our country's history).

[Butchie]

I love Ron but he can't win over people with responses like that. I thought it was a poor performance and it really saddens me because Ron has all the answers inside, but they just couldn't come out.

- I thought the Perry question was a forseeable softball and he should have been ready with concrete statements. He fumbled around and got out only 1 or 2 brief points.
- I thought the border question started awesome, and then was the worst answer possible for a Republican primary. It will be dragged through the mud and supports the fringe label.

I liked the last answer in regards to compassion and liberty.

Amen friend, I never agreed with this policy of attacking Rick Perry either, that was just childish, and anyone wanna bash my "post count" let me say it's us "noobs" who are the biggest factor, I respect all of you veterans for all you've done to bring Ron to our attention and for seeing the light 4yrs before I did, but Ron has to step it up in the debates, I'm tired of talking my friend/family heads off about how great Ron is then getting my little debate party together and Ron just drops the ball talking about stuff that no one understands unless they have a degree in economics and even I have to say what the heck was he talking about with the fence?!?!?!

[Ireland4Liberty]

MSNBC chris mathews said " Tea party favourite Mitt Romney Vs establishment Rick Perry" - :rolleyes:

[eleganz]

There is nothing to discuss post debate, all we know is that we have more campaigning to do, the media can ignore Ron Paul and spotlight Perry/Romney so we need to do what it takes to get people aware that Ron is the model in which everybody was copying tonight.

[boneyard bill]

Having launched an attack ad against Perry, I thought that Ron Paul would be better prepared for this debate. Unfortunately, he tends to ramble. In personal interviews the questions are much more specific, and he has more time to answer. But these questions are very broad and you only get a minute or 30 seconds of response time and RP just needs to prepare better.

He did needle Perry a bit, but I thought there would be more confrontation than there was although I missed the first half hour so perhaps there was.

I thought Gingich was the most impressive. Romney, as usual, was well prepared and well disciplined. I thought Bachmann had some good moments. I don't think Perry handled the vaccine issue very well. But I think they let him off the hook. From what I read, I thought the vaccine was actually shown to be harmful. No one brought that up including Ron Paul. But he raised the issue! Again, he really needs to prepare. I did like his response to the Reagan letter, however.

Santorum attacked Paul and Huntsman on foreign policy by name, and yet neither man was given a chance to respond.

The key to this is that I don't think Perry stood out. I think he needs to do that to maintain his high poll numbers.

But I think the really important issue is the media spin. How they spin the debate and the sound bites they choose will have a lot to say about how the public in general will react. There were no obvious sound bites that they will pick up on so they have a lot of leeway. If they spin this as a Perry victory, it will help him a lot.

[Jingles]

I'm mad as hell. Its time we at the grass roots start taking massive action like we did last time around. Enough is enough.

[ctiger2]

Ron was treated like he's polling at 1% and Huntsman was treated like he's polling at 14%. It's all a scam. These "debates" accomplish nothing. Utter MSM Garbage.

[cdc482]

If Ron keeps debating like this the only we can get him elected is if we all knock on doors until we each convert 3 people. (Maybe we all only needED to convert 1, but we've got a lot of damage control now.)
I'm gonna knock on doors, and try to convince people that Ron was off his game tonight.

[cucucachu0000]

i think he has to stick to his answer to why its right just giving people info isnt going to inspire people to hop on this bandwagon. the liberty message is huge and he needs to start all answers with the liberty message and then end it with his actual solution. specifics are getting lost on people esepecially with 60 seconds to answer. thats when he needs to inspire people at the debates, then they will seek out the specifics after.

[undergroundrr]

I think Perry, Romney and Huntsman won just because they got more camera time. The Paul campaign was brilliant to get him another 60 seconds through an ad buy, since they darn well knew he wasn't going to get any questions.

The other candidates aped Ron Paul's talking points, and instead of making a "me too" sound, he came up with highly provocative moments that will be talked about - the TSA's sexual transgressions, concentrating on Perry's HPV issue (instead of addressing the laundry list he was presented with).

And the "fences keep us in" comment was so explosive that long-time Ron Paul supporters seem to be having a hard time grokking it without spewing some Alex Jones-related epithet. You don't have to be an AJ disciple (I'm most certainly not) to seriously consider what he was suggesting.

[cucucachu0000]

he rushed through the point that the war on drugs causes the violence there and went to the point that we could get trapped in. it reaaly should have been the other way around.

[Kludge]

I was all chill, kind of excited to hear Jon Hunstman talk about actually fixing the immigration bureaucracy and having a non-interventionist foreign policy. ... Then I watched some of the MSNBC post-debate bullshit and Lawrence O'Donnell claims most Republicans in their 20s or 30s wouldn't understand what Perry said when he called SS a Ponzi scheme. What the fuck, man.

Liked what Ron was saying for the most part. He had some energy starting off, and butting into the conversation to get in an answer on healthcare when he - a physician - was ignored seemed very assertive (in a good way, unlike how Newt does it), but then he claimed "they" are building the US-Mexican border fence to keep US citizens in, which I can't imagine is earning much credibility with American voters.

I was impressed with Cain, Huntsman, and Perry in terms of how they "pop out" in debate. Huntsman shouldn't have backed down as he did on the question about which candidates are spewing inane garbage... would have been the focus of post-debate coverage had he called people out. Bachmann, Romney, and Paul were just kind of "there." Santorum appears to be running like it's '04 or '08, and wasn't hard to ignore talking about how great a treasure the DHS & TSA is. I was overall very surprised by how many candidates called the extreme border security with predator drones, machine guns, fences, and armed guards anti-american. Really though... we're in a bad spot when that's surprising.

[The Midnight Ride]

I watched this debate with 3 non-supporters. They have not been following this election yet. In fact, they only thought of Ron as "that crazy guy" going into the debate.

What were their thoughts? They said he was the winner of the debate, all three. Why? Well he spoke in plain terms to them, he was coherent and raised questions that were unlike the rest of the field: they weren't directed at Obama negatively. They said he was the only one who seemed truly genuine in his responses and CARED about the future. They were disappointed they couldn't hear a question on jobs or foreign policy.

They asked me when they can see him again.

Folks, you need to step out of this world and look at the big picture. Sure to us it may seem that it was a subpar performance, but we know Ron, we have seen him on his A-Game, most voters have not! It is the primary voter, it is their perception that matters, not ours. There are many debates coming up, this one will just become a blur into the rest of them. Relax. We need to make sure we to make sure we organize for the coming debates and make sure we have supporters in the audience. Do not become discouraged and remain active!

[mport1]

Ron Paul has always done pretty bad in debates and interviews in my opinion. It is obvious he has not been well coached and is constantly stuttering, rambling, and making incoherent points. He needs some kind of serious debate coach and this has been obvious for years. I'd rather the campaign spend money on something like this than on anything else.

[boneyard bill]

I watched this debate with 3 non-supporters. They have not been following this election yet. In fact, they only thought of Ron as "that crazy guy" going into the debate.

What were their thoughts? They said he was the winner of the debate, all three. Why? Well he spoke in plain terms to them, he was coherent and raised questions that were unlike the rest of the field: they weren't directed at Obama negatively. They said he was the only one who seemed truly genuine in his responses and CARED about the future. They were disappointed they couldn't hear a question on jobs or foreign policy.

They asked me when they can see him again.

Folks, you need to step out of this world and look at the big picture. Sure to us it may seem that it was a subpar performance, but we know Ron, we have seen him on his A-Game, most voters have not! It is the primary voter, it is their perception that matters, not ours. There are many debates coming up, this one will just become a blur into the rest of them. Relax. We need to make sure we to make sure we organize for the coming debates and make sure we have supporters in the audience. Do not become discouraged and remain active!

Glad to hear it. We need some encouragement right now. I agree that Ron Paul usually comes across as the most genuine candidate, but he's not good at honing his points down into small sound bites, and that was especially true tonight.

[MJU1983]

http://twitter.com/#!/RonPaul/status/111635148809842688

[boneyard bill]

I think Ron has had some great interviews, but he's not good at the debate format. Most candidates prepare with mock debates, but I don't think Ron Paul has ever agreed to do that. In fact, I think Doug Wead debated with George Bush so he has experience at this. I guess RP feels that it would make him appear too contrived. Maybe he's right. Would we want him to sound like Mitt Romney? Still, I think more preparation is needed even if it doesn't include mock debates.

[Razmear]

This debate will hurt Perry, might even drop him 10% in the next round of polls thanks to his Social Security comments.
We're in this for the long haul, let Perry and Romney destroy each other.
re: the ad buy. I wish he aired "The One" instead of the anti-Perry ad. The talking heads destroyed Perry for free, we could have used the cash to spread Ron's talking points that he didn't get to make in the debate.
But of course hindsight is 20/20.

eb

[The Free Hornet]

Could there be a calculation to keep Romney and Perry polling well until it is too late for others to jump in (Bolton, Christie, Palin, Guilliani)?

[Napoleon's Shadow]

If Ron keeps debating like this the only we can get him elected is if we all knock on doors until we each convert 3 people. That is how any election is won, regardless of debates.

[Badger Paul]

"I say without hesitation that all of the support that went into Ron Paul's 2012 run would have been much better spent supporting Gary Johnson."

I'm sure Gary agrees too.

So then that just begs question why hasn't he taken off in the polls or has an equal amount of grassroots support for saying the same things?

Let's just say Gary Johnson has had his chances to take up the freedom and liberty banner and he has failed each time. I remember nothing from his speech at Rally for the Republic because it was forgettable and the first debate opportunity he had, he did nothing with, nothing which would draw RP supporters towards his campaign.

Ron Paul is what he is, like it or not and for all the caterwauling we do about "debates" look where he is in the polls compared to four years ago and look at home many candidates are using his ideas.

Including Gary Johnson.

[ctiger2]

I say without hesitation that all of the support that went into Ron Paul's 2012 run would have been much better spent supporting Gary Johnson. Oh well. Maybe next election cycle (if there is one left in our country's history).

If this is how your truly feel, then you truly don't understand what Ron stands for and his message.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Ron Paul has always done pretty bad in debates and interviews in my opinion. It is obvious he has not been well coached and is constantly stuttering, rambling, and making incoherent points. He needs some kind of serious debate coach and this has been obvious for years. I'd rather the campaign spend money on something like this than on anything else.

+1776

As supporters, we can only do so much on the ground.

Ron has to step up and go into the debate with a plan. I think a 14 year old debate team kid could have done better at articulating our points.

Ron, I love you, but please get a coach. Every other candidate has debate coaches, and you are going into the debates at a significant disadvantage