CBS debate tonight, first on free TV, first on foreign policy

[cindy25]

this should separate Ron from the neo-cons

[bluesc]

Suez Canal answer please.

[ShaneEnochs]

this should separate Ron from the neo-cons

I just hope he doesn't get off track and talk about the fence again.

[realtonygoodwin]

It'll be nice having another candidate on stage that wants to withdraw from Afghanistan as well!

[bluesc]

It'll be nice having another candidate on stage that wants to withdraw from Afghanistan as well!

Who?

[realtonygoodwin]

Huntsman

[TroySmith]

I've thought for awhile its the [I]later[I] debates that Paul needs to thrive on. The earlier ones aren't as widely watched or in the end recognized. If Paul comes out aggressive here, hopefully against Cain, it sets up a Paul vs Romney showdown.

[moderate libertarian]

Debate formats and questions picked overall have been lame so far, it is more like an acting/memorization contest in 30 sec clips with little to no probing of candidates true mettle. Reduce number of debates and have more thorough examination of candidates views and record by non-corporate media picked pundits.

As for debate tonight, by scheduling a debate on Sat night, GOP has confirmed that it is not the party of party animals.

[bluesc]

Huntsman

Lol. He also wants war with Iran. Don't be fooled.

[Brett85]

Huntsman

Gingrich has said that we should withdraw from Afghanistan as well. I hope he doesn't flip on that issue during the debate. We'll see.

[vechorik]

I hope Dr. Paul says "Learn about United Nations Agenda 21 before you vote!"
Just SAY it!

[bluesc]

Gingrich has said that we should withdraw from Afghanistan as well. I hope he doesn't flip on that issue during the debate. We'll see.

Also supports more wars. Any talk of withdrawing from Afghanistan from these people is completely useless if they are pushing for war with Iran, while Ron says we should be friends with them.

[hazek]

Ron could very easily separate himself from the rest in any debate on any topic if he just for once refused to answer the question and addressed the audience about his consistency, about his voting record, about him always sticking to his principles, about his unwavering adherence to the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution and asked them to for once elect someone who they can be 100% sure what they'll do once they get into office instead of another phony.

But of course he's going to rather play it nice and by the book. Good luck with that, I already know the outcome.

[COpatriot]

This debate is big. This and the Heritage Foundation/Neocon AEI debate on the 22nd will be vicious. Two of the biggest stages for Ron to directly confront the war lovers.

[LatinsforPaul]

This debate is big. This and the Heritage Foundation/Neocon AEI debate on the 22nd will be vicious. Two of the biggest stages for Ron to directly confront the war lovers.

Agree.

Which in turn could gather more Independent and Democrat votes in the states with Open primaries and caucuses.

[TCE]

I hope Dr. Paul says "Learn about United Nations Agenda 21 before you vote!"
Just SAY it!

The only elected official I have heard speak about Agenda 21 is Glen Bradley: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?328509-Talk-to-me-about-ICLEI-and-Agenda-21&highlight=Agenda, so that would be pretty random if he went that route.

For this debate, Ron needs to paint a picture of why he believes the way he does and that he is for a strong national defense but having troops/bases in over 100 countries makes us weaker. He can do it, but this debate will be rife with potential pitfalls.

[ShaneEnochs]

Also supports more wars. Any talk of withdrawing from Afghanistan from these people is completely useless if they are pushing for war with Iran, while Ron says we should be friends with them.

I don't think I would go as far as saying that Ron says we should be friends with Iran. More like we should be friendly with them. There's a difference.

[bluesc]

I don't think I would go as far as saying that Ron says we should be friends with Iran. More like we should be friendly with them. There's a difference.

Not to the Republicans watching and the media reporting on it afterwards. Did you see the headlines after his Fox News Sunday interview?

[TCE]

Not to the Republicans watching and the media reporting on it afterwards. Did you see the headlines after his Fox News Sunday interview?

Agreed. Iran is a serious hot-button right now and even hinting that one might want to speak with an Iranian leader is a horrible, unspeakable occurrence that deserves to be shunned.

[Inkblots]

Suez Canal answer please.

That would be awesome. The Suez Crisis provides a graphic example that if you go deeply into debt trying to direct the affairs of other nations, you end up having your own affairs directed by your creditors. Britain and France decisively defeated the Egyptians at every turn militarily, but the Eisenhower Administration was able to force Britain to sign a cease-fire and withdraw by threatening to sell the United States' holdings of UK Sterling Bonds. We had it within our power to destroy the pound, and so the UK had to obey our wishes - France and Britain were forced to withdraw from the Suez in shame and with a total strategic defeat that strongly contributed to the complete unraveling of both their Empires over the next 10 years.

If Ron Paul could point out how we have put ourselves in the shame position vis a vis China that the UK and France were in relative to us in the 1950s, and how that debt is the number 1 threat we face because it will leave us unable to pursue an independent foreign policy because we need to clear everything we do with the bond markets and our creditors, that would be awesome.

The only worry is, it's a history lesson I would be willing to bet most people have never heard, let alone read, about, and so it might be hard to explain in only 30 seconds.

[Brett85]

Also supports more wars. Any talk of withdrawing from Afghanistan from these people is completely useless if they are pushing for war with Iran, while Ron says we should be friends with them.

We shouldn't push for war with Iran, but I think it's a mistake for Ron to say that we should be "friends" with them. We can't be friends with everybody. I don't think it would've worked with us to be friends with Hitler's Germany. A better strategy for Ron is just to say that "we should keep a close eye on Iran, and if they actually make a move towards us and attempt to attack us, we'll wipe them off the face of the earth." Ron needs to adopt a new strategy of keeping his non interventionist views, but also sounding tough.

[bluesc]

That would be awesome. The Suez Crisis provides a graphic example that if you go deeply into debt trying to direct the affairs of other nations, you end up having your own affairs directed by your creditors. Britain and France decisively defeated the Egyptians at every turn militarily, but the Eisenhower Administration was able to force Britain to sign a cease-fire and withdraw by threatening to sell the United States' holdings of UK Sterling Bonds. We had it within our power to destroy the pound, and so the UK had to obey our wishes - France and Britain were forced to withdraw from the Suez in shame and with a total strategic defeat that strongly contributed to the complete unraveling of both their Empires over the next 10 years.

If Ron Paul could point out how we have put ourselves in the shame position vis a vis China that the UK and France were relevance to us in the 1950s, and how that debt is the number 1 threat we face because it will leave us unable to pursue an independent foreign policy because we need to clear everything we do with the bond markets and our creditors, that would be awesome.

The only worry is, it's a history lesson I would be willing to bet most people have never heard read about, and so it might be hard to explain in only 30 seconds.

Wow. I was talking about his answer about considering war if a nation was blocking access to the Suez Canal, but you just mentioned a great point about the Suez Crisis and the situation now with China. If only he could shorten it to a 1 minute answer, it would be perfect. I'll give you a +rep because I never thought of it that way before.

[bluesc]

We shouldn't push for war with Iran, but I think it's a mistake for Ron to say that we should be "friends" with them. We can't be friends with everybody. I don't think it would've worked with us to be friends with Hitler's Germany. A better strategy for Ron is just to say that "we should keep a close eye on Iran, and if they actually make a move towards us and attempt to attack us, we'll wipe them off the face of the earth." Ron needs to adopt a new strategy of keeping his non interventionist views, but also sounding tough.

Absolutely agree. I've been pushing for him to move towards that for months now. What I meant was that any mention of diplomacy is usually spun by the media as "friendship".

He needs some tough talk tonight, while not turning on his non-interventionist views.

[Inkblots]

We shouldn't push for war with Iran, but I think it's a mistake for Ron to say that we should be "friends" with them. We can't be friends with everybody. I don't think it would've worked with us to be friends with Hitler's Germany. A better strategy for Ron is just to say that "we should keep a close eye on Iran, and if they actually make a move towards us and attempt to attack us, we'll wipe them off the face of the earth." Ron needs to adopt a new strategy of keeping his non interventionist views, but also sounding tough.

I know you're right in terms of debate strategy, but this is really an educational problem we face. The Islamic Republic of Iran is nothing like Nazi Germany. Yes, some anti-Semitism is deeply ingrained in Persian society, but the Iranian Jewish community is actually very well established and Jews in Iran are explicitly protected by a fatwa issued by Khomenei himself, and they are given freedom to practice their faith under the Iranian Constitution. In addition, Iran has not attempted to expand its borders or started a war since the Islamic Revolution, so it's not an expansionist power. Finally, though the Iranian armed forces are large, they are poorly equipped, and Iran has a very weak industrial base. So in a lot of ways, Iran is the opposite of Germany in the 1930s.

But there is a nation that modern Iran is a lot like: in having an authoritarian government closely allied with religious authorities, in having a society and leaders with an ingrained, casual anti-Semitism, in having a military that is strong politically but weak in armaments compared to its neighbors, and in having a struggling and backwards economy. That nation is Francoist Spain. And that's the great irony, because we actually WERE friends with Spain under the fascists there - we even signed an alliance with them - the Pact of Madrid.

[No Free Beer]

Suez Canal answer please.

huh?

[bluesc]

huh?

"I would study the intelligence, determine the threat level, if there is an immediate threat to national security, I would go to Congress, request a declaration of war and get it over with as quickly as possible" or something along those lines. He has used that answer twice now.

[Brett85]

I know you're right in terms of debate strategy, but this is really an educational problem we face. The Islamic Republic of Iran is nothing like Nazi Germany. Yes, some anti-Semitism is deeply ingrained in Persian society, but the Iranian Jewish community is actually very well established and Jews in Iran are explicitly protected by a fatwa issued by Khomenei himself, and they are given freedom to practice their faith under the Iranian Constitution. In addition, Iran has not attempted to expand its borders or started a war since the Islamic Revolution, so it's not an expansionist power. Finally, though the Iranian armed forces are large, they are poorly equipped, and Iran has a very weak industrial base. So in a lot of ways, Iran is the opposite of Germany in the 1930s.

That's true. I wasn't saying they were exactly alike. I was simply making the point that we can't necessarily be "friends" with every single country. We don't need to be "enemies" with them either and use saber rattling against them. I guess my foreign policy, at least towards Iran, actually is more of an "isolationist" policy rather than Ron's non interventionist policy. I basically just think that we should ignore Iran, unless we have some kind of evidence that clearly shows that Iran is actually planning on carrying out an attack against the United States.

[bluesc]

That's true. I wasn't saying they were exactly alike. I was simply making the point that we can't necessarily be "friends" with every single country. We don't need to be "enemies" with them either and use saber rattling against them. I guess my foreign policy, at least towards Iran, actually is more of an "isolationist" policy rather than Ron's non interventionist policy. I basically just think that we should ignore Iran, unless we have some kind of evidence that clearly shows that Iran is actually planning on carrying out an attack against the United States.

I think trade is good. If Iran is heavily invested in trade with the US, that provides a very strong reason not to turn hostile. They have oil, the US has things Iran wants too.

[Brett85]

I think trade is good. If Iran is heavily invested in trade with the US, that provides a very strong reason not to turn hostile. They have oil, the US has things Iran wants too.

Yeah, it's just that it's a tough sell to a GOP audience. The media has brainwashed people into thinking that Iran is some kind of "enormous threat" that can actually take out the United States. It's hard to get rid of those misconceptions.

[bluesc]

Yeah, it's just that it's a tough sell to a GOP audience. The media has brainwashed people into thinking that Iran is some kind of "enormous threat" that can actually take out the United States. It's hard to get rid of those misconceptions.

It is a form of diplomacy though, and that CBS poll that showed 50% of Republicans favor diplomacy with Iran. Diplomatic pressure is much more effective than sanctions and threats of war. If Ron provides evidence and historic proof, it may go over well with that 50%, as long as he mentions that if they become a threat to national security, he will look at military options, but that the chances of them becoming a threat drop dramatically when diplomatic and trade ties are made.

[nobody's_hero]

Can we watch this online somewhere?

Also, what time does it start? I'm EST time zone.

[Bern]

Eight candidates looking to unseat President Obama will gather on stage at Wofford College Saturday night for a debate on national security and foreign policy hosted by CBS News and National Journal.
...
Moderated by CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley and National Journal congressional correspondent Major Garrett, the debate airs at 8:00 p.m. ET on the CBS Television Network and will be webcast at CBSNews.com and NationalJournal.com. The final half hour will only be available online, except for the West Coast where the full debate will air on television.

After the debate, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson will host a post-debate webcast analysis of the candidates on CBSNews.com.
...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57323556-503544/cbs-news-and-national-journal-host-republican-debate-on-saturday-night/

[bluesc]

Can we watch this online somewhere?

Also, what time does it start? I'm EST time zone.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-250_162-1335.html

8PM EST

[Inkblots]

Yeah, it's just that it's a tough sell to a GOP audience. The media has brainwashed people into thinking that Iran is some kind of "enormous threat" that can actually take out the United States. It's hard to get rid of those misconceptions.

Another huge irony of this situation is that Saudi Arabia is a major trading partner and ally of the US, and I imagine very few of the folks in the audience will be troubled by that. And yet, while Iran has contested elections for its National Assembly and President (even if they're manipulated), Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. Iran's constitution protects the freedom of religion of Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians, while in Saudi Arabia the practice of all faiths except Wahhbist Sunni Islam is banned and conversion is punished by death, and the Bible and all non-Muslim religious texts are banned. The Iranian Constitution guarantees equality before the law of minorities, a right to trial, and limited free speech rights ("except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public"); while the Saudi Basic Law bans all criticism of the monarchy and religious authorities. Iran follows a standard form of Sharia, under which women can go out in public, don't need their faces to be covered, etc; Saudi Arabia follows Wahhabism, which even Khomenei considered to be bat**** insane, and the religious secret police, the "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" enforces it with ruthless efficiency. Neither nation acknowledges Israel's right to exist.

So by any objective measure, Saudi Arabia is a much more horrifying country to live in than Iran. And yet, Iran is considered to be the evil of the world and America's most dangerous foe. And to think, it all comes down to this: we're friends with the Saudis because we allowed the dictators in the House of Saud to nationalize Aramco without interfering, while we're enemies with the Iranians because we overthrew the elected Mossadegh to prevent him from nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. It's amazing how policy regarding shareholder protection in the oil industry can determine history 50 years on, isn't it?

[bolidew]

This is vastly important. Ron has to outperform!

[moderate libertarian]

Looking at order and focus of questions starting with Iran threat to Israel, this debate might as well have been organized by AIPAC. Just looked up in wiki, CBS is run by Les Moonves, the great-nephew of the first Prime Minister of Israel. No surprise how this debate questions' direction will go.

Looking at GOP candidates answers openly talking about killing scientists of other countries in a political public forum, supporting assassinations of US citizens by a President, supporting torture, I think GOP is doomed unless it radically shifted its course and took some morality training. Hard to say if these are their real beliefs about American values/US Constitution or its perversion or they merely are pandering to neocon lobbies for their support. Or maybe GOP is the real war hungry neocons.

Dems have horrible record, but unless it reversed course GOP may manage to lose again in 2012 as it defeats itself.

Towards close, as Ron Paul gets a chance, he hits it out of the park. Great point made by him when RP noted you don't trust Obama to run healthcare but trust him to assassinate US citizens.

[Cutlerzzz]

Paul got two questions in the televised hour, and two in the untelevised half hour...

[PreDeadMan]

The cbs feed on the net was so shitty i couldn't stand it and x'ed out of it . In conclusion that debate was total bullshit. They ignored ron paul the whole mother fucking time. I've really had it and these hacks are stealing Ron Paul's positions this is to fucking painful to watch anymore.

[QueenB4Liberty]

The cbs feed on the net was so shitty i couldn't stand it and x'ed out of it . In conclusion that debate was total bullshit. They ignored ron paul the whole mother fucking time. I've really had it and these hacks are stealing Ron Paul's positions this is to fucking painful to watch anymore.

Yeah my feed was shitty as well so I xed out as well. The debate did suck. Ron hardly answered any questions, I saw him answer two. but he did a great job with what he was given.

[Anna-Anna]

Paul got two questions in the televised hour, and two in the untelevised half hour...

I know. What a sham! :mad: