PDA

View Full Version : Debates: Pivoting away from hostile questions




JJ2
01-17-2012, 04:01 PM
When the moderators at these debates ask negative or hostile questions, or clearly have an agenda, I believe it is important for Dr. Paul to quickly answer the question in about 10 seconds and then pivot away from the question and use the other 50 seconds to say something positive.

For example, in last's debate, when asked about his Bin Laden quote, Dr. Paul could have simply said something like the following and then pivoted away into talking positively about something more general in nature:

"First of all, I voted yes on authorizing us to go get Bin Laden, in the quote you're referring to I was simply saying that we should have gone about it a different way, and in fact, if they had listened to what I proposed in 2001, Bin Laden would have been dead 10 years ago!"

That's it. Then the issue would have been put to rest with no booing and no controversy and no negative reaction. In my opinion, debates are not the appropriate time to wax philosophical or professorial, or to start lecturing, especially when the audience is not going to respond favorably or necessarily understand the point being made.

I feel this is very important, and I feel last night's debate may have done lasting damage, unfortunately.

rcferdon
01-17-2012, 05:13 PM
Get this to the campaign immediately! Moderator

JJ2
01-17-2012, 05:41 PM
Also, perhaps Dr. Paul should even make a short clarifying statement, similar to the above, in the next debate just to clarify (and help with any needed damage control) what he meant in the previous debate--even if they don't ask about it again.

By the way, the method of quickly pivoting away from the negative specific question into a positive general statement was something I heard recently from Gov. Mike Huckabee, who said he had employed that strategy in '08 and was suggesting it for Sen. Santorum. :)

guysenjem
01-18-2012, 06:13 AM
He should have said that goal should have been to capture him alive to get information and that we could have easily done it. He should
have pointed out that the risk of OBL's escape was practically zero. At this point OBL was for all practical purposes a powerless figurehead who couldn't even properly heat his run-down home as he watched TV on his 13 inch screen. We could have cooperated with the pakistani
government to do this. Instead we killed him and infuriated Pakistan and embolden the muslim world to perhaps create new terrorists. He
should have mentioned how stupid it was to quickly bury his body at sea immediately as it only created more distrust along with all of our other secret unauthorized militayr operations. Then I would have dove tailed into the morality of the new policy of assassinating American citizens who are only suspects. In particular, mentioning the 16 year old recently assassinated. An Orwell reference would be appropriate.

I probably would stop there. He could talk about how we still have very little information/evidence on OBLs involvement in 911, but
keeping it brief is a good idea for these set up questions and the average american audience. JJ2, I totally agree with keeping it brief while
staying on the offense. RPs been on his heels way too much.

guysenjem
01-18-2012, 06:16 AM
BTW, I like the old crumugin angry Ron Paul. He's a lot more confident and likeable. If I was in the campaign I would advise to be angry and brief - don't milly mouth
anything.

tocano
01-18-2012, 08:11 AM
And in addition, turn it into an anti-Democrat talking point: "We cannot let ourselves fall into the trap of the Democrats. Democrats say that the ends justify the means - for example, as long as we are helping the poor, it justifies ignoring private property and individual rights. Let us be very wary about treading down the path that says that as long as we are killing terrorists, it justifies ignoring national sovereignty and international due process."

The One
01-18-2012, 08:15 AM
Also, perhaps Dr. Paul should even make a short clarifying statement, similar to the above, in the next debate just to clarify (and help with any needed damage control) what he meant in the previous debate--even if they don't ask about it again.

By the way, the method of quickly pivoting away from the negative specific question into a positive general statement was something I heard recently from Gov. Mike Huckabee, who said he had employed that strategy in '08 and was suggesting it for Sen. Santorum. :)


Yeah, and while he's at it, he can bring up the newsletters and talk about that some more as well. :rolleyes:

kylejack
01-18-2012, 08:16 AM
Yes, I was disappointed that Ron let Baier, for a second time, describe his Bin Laden position as "to the left of Obama." He should have reclaimed that for the old Right, like Robert Taft. Stop letting them describe it that way.