PDA

View Full Version : It was not Ron Paul's best debate, by a long shot




tanstaafl
11-29-2007, 07:19 PM
Please no flames; I wear a "Ron Paul REVOLution" shirt every day and I'm committed for the long haul. I see recognizing reality, as best as possible, as key to feedback and feedback as key to improvement in the campaign.

IMO, it was a poor relative showing for Ron Paul (and disastrous for Guilliani but great for Romney). I see this as a coming together of several factors:

(1) Ron Paul didn't get as much time as most of the others and not nearly the time Guiliani and Romney had.

(2) Other candidates were relatively stronger than they've generally been in the past. Romney, in particular, seemed to have consistently strong responses and numerous opportunities to zing or rebut while was Guilliani was repeatedly caught out jiving and obfuscating.

(3) The questions were much sharper with more candidate specificity (few "soft balls").

(4) Paul did very well on the "Texas" question regarding "conspiracy"/crazy concerns about the CFR and NAU, but he badly fumbled his opportunity to give strong, cogent, thought provoking answers regarding the abortion and Iraq/military issues.

This was unfortunate, as Paul HAS the most solid morally and logically defensible ground on pretty near all the issues; it is pretty hard to rebut history and the Constitution (particularly the meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights).

IMO

Abortion: Paul should ALWAYS lead his response to this issue with the reminder that he is a career obstetrician and is unequivocally against abortion as to be anything else would be hypocritical. He should then immediately fugue to the fact that he always follows the Constitution and the fact that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution means that is not a Federal issue but one that must be addressed by the States. And then he should conclude with the comment he used last night that he is not running for governor of a state. (END OF TOPIC)

Iraq and Military and charges he is an isolationist: Paul should ALWAYS lead off with a statement that he is unequivocally in favor of the US having the strongest military in the world and that is absolutely not an "isolationist". He should then remind that (a) he served proudly in the military (it would be good to get supporting background on whether he actually served IN Vietnam, as any tie to that war would immensely increase his first person credibility beyond merely having served in the military). (b) He is unequivocally in favor of a strong military (repetition is useful here) (c) The President, Congress, (oaths of office) and ALL PATRIOTIC CITIZENS (c.f., Pledge of Alligience) are sworn to uphold the Constitution REGARDLESS OF THEIR PERSONAL PREFERENCES. That is, a real American of integrity cannot "pick and choose" when to follow the Constitution and when to ignore or subvert it. (d) The Constitution requires ALL wars to be formally declared by Congress and clearly intended this an a decisive check on both the seriousness of the cause for war (are the Congress and the American people truly committed to see the war through) and the misguided passions or ambitions of an unwise President. (e) The Iraq war was - deliberately - never declared, as Congress has found it expedient since WWII to put politics ahead of Constitutional duty (f) Undeclared wars are enormously and unnecessarily wasteful (lives, wealth, and liberties), dangerous (destructive to Constitutional Republics [c.f., Rome's Republic] and tend to foment destructive and contagious passions both within the Republic and internationally), and ineffective (we've not won a single undeclared war since WWII).

PAUL SHOULD THEN state that our current military strategy of being world policeman with our forces diluted around the world may have been a reasonable choice many decades ago but is now completely obsoleted by technology and realities of world development. What was once a net benefit to the US's interests has become an albatross around our neck. That realities of today's world mean that a high tech armed forces completely based within the US would be more powerful, more effective, and enormously more conservative of US wealth, personnel, and resources.

Shii
11-29-2007, 07:20 PM
http://i1.tinypic.com/7yefk3t.gif

0zzy
11-29-2007, 07:23 PM
http://i1.tinypic.com/7yefk3t.gif

i love that

colecrowe
11-29-2007, 07:24 PM
He did not serve in Vietnam. He did however willingly serve during Vietnam (of course). It was mere chance that he did not get sent into theater.

paulpwns
11-29-2007, 07:26 PM
he served during the cold war and Korea.

drpiotrowski
11-29-2007, 07:28 PM
i love that

I agree, I couldn't help but smile when I saw that last night.

colecrowe
11-29-2007, 07:28 PM
I really agree with the above post. He should make arguments instead of just saying "just come home". That can ONLY appeal to the 36% (nationally) of Republicans that DO want out now. To the other ones, without great arguments (which he could totally offer) it could only make them hate him. People are probably hungry for a great argument like that, even if they're afraid to admit it. Same with Dept. of Education. Jeez, he did look really good with the anecdote about the two generals--he should do that again and again on Beck's show--I swear he is the most intelligent Republican candidate--and I do not say that lightly.

This is something I really wish could have happened. Something extremely important. But of course it's not ALL Paul's fault. The format and bias of the debates hurt quite a lot.


That is why he MUST go on Glen Beck (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=43954) and MUST do infomercials (POLL) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=43186)

ronpaulfan
11-29-2007, 07:32 PM
Shill tactic:

"I love Ron Paul. I hate Ron Paul."

DanK
11-29-2007, 07:46 PM
I really don't see how anyone who's being honest can think that Romney did well in that debate. Every other reply he made was "Well, this would be ideal, but now isn't the right time," or "Well, we should change this, but that might offend the people who enacted the policy, so don't do it now." Can you spell pandering?

The only one I thought might have done a better job than RP was Huckabee, and that was all just comedic fluff. Yes, RP should try to explain his views more, but there's only so much you can do in a 30 sec response...

Oh, and that look on RP's face during McCain's isolationism and WWII thing was priceless.

RonPaulFTFW
11-29-2007, 07:47 PM
they point is they framed it to put paul out.

in a natural state he would have done much better.

though he still did well.

Broadlighter
11-29-2007, 07:57 PM
I disagree with your points. I though Ron Paul did very well under the circumstances and time given to him as little as it was. And Romney ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY sucked BIG TIME. He had ample opportunities to shine, but he came out ever the flip-flopper. The answer to the retired Gay General told everyone that. He basically said that it's okay for Gays to be out in the military, but in wartime it's a different matter. The Bible question went horribly for him as well.

I would agree that RP had done better in earlier debates, but he schooled McCain on isolationism and he spoke very well on the NAU question - that was probably his best.

Giuliani died on the 2nd Amendment issue. He thinks the Constitution gives rights to individuals. No wonder he's such a tyrant.

Shaun
11-29-2007, 07:57 PM
BEST performance I have ever seen from RP.
His finish was 1000% better than anyone else.
Very, very good. The guy who started this post wasn't looking at the same debate.
He was strong, understanding, polite...and DEADLY at the finish.
Tremendous...

Arek
11-29-2007, 07:58 PM
I feel Ron Paul did an excellent job. Considering he got very little air time. I'll be honest I was about to change my party affiliation to Libertarian for 2008 until I heard about Ron Paul. I've since been working on getting as many people as possible to vote for Ron Paul. I was hoping they would have asked Ron Paul what he would do with the IRS. I actually feel Ron did a good job answering the Iraq war question. I think I was even able to finally convince my dad to vote for RP in the primary.

drednot
11-29-2007, 08:59 PM
Romney was horrible. Worse than Giuliani, who at least gave honest answers, and worse than Huckabee who at least made people laugh when he totally dodged questions.

My summary of Romney's debate:

I oppose Torture. I refuse to tell you what Torture is. (Well wtf good does it do to tell us you oppose something you refuse to define? Might as well tell us you oppose "evil" too.)

Is every word of the bible literally true or allegorical?
The Bible is the Word of God.
Thanks again, jackass.

Do you still look forward to the day gays can openly serve in the military?
I'd ask the army.
You'd ask them what you look forward to??

I gave everyone healthcare without raising taxes.
He didn't raise taxes, he just took more money from tax payers. Brilliant!

Good thing he wasn't asked which three programs he would cut, he'd have to pull a Duckabee.

He fended off Giuliani well, big deal.

literatim
11-29-2007, 09:02 PM
http://i1.tinypic.com/7yefk3t.gif

We have a new image to shut down stupid threads.