PDA

View Full Version : Ron missed an opportunity to nail McCain the other night...




DRV45N05
12-02-2007, 11:45 AM
when he brought up the Hitler reference.

Ron: TREATY OF VERSAILLES!!!!!!!

Luther
12-02-2007, 11:50 AM
He wasn't given much of an opportunity; he was cut off after thirty seconds. Your sentiments are correct, though, he should have immediately issued a detailed response through youtube exposing McCain's historical ignorance. It frustrates me that none of the campaign staff think it is important (or even politically beneficial) to rebuke factually inaccurate statements by other candidates.

partypooper
12-02-2007, 12:32 PM
he wasn't treated fairly by any means, but he had to make the best of what he was given and did not do that.

he should have focused historical facts rather than military donations. military donations are not going to convince anyone, while demonstrating mccain's ignorance might as well. clarifying the case of hitler is much more relevant for the message.

all these errors result from the fact that dr paul comes to the debates unprepared. he has to look over the oppositions' arguments (as we here on the forums do, discussing them) and decide in advance on what the most effective reply is for every single one of them. the hitler objection pops up on every republican forum, he should have known about it and fire right back.

he should not be thinking at the debates (there is no time), just firing back.

warmth of the sun
12-02-2007, 12:50 PM
He should have mentioned the closer parallel to the US using a terrorist act to go after other nations preemptively, all for the real reason of empire building, just as Hitler did.

garyallen59
12-02-2007, 01:54 PM
he cleared that up with Blitzer last night

Part 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nA8X6FhTNQQ

Part 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wD3HhMl12mg

Midnight77
12-02-2007, 02:08 PM
He could have made McCain look like a fool ... which would've totally ended McCain's candidacy.

"John, come on. You're comparing wanting to bring our troops home to Hitler rising to power??"

Then have brought up the Treaty of Versailles.

Then mentioned the difference between Non Intervention and Isolationism.

And finished it off with him getting the most money from active duty personnel.

Searching 4 the sound
12-02-2007, 05:18 PM
He could have made McCain look like a fool ... which would've totally ended McCain's candidacy.

"John, come on. You're comparing wanting to bring our troops home to Hitler rising to power??"

Then have brought up the Treaty of Versailles.

Then mentioned the difference between Non Intervention and Isolationism.

And finished it off with him getting the most money from active duty personnel.

The Op is correct the appropriate response to McCain was "treaty", and I thought Ron Paul was going there with the refference to the discussion that took place during the signing of the cease fire with Vietnam. Dr Paul emphasizes the importance of Congressional war declarations, he missed the opportunity to make the connection to, and emphasize the importance of, "treaties".

Between the Treaty of Versailles and non-intervention vs isolationism as outlined by Midnight above I would insert something along the lines of...

Using the Treaty of Versailles as a prelude or segueway, "speaking of treaties"

Question, John - regarding Iraq, win or surrender who do we treaty with?

The military role in war is to secure the battlefield. Heads of State negotiate treaties.

Our military secured the battlefield all the way to Saddams palace in Baghdad. Did they not win the war?

George Bush landed on the aircraft carrier Lincoln and announced "mission accomplished". Does'nt that mean our troops won the war?

Our military captured the enemies executive military commander Saddam Hussien. Does'nt that mean they won the war?

Iraqi's held elections and established a new government. Is the war won yet?

The enemies executive military commander Saddam Hussien was executed. Can we come home now?

How can our troops not "win this thing" without surrender? How do we surrender when there is'nt anyone to surrender to? If the only authority we could surrender to has been executed and replaced by a new government yet our troops remain on the battlefield does'nt logic dictate that our troops won the war and have been abandoned on the battlefield by our own government?

agw
12-02-2007, 05:39 PM
McCain looked like a fool.

Attacking a war hero is difficult - come on too strong and it will backfire. Ron was very appropriate and did not look like an extremist.

adpierce
12-02-2007, 05:59 PM
he cleared that up with Blitzer last night

Part 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nA8X6FhTNQQ

Part 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wD3HhMl12mg

So good!

max
12-02-2007, 07:24 PM
the american sheeple wouldnt know the Treaty of Versailles from the Emancipation Proclamation.

What he should have done is said:

"Senator, I am not an isolationist. But you sir are a WARMONGER"

That would go down in history as the greatest zinger since Lyod Bentsons" "You're no Jack Kennedy" shot at Dan Quayle in 1988....and would have ended McCains campaign and propelled RP to new heights.

He's too damn nice and he blows golden opportunities at every debate

Billy Budd
12-02-2007, 08:03 PM
How many times have we all walked away from a situation thinking of the snappy come backs we 'should' have made? Those debates are tough on RP. Long periods of waiting with no turn to speak and then trying to get everything out in 30 seconds after you've just been hit with an axe. It's like a pitcher who sits on the bench too long between innings.

I thought RP did fine and McCain made himelf look like a warmongering demagogue. McCain gives me the creeps. His syntax and delivery doesn't seem to match what he's saying half the time. It's like he has some emotional disconnect from what's coming out of his mouth. Maybe it's a side effect of making things up as you go along.

I get sick of people being hands off with McCain because of his vet status. RP served his country as well but he's doesn't wear it as a shield from criticism.