Anderson Cooper WTF?

[HarryBrowneLives]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just a realist. That was planned to almost perfection. Paul should have sidestepped the conspiracy question ... that was a no win question designed to make news again and again. Complete trap question.
However, it was good in this particular debate that he was largely ignored ... Plastic Man Romney and Gooliani hurt each others numbers very bad for the near term. Paul will be more prepared for the attacks the next time. In a debate format he has to get himself on one side of the fence and the others to defend the status quo. Period. Paul has to do what Harry Browne used to do in interview situations against tough guys. I think it may be still up at www.harrybrowne.org, but he used to practice these sound bites and comebacks about ever kind of situation ... libertarian Judo if you will. Harry admitted to me that "I'm really not very fast on my feet", but all that effort made him appear as though he was. Harry literally did a thousand or more interviews with his runs during 96 and 2000. I was a helper with setting some of those up, mainly on radio.

In my opinion, CNN could have given Anderson Cooper the night off and hired Jerry Springer to moderate that one. That whole thing was like a bad joke.

[Perry]

My sentiments from very early on were that Anderson was just too weak. He had almost no control whatsoever and whosoever decided they were going to speak loudly, out of line and beyond their time did so.

[partypooper]

, but he used to practice these sound bites and comebacks about ever kind of situation ... libertarian Judo if you will. Harry admitted to me that "I'm really not very fast on my feet", but all that effort made him appear as though he was.

nobody is as fast on their feet so that they can win a debate without practice. people who think they don't practice actually do. not all practice feels like it.

i don't know how to get this message to the campaign, yet it is absolutely essential. dr paul is not great in debates, and worse, he is not improving. the reason is that he doesn't practice.

he needs to read conservative blogs and perhaps even register and discuss things anonymously. i know that this sounds naive, "he has no time for that" but please trust me, i am a psychologist and i know some stuff.

there is a great danger in spending too much time with campaign stuff and supporters. they are not good in challenging you and, as a result, you don't improve. dr paul needs to spend more time (anonymously, if that is what it takes) with people who disagree with him. those are the only people that can give him the practice that he very obviously needs.

[angrydragon]

Anderson Cooper, CIA Intern

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017368.html

[The Dane]

i don't know how to get this message to the campaign, yet it is absolutely essential. dr paul is not great in debates, and worse, he is not improving. the reason is that he doesn't practice.


But that is just your opnion. I think he is great.

He gets alot of the best practice available: real interviews. And he IS getting better.

Next time you see a youtube from a debate try to pause after the question and answer yourself. Then compare your answer to Ron Paul's. Theres a reason that its him up on that stage and not you. :rolleyes:

[idiom]

I did like the look on Andersons face when the Crowd cheered the conspiracy answer. He couldn't figure that one out. :)

[Maverick]

You know....speaking of Anderson Cooper, did anyone see that weird headshake/eye-roll/whatever thing he did at one point during the debate? He did it when Ron Paul was speaking, or when RP was getting a big applause...I can't remember exactly. It was a look like he was saying "ha, yeah right buddy."

edit: Wow, just as I'm posting this, someone else has the answer. Freaky :p

[Midnight77]

Actually, this question is going to work to our advantage in a BIG WAY.

They are now addressing this on CNN. It was even mentioned with Wolf Blitzer and Ron Paul gave the Government website to go to that proves they were planning this and there have been talks about this. I think he is going to get points for honesty here and distrust of our Government is going to go up even more.

Notice that not even the audience booed him when he gave his answer to this at the debate. The wheels might be turning in their minds on this one.

[WilliamC]

Greetings All,

We were the easy converts. Ron Paul is right on the issues and has the voting record and integrity, but to appeal to the masses he needs to reformat and polish his message to fit into soundbites and interviews. He should have ready answers to commonly asked questions and ready comebacks for common criticisms. I know he has won 10 times in Congress but this is a much bigger task and he needs to develop more mass appeal. Again, the message does not need to be changed, just stated in a way that better appeals to the masses.

And hello HarryBrowneLives, it is my deep regret that Mr. Browne did not live to see what is happening. He always said he believed a libertarian President could be elected in his lifetime, well if he could have lived a few more years he would have seen the ground he prepared growing a new crop of patriots.


William C Colley

[partypooper]

But that is just your opnion. I think he is great.

He gets alot of the best practice available: real interviews. And he IS getting better.

Next time you see a youtube from a debate try to pause after the question and answer yourself. Then compare your answer to Ron Paul's. Theres a reason that its him up on that stage and not you. :rolleyes:

it's not just my opinion - it is an opinion of millions of others. are you reading anything but ron paul forums?

dr paul has by far the highest negativity ratings among republicans and there is a reason for that. he has alienated mainstream republican voters who demand more than "just come home" and "be friends with nations, trade with nations".

dr paul doesn't have good comebacks at all. yesterday he was given a question by wolf blitzer that he head 4 days to prepare for. he was given a fantastic opportunity to address fully the argument by mccain, who was not even there.

did he do well? not really. he didn't even asnwer the charge that isolationism led to hitler, he merely tried to say that iraq was not nazi germany and even that he didn't do very convincingly. i saw better comebacks by dozens of dr paul's supporters at various blogs and columns. and yes, i would do better on many occasions, blasphemous as that sounds to you.

[xao]

This guy is the biggest Troll. He NEVER says anything nice or accurate about Ron.

NEVER


it's not just my opinion - it is an opinion of millions of others. are you reading anything but ron paul forums?

dr paul has by far the highest negativity ratings among republicans and there is a reason for that. he has alienated mainstream republican voters who demand more than "just come home" and "be friends with nations, trade with nations".

dr paul doesn't have good comebacks at all. yesterday he was given a question by wolf blitzer that he head 4 days to prepare for. he was given a fantastic opportunity to address fully the argument by mccain, who was not even there.

did he do well? not really. he didn't even asnwer the charge that isolationism led to hitler, he merely tried to say that iraq was not nazi germany and even that he didn't do very convincingly. i saw better comebacks by dozens of dr paul's supporters at various blogs and columns. and yes, i would do better on many occasions, blasphemous as that sounds to you.

[Minuteman]

Although I 'might' agree to some extent the message needs to be polished somewhat. I think it is the very fact he does well in debates. He comes off honest and sincere. When I hear Huckabee's comments for example all I think is wow, prep much? Which leads me to think the speaker is insencere and pandering to me.
Will see how he does on "The View" tomorrow.

[AtomiC]

nobody is as fast on their feet so that they can win a debate without practice. people who think they don't practice actually do. not all practice feels like it.

i don't know how to get this message to the campaign, yet it is absolutely essential. dr paul is not great in debates, and worse, he is not improving. the reason is that he doesn't practice.

he needs to read conservative blogs and perhaps even register and discuss things anonymously. i know that this sounds naive, "he has no time for that" but please trust me, i am a psychologist and i know some stuff.

there is a great danger in spending too much time with campaign stuff and supporters. they are not good in challenging you and, as a result, you don't improve. dr paul needs to spend more time (anonymously, if that is what it takes) with people who disagree with him. those are the only people that can give him the practice that he very obviously needs.

No I believe you are very wrong sir. Dr. Paul is a very good speaker and if he had enough time at the debates he would demolish the other candidates.

[BillyDkid]

nobody is as fast on their feet so that they can win a debate without practice. people who think they don't practice actually do. not all practice feels like it.

i don't know how to get this message to the campaign, yet it is absolutely essential. dr paul is not great in debates, and worse, he is not improving. the reason is that he doesn't practice.

he needs to read conservative blogs and perhaps even register and discuss things anonymously. i know that this sounds naive, "he has no time for that" but please trust me, i am a psychologist and i know some stuff.

there is a great danger in spending too much time with campaign stuff and supporters. they are not good in challenging you and, as a result, you don't improve. dr paul needs to spend more time (anonymously, if that is what it takes) with people who disagree with him. those are the only people that can give him the practice that he very obviously needs.Actually, I think you are wrong. Ron has won a ton of supporters by virtue of his debate performances and reason is he is not "debating" as we typically use the word. He is not trying to win an argument. He is expressing the things he actually believes. His is not trying to sway voters into voting for him, he is trying bring up issues he thinks are important and those issues happen to resonate with voters. In addition to this the people conducting the debates are trying to marginalize him by ignoring him, not letting him respond to questions to which they know his answers will resonate with voters and deliberately asking loaded questions the equivalent of "When did you stop beating your wife?" and given those circumstances I think Ron does very well.

[shadowhooch]

My sentiments from very early on were that Anderson was just too weak. He had almost no control whatsoever and whosoever decided they were going to speak loudly, out of line and beyond their time did so.

Yep, Anderson Cooper is no Tavis Smiley from the PBS debate (most fair one so far). Tavis kept those guys in check and didn't let ANYONE speak more than 1 second over their time. Anderson Cooper looks tough; but he's the biggest pushover yet. I knew there would be trouble when he opened the debate saying the candidates would be using the "honor" system. Yeah right, what is he thinking? Politicians using the honor system. Gimme a break.

Who would of thought the PBS debate would have been the fairest?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Actually, this question is going to work to our advantage in a BIG WAY.

They are now addressing this on CNN. It was even mentioned with Wolf Blitzer and Ron Paul gave the Government website to go to that proves they were planning this and there have been talks about this. I think he is going to get points for honesty here and distrust of our Government is going to go up even more.

Notice that not even the audience booed him when he gave his answer to this at the debate. The wheels might be turning in their minds on this one.

I agree with you. There's a video at the botton of this link with the Wolf Blitzer interview.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Ron_Paul_Iraq_not_Nazi_Germany_1202.html

As far as Paul speaking, he doesn't throw soundbites at people all that well and they get purposely mangled in the media. I think people see that when he has enough time to have a conversation, he very much knows what he's talking about. The video above is a good example of that. It was also very fair to Paul compared to many previous interviews.

[Question_Authority]

This guy is the biggest Troll. He NEVER says anything nice or accurate about Ron.

NEVER

Do you know who you people sound like? Bush-sheep!

"If you're not with us, you're against us"

I happen to agree that Ron Paul needs to work on his debate answers and his interview answers. He misses a lot of opportunities, his eyes shift a lot, and he starts off a lot of answers with "welllll...."

I love the man to death, but he could have used some speech coaching. Too late now.

[Question_Authority]

Paul should also STAND UP FOR HIMSELF at the debates and SAY SOMETHING about the bias. HE PAID for that microphone. Big money. And he is not just hurting himself by not insisting on fair treatment, he is hurting ALL of us.

Now, before you call me a troll, realize I just happen to have my own mind and my own opinions. I don't follow ANY leader blindly.

[rockwell]

it's not just my opinion - it is an opinion of millions of others. are you reading anything but ron paul forums?

dr paul has by far the highest negativity ratings among republicans and there is a reason for that. he has alienated mainstream republican voters who demand more than "just come home" and "be friends with nations, trade with nations".

dr paul doesn't have good comebacks at all. yesterday he was given a question by wolf blitzer that he head 4 days to prepare for. he was given a fantastic opportunity to address fully the argument by mccain, who was not even there.

did he do well? not really. he didn't even asnwer the charge that isolationism led to hitler, he merely tried to say that iraq was not nazi germany and even that he didn't do very convincingly. i saw better comebacks by dozens of dr paul's supporters at various blogs and columns. and yes, i would do better on many occasions, blasphemous as that sounds to you.

I'm a mainstream republican, voted that way all my life, have served as a precinct captain, pollwatcher, etc and I am a combat veteran, so when I tell you that I think you're mistaken about how we feel, my opinion counts as much as yours. Wars must be declared by Congress, not launched by the President on a whim, it's in the Constitution, Iraq is not a declared war, so whatever opinion people might have about "finishing the job" is completely immaterial- it's UNCONSTUTIONAL.

Period, end of story.

Now if you want to advocate for the overthrow of the Constitutional Rpeublic, then you aren't a "mainstream republican", your a traitor to the United States and it's founding principals- and frankly I am surprised that with all the support you seem to think you have you don't just admit to wanting to overthorw the Constitution Republic and form a tyrannical dictatorship where the Executive Branch is unencumbered with the need to adhere to the Constitution, at least then I'd admire your honesty, as it stands you're not only a threat to our Nation, your duplicitous besides.

I think it's time to start calling a a spade a spade, the people in the current administration- and that includes the Democrats- are the ones who hate America, who want to eradicate her soveriegnty and open her borders and replace our monetary system and wage wars with whomever they like in order to steal their resources and eradicate their cultures.

[driller80545]

I like Dr. Paul because he doesn't come across as a smooth, polished, pandering politician.

[partypooper]

I'm a mainstream republican, voted that way all my life, have served as a precinct captain, pollwatcher, etc and I am a combat veteran, so when I tell you that I think you're mistaken about how we feel....

when i say 'mainstream republican' i mean average republican - not the ideal republican, or the republican most in line with the principles of the party. average republican has a mild interest in constitution. for him, constitution is just one of several arguments that matter. if things were as you say, dr paul would be at 99%, not 5%.

that might be undesirable, but it is a world we live in and the world in which dr paul wants to win the nomination.



No I believe you are very wrong sir. Dr. Paul is a very good speaker and if he had enough time at the debates he would demolish the other candidates.

what would have happened had he been treated fairly is irrelevant. the media is what it is, and though it will eventually meet its well-deserved end, right now it still matters. the only thing that i am saying is that dr paul should try to make the most effective use of the little time he is given. though his record and position are strong enough that he can never perform terribly, there is plenty of space for improvement and i would like to see him take that space, especially when he is asked the same question over and over again.

[RickNHouston]

I like Dr. Paul because he doesn't come across as a smooth, polished, pandering politician.

Amen brother !!!

[Pete]

Who would of thought the PBS debate would have been the fairest?

ALL debates ought to be hosted by PBS. They have many good heads there, and we would not be seeing the shenanigans we've seen from Fox and CNN.


As far as how RP does in debates, it was his performance in the NH debate that caught my attention.

Even though he gets at most 1/3 the face time of the "front runners", he makes a terrific impact. He has NEVER been stymied by a debate question. Honesty really is the best policy!

[Revolution9]

ALL debates ought to be hosted by PBS. They have many good heads there, and we would not be seeing the shenanigans we've seen from Fox and CNN.


As far as how RP does in debates, it was his performance in the NH debate that caught my attention.

Even though he gets at most 1/3 the face time of the "front runners", he makes a terrific impact. He has NEVER been stymied by a debate question. Honesty really is the best policy!

90% of the people who are RP converts i speak with did so after one of his debate performances.

Best Regards
Randy

[partypooper]

90% of the people who are RP converts i speak with did so after one of his debate performances.

not to be overly negative, but that statistic is irrelevant. the relevant statistic for establishing debate performance is the percent out of total people who watch the debates who convert to dr paul - and not the one you mention, the percent of supporters that come from watching debates. if anything, your example just shows how important debates are.

if you are not convinced you can see that from the extreme case: imagine you have one supporter and he was converted to dr paul by watching a debate. that would mean that 100% supporters became so by watching debates, but less 1% actually convert....

[Todd]

I'll agree that Paul could use some polish, but it doesn't help that he only gets to talk in debates after there almost over.

[WilliamC]

Greetings All,


No I believe you are very wrong sir. Dr. Paul is a very good speaker and if he had enough time at the debates he would demolish the other candidates.


I'm not wanting him to change the message. I just want him to be able to maximize his delivery when he DOESN'T have enough time. As unfortunate as it is soundbites rule the airwaves, and he knows what kinds of questions to expect. He should have some great combacks at hand when he gets them.

William C Colley

[malibu]

i don't know how to get this message to the campaign, yet it is absolutely essential. dr paul is not great in debates, and worse, he is not improving. the reason is that he doesn't practice.



I like Ron Paul in debates - he is quick witted and energetic - and certainly more confident of his support now -
there's no sloooow drawl like from McLame as he tries to think of a sound bite to insert - "just come on and spit it out Senator"

One problem though may be that RP is coming across as contentious in the debates -
really because of the types of questions.

People who've met him on the campaign trail can acknowledge he comes across as warm and personable in person, and a candidate you could have a beer or sit around a pizza with.

[pacelli]

nobody is as fast on their feet so that they can win a debate without practice. people who think they don't practice actually do. not all practice feels like it.

i don't know how to get this message to the campaign, yet it is absolutely essential. dr paul is not great in debates, and worse, he is not improving. the reason is that he doesn't practice.

he needs to read conservative blogs and perhaps even register and discuss things anonymously. i know that this sounds naive, "he has no time for that" but please trust me, i am a psychologist and i know some stuff.

there is a great danger in spending too much time with campaign stuff and supporters. they are not good in challenging you and, as a result, you don't improve. dr paul needs to spend more time (anonymously, if that is what it takes) with people who disagree with him. those are the only people that can give him the practice that he very obviously needs.


Nice to have another psychologist on the boards :) I am a clinical psychologist and I'm wondering about the psychological basis of your opinion. What specific indicators have you observed that led you to conclude that Dr. Paul hasn't had enough practice?

[partypooper]

I am a clinical psychologist and I'm wondering about the psychological basis of your opinion.

by being a clinical psychologist you are - as far as i am concerned - a part of one of the most harmful frauds ever to be pulled on the (american) people. so you are really in no position to call me to substantiate anything.

however, for the sake of others - it comes from research initiated by newel and simon (the nobel prize winner) and taken over by chase and erricson and others. what they learned is that practice improves performance a lot (practice in chess, in math, in any sort of cognitive endeavor, such as debates) because it, in essence, makes your memory better, so you are able to retrieve the answer to a question within a second, rather than having to think about it. in the similar way in which chess grand-masters do not need to think about what to do - at least in the familiar situations - people who practiced debating a certain topic do not need to think about it, they automatically retrieve the best answer (their own answer!) from memory. if you practice enough you don't have regrets when coming out of debates of "i could have said this", "if only i remembered that example...". you remember all the examples because you go through the same argument many times - that is what practice is all about.