PDA

View Full Version : Ron Did Fine, But Have Suggestions.




HarryBrowneLives
01-05-2008, 11:09 PM
i have some suggestions here and want your input. I thought Ron did fine overall. It didn't look like he felt that well. I thought that ABC set it up pretty well for him.

1. With the war issue, he has to mix it up a bit. It is too predictable for the other debaters.

(A) Instead of getting boxed into the "blaming America for 9/11" game. He should address it as "some of the people in Washington". Everyone is for "America" most everyone is against "Washington".

(B) Call these guys on "Ronald Regan" refrences associated with this war. Ronald Regan was VERY opposed to the idea of nation building in ANY form. Gooliani tried that tonight.

(C) Instead of "spreading democracy", "Some people in Washington" have been going around the world picking and choosing which countries are run by the WRONG group of thugs. Supporting dictators is NOT democracy. He lead into this some but didn't hit it on the head. It demonstrates that the neocon philosopy doesn't match with the hearts of American's supporting the war effort.

(D) Harry's argument about IRAQ ... Sadam was hated by the radicals so there was never a link to terrisom since he was secular. You could by alcohol in Bagdad during his reign. Even if he had WMD's wouldn't have made more sense for him to attack us AFTER we had invaded? Why would a tin-horn dictator pull on Superman's cape?

(E) He was a hated dictator when "These people in Washington" supported him.

The Oboma Question:

Not a bad job, but I thought he had a BIG chance to Seriously seperate himself not just from Oboma, but the rest of the field.

Just my 2 cents. But, I thought he did OK.

FreedomProsperityPeace
01-05-2008, 11:29 PM
He should've changed the way he framed his message on the war on terror a long time ago. Going into the reasons terrorists attack us isn't working.

Connecting our interventionist foreign policy back to problems that affect everyday Americans would be more effective IMO. We're going into record deficits and national debt because of these wars. How many of our problems are a result of spending on these wars?

tfelice
01-05-2008, 11:40 PM
He should've changed the way he framed his message on the war on terror a long time ago. Going into the reasons terrorists attack us isn't working.

Connecting our interventionist foreign policy back to problems that affect everyday Americans would be more effective IMO. We're going into record deficits and national debt because of these wars. How many of our problems are a result of spending on these wars?

Yeah I agree. When he talks foreign policy he is constantly playing defense. His presentation isn't working and isn't helping gain him support. Why Paul hasn't realized this and changed gears to play to the GOP base better is beyond me. Poll numbers for the most part have been flat since early November. IA & WY were big dissapointments, and with the exception of one poll his numbers in NH aren't getting much better. It's high time that the message and presentation are seriously modified, but I fear that Paul is unable to do so.

tfelice
01-05-2008, 11:47 PM
I think he made a mistake with his platform: it should be something along the lines of: "We need to make this nation invulnerable to terrorism by fostering good relations with every country in the world. But we must not neglect the security side by making sure we are safe and protected while the transition is under way and I propose to do that by re-organizing the CIA and making the CIA transparent and accountable to the people. And another way I will make the USA safer is to improve the border security so that if there are terrorists (yeah, I know, I'm a 9/11 truther myself) around even NOW, I will make SURE they cannot ever bring in any weapons or ordnance or anything of that nature into this country. And even with 300,000 troops abroad, can any of my fellow candidates guarantee the safety of the nation as I have? We must face the fact that we already have in the world today 500 suitcase nukes loose and that even if we posted our military in every country, we are still vulnerable. My solution is the ultimate solution that makes us secure and yet not belligerent; protected and yet a friendly nation to all the peoples of the world. And if there is another attack despite the security measures I will promise the American people, I will PUNISH those who ignored warnings and suppressed intelligence even if I have to punish people right in my OWN government. We are a nation as one, and I promise I will have a foreign policy that puts America first, second and last."

If the message were framed like that the campaign would be in the upper teens to low 20's by now.

On a scale of 1 to 10 I give the RP policies a 9, but I give the candidate a 4.

Leslie Webb
01-05-2008, 11:47 PM
When four or five of the others gang up on him tonight, I would like to see him ask them, "How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq?" and "Why did we invade Iraq if none of the hijackers were from there and Iraq had no connection with 9/11?"

tfelice
01-05-2008, 11:50 PM
When four or five of the others gang up on him tonight, I would like to see him ask them, "How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq?" and "Why did we invade Iraq if none of the hijackers were from there and Iraq had no connection with 9/11?"

I don't know Leslie. He's done that kind of stuff before and it just doesn't sell. It fires up the grassroots, but does nothing to pull in the GOP base.

HarryBrowneLives
01-06-2008, 12:22 AM
He should've changed the way he framed his message on the war on terror a long time ago. Going into the reasons terrorists attack us isn't working.

Connecting our interventionist foreign policy back to problems that affect everyday Americans would be more effective IMO. We're going into record deficits and national debt because of these wars. How many of our problems are a result of spending on these wars?

Agreed. The problem is the message in that context. He has to put the message into sound bites in a debate format. He does well in interviews where he can explain it a more. A debate is NOT an interview and he never really changes that approach.

This can be MUCh MORE of a winner for him, but it needs to be framed as anti washington, anti big government, anti Regan ... and point out the idea that war is sometimes neccesary in case of WW2, but the neocons see war or threat of war as the ONLY alternative in EVERY situation. McCain 100 years in Iraq? Etc.

Don't be nervous or timid about it. THEY are (or people like them who have) supporting TERRIBLE dictatorships around the world ... Sadam, Airistede, The Shah, Musharref, CIA coups of democraticly elected presidents in El salvador a Brazil that left those countries under military rule for 20 years, the lsit is endless. What will they do when the Iraqis elect Al Sauder?

In other words, let's use Stalin's famous quote:

"You have to break a few eggs to make an omlette", but nobody ever worried about who has to clean up all the dirty dishes. It is the collective failed foriegn policy adventures of several administrations that have left this pile for the American people where we have more enimes and less friends than ever before. Their only answer is to break more eggs faster ... meaning suppoting hated regimes and war or threats of war is the ONLY alternative.

Regan said it best ... "Peace is not the absence of conflict, but rather, the inability to handle conflict through a peaceful means."

HarryBrowneLives
01-06-2008, 12:30 AM
OOPS ... It's getting late ... I meant to say "show them as Anti-Regan" not us.