Yeah, that last question was stupid, but Paul got some great camera time talking about Iraq. And that crowd was fantastic. All the exchanges involving him were the liveliest portions of the debate, and will probably get replayed over and over.
I think he did outstanding as well, but I have no notions of MSM fairness.
"Masterful and arrogant wealth, created largely by Government protection of its profits, not content with its domination and influence within a single party, had sought to corrupt them both, and to that end had insinuated itself into the primaries, in order that no candidates might be nominated whose views were not in accord with theirs." (‘Colonel’ Edward Mandell House in 'Philip Dru: Administrator', circa 1912)
Most of the upsetness comes over the format. Before this debate it seemed perhaps the MSM was going to let it play out a natural course; the setup of questions sorta drove the point home that we will have to fight our way tooth and nail. Tancredo's gift basket of a debate leaves a bit of resentment, but anyone can see how they were playing it out. At least in the end it gave most of the other candidates a chance to devour each other. Tancredo comes out ahead, Huckabee didn't get bloodied as much as he should have if only because Rudy and Mitt seem obsessed with each other rather than strategic action. McCain obviously lost in the true realm of debate with Paul, but I fear he didn't come off as poorly on TV as he ought have.
That's about how I feel anyways - just makes me feel like I need to personally put in that much extra effort to drive the truth home.
The questions selected was most disappointing to me, though I didn't expect the media would give a fair and equal spot for RP as he isn't in the "top 3". Also is it just me or does McLuhan seem to be talking about this present debate in the past? http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZF8jej3j5vA&feature=related
Ron was awesome. My problem is with CNN. They limited his awesomeness to 7 minutes.
....
Last edited by F3d; 02-24-2008 at 10:13 AM.
Let me see...
the crowd was harsh, the performance was poor, and the questions were well ... questionable.
You all need to get over the MSM bitterness. RP did fairly well. True that there was more camera time on R*R, but they made themselves look bad. The biggest losers of this debate were R*R.
Not to say there wasn't bias, but everyone got mugged. RP managed to not be mugged but wasn't soft pitched either. It was a fair, biased debate.
Wasn't he referring to the Kurds...?Originally Posted by F3d
I was pissed too like others as it first aired and I caught bits and pieces. After watching the rerun tonight in its entirety, I don't think it was that bad. We always seem to over react to these things right after they happen.
I'm negative because if I wanted to watch an advertisement for Mitt Romney and Giuliani then I'd hope to see that on their paid TV spots and not on a 'news' channel that is supposed to be giving us a 'democratic' view of all the candidates in all fairness. The break down of talking minutes clearly shows bias and it's not suprising the polls are as they are. It's no longer journalism when you influence the outcome.
'"No army can stop an idea whose time has come!" - Ron Paul 2007
The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself... Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable. - H. L. Mencken
Ron Paul made excellent points - the problem was, CNN gave him almost ZERO air time. Here he is, polling ahead of Thompson *and* Huckabee in NH, and he's still being treated like a nobody by CNN.
This just reinforces my belief that we - on the grassroots level - are going to be the "make or break" of this campaign. It's up to each and every one of us to get Dr. Paul's name and ideas in front of the general public, because the main stream media sure as hell aren't going to do it.
From what I read the whole event was a wonderful experience.
However, CNN did try to marginalize him by giving him very little speaking time. It's obvious they are trying to control this election. But by doing so they only give us MORE MOTIVATION to do WHATEVER it takes for him to win!
I agree completely. I don't think there were any clear winners at this one. Paul succeeded, if not by hitting a home run, at least by not coming off like a complete fool like most of them did.
Rudy and Romney destroyed each other. Tom and Hunt looked irrelevant.
McCain looked bigger than he is. He can only mention his Thanksgiving dinner so many times. He's low on support and low on money. He's not even a veep candidate.
Thompson? Where is your make up artist? He looks like a reanimated corpse compared to his L&O days.
RP.. you weren't fantastic. You stumbled and brain farted. The response to that final question was great. RP is guilty of being too much friendly grandpa and not enough charismatic leader. But he has it in him. We see it every now and then. Every speech. Every debate. He shuffles up. He shuffles through some speeches. He shuffles away. But when he speakse, he SPEAKS. If RP can find and market his emotion he has a chance; if he resigns himself to puttering he'll be the best funded non-candidate ever. How's that for a record?
Cause for real concern is Huck. Huck has no money, but he's somehow garnering support in the important states. Who is his manager and can we buy him? He owns the religious vote. He'll never win the nom but he's the VP lock. At his point Huck will pick the ticket he runs on rather than a ticket pick Huck. Either way, outside of our man Huck is on a ticket. No denying it.
EDIT: if anyone won this debate, it was Huck. he's very teflon right now.
Last edited by chestertime; 11-29-2007 at 01:44 AM. Reason: edit explained
I thought it was good in that Paul's ad came last. I was eagerly anticipating it. And CNN knew we'd watch until they showed it. Smart move on their part. ALSO Ron got some of the last words in when he got to declare that there was a rEVOLution going on and he was glad to be a part of it. I thought it was nice on CNN's part to have a bunch of RP stuff in the parting shot.
Wait they just pissed me off. Some guy on CNN said the Philly rally got only 2000 at best (like that's a bad thing). Go get 'em, guys. What a-holes.
why? here is why.
I wish Ron would quit using the same analogies over and over...such as "if we made a bad diagnosis"....
The reason being is that I consider the others rehearsed career politicians..I prefer when Ron looks unscripted. He also is less interesting because mostly the same people watch these debates I believe...can't use the same lines over and over or it's boring and scripted.
THANK GOD Ron finally mentioned in public, standing next to the other candidates who love the war and believe anyone against it hates the troops....that HE has received more money from active military than all other GOP...the delivery was not the best though, and I think it went under many peoples radar. I would have liked to have listened to a response from McCain about that one....it got pushed aside real fast though.
The questions were stupid and targeted.....but every debate so far has had stupid questions. These debates are utterly retarded...only certain people get to answer certain question....and they target the questions with bias. I wish they would simply ask a question and go down the line so we see how each person stands on each issue...
Last edited by JohnnyWrath; 11-29-2007 at 02:13 AM.
i think that, over months, dr paul's debate performances began to drift towards rally speeches. and that is a big mistake. the keywords (e.g. "freedom") that fire up your supporters who understand their meaning and implications often come as empty phrases to non-insiders.
Actually one of the keys to successfully campaigning and marketing your ideas is repitition. Its not like all the people who watched this debate have heard all of his analogies in previous debates. Its GOOD that he keeps repeating them, as it brings the analgy to new listeners. You obviously don't know much about marketing effectively! And besides, this debate was probably MUCH more watched than any debate previously, simply because its actually during a politically charged time, whereas most of the other debates took place when most people were not paying attention to politics.
In the 'analysis hour' following the debate on CNN, Cooper aired that exchange between McCain and Paul. However, it was edited. Watch it. Dr. Paul's comment about receiving more money from active military than any other candidate was REMOVED, and it was the first thing he said in his response to McCain. Cooper started Dr. Paul's response at his second sentence, effectively removing the donations comment -- without so much as an apology or mention to the troops who made those donations.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us