Ron Paul in the debate TONIGHT!

[Correia]

Slick hair-dos, fast talking, and flip-flopping don't impress me at all.

Yeah, but the purpose of the debates isn't to convince the faithful, it is to convince the undecided. And in that case, being able to speak clearly, motivate, and look like a leader is very important. The average voter, who actually picks the president, isn't a very deep person. And you need to convince them.

Just like it isn't the audience's fault if they don't "get" a movie. It is the film makers fault for not reaching his audience. Good directors know this, and make good movies. Bad directors complain that the audience doesn't understand his "art".

Same thing for candidates. If you fail to convince the voter, then it isn't the voters fault, or the news, or the other side, the failure is on the candidate.

 

[ArmedBear]

Anyone that doesn't believe that our foreign policy invites terrorist attacks is a fool.

But you and many others ignore the important question: SO WHAT?

Did our foreign policy invite Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor? Yup. They were ticked off at our blockades and our assistance to the nations they were conquering. They wanted Burmese and Chinese natural resources and Korean women to rape, without our interference.

Would appeasing Japan have invited an attack on Pearl Harbor? Yup. They wanted control over the Pacific, and apart from Hawaii, they had it. If anything, appeasing Japan would have done one thing only: allowed it to become stronger before it attacked us -- just like England's appeasement of Hitler did. Were it not for the US, England would have been German by 1942, as France was in 1940 already.

The fact that our foreign policy angers murderous bastards who then attack us doesn't mean that policy is wrong. It might be, and it might not. However the idea that our policy incites terrorists to attack us -- terrorists who dream of subjugate the world to their brutal totalitarian rule -- is not an argument against that policy.

And it matters none if Noam Chomsky or Ron Paul says it is. Libertarian or Marxist, the point is the same, and it's wrong.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Yeah, but the purpose of the debates isn't to convince the faithful, it is to convince the undecided. And in that case, being able to speak clearly, motivate, and look like a leader is very important. The average voter, who actually picks the president, isn't a very deep person. And you need to convince them.

I didn't get to watch the debate. How would you compare Ron Paul to, say, the current Commander in Chief as far as speaking ability?

And it matters none if Noam Chomsky or Ron Paul says it is. Libertarian or Marxist, the point is the same, and it's wrong.

Right. Because Iran didn't deserve an elected president in the '50's, and we had a right to impose the Shah on them in our interests. And those who say "the US essentially traded a a democratically elected ruler in Iran for the Ayatollah through its interventionist actions" are just twisting the facts to suit their pacifists pansy beliefs!

Or is that not what you're saying?

 

[ArmedBear]

being able to speak clearly, motivate, and look like a leader is very important

Exactly.

If we didn't learn that from the last 14 years, what the hell DID we learn? Bush's failures have often been failures to communicate. A different person could have gotten some Social Security privatization, but he failed, miserably. Why? Lack of ability to speak clearly and motivate!

Want someone to help lead our country in a good direction? He/she had better be able to act like a leader.

Ever hear Harry Browne speak? He was wonderful to listen to. He was inspiring. He probably converted a number of people to his way of thinking. Those abilities are VITAL if you want to make political change happen. They're not the only abilities that matter, but they matter as much as any.

Whom do we remember?

FDR, Reagan, Kennedy, Lincoln, TR. Why? They were good speakers. Their policies were all different, and some were downright terrible. But others with great or terrible policies weren't remembered, because they didn't make them happen!

 

[ServiceSoon]

You mean "text message poll"

On INTERNET POLLS!

Which happens to have a completely different demographic voting pool compared to internet polls. TWo polls in a row showed Ron Paul at the top....hmmm

As THR members, who are all a voting “group” with common voting preferences, we need to come to the realization that Ron Paul has an enormous chance at winning the Republican nomination. I think this is due to America citizens finally being fed-up with the same old politicians making promises they won't keep.

Watch out! Romney admitted that he would PASS an Assault weapon ban if elected!

 

[Correia]

Derek, George Bush can barely speak, but when he is on, he is on, and he's got that weird "home spun, regular guy" thing going for him in debates that people go for. Don't ask me to explain why it works, but it does.

Bill Clinton, as much as I despise the man, was the absolute master of that. He could sway people easily, and even though he was evil, was probably the best "politician" of my lifetime.

If you have 51% of the voters behind you, then you can give a speech to motivate the faithful, but when you've only got a couple percent, you damn well better be able to sway the undecided.

As for whether our policy going back to the 1950s was right or not is irrelevant. People want an answer for what do we do NOW. So if part of that is "don't screw around in other people's business" fine, say that, but you better be able to have something to say about how you intend to fix the current problem.

Ron Paul doesn't need to motivate the fraction of a percentage of Americans that post on gunboards, he needs to reach the masses that vote. Last night he did the opposite of that, and gave Rudy a boost.

As for the news not backing him, or it being some grand repub conspiracy to keep him down, whatever, still don't matter. A good candidate overcomes that, smacks down the opposition, and becomes so popular that the news media has no choice but to pay attention.

I'm sick and tired of settling for second best, or least evil, but it would be real nice if we could actually run somebody I agree with who didn't look like a doddering coot next to those polished, flip floppers with nice hair.

 

[Biker]

Romney actually went on record saying he'd sign an AWB?

Biker

 

[ravnew]

Biker, yes Romney said that he believes in the 2A but also supports an AWB.

 

[seektruth]

Correia, I understand what you're saying. However, I think that there are a lot of people out there discovering Ron Paul, and realizing that its his message that counts, not his presentation. And I don't really think he gave Rudy a boost, for a few reasons I don't have time to explain now. We'll have to agree to disagree.

The problem is that Ron Paul needs to do more than spout off the party line in these debates. He needs to educate, and that takes time. With the current opportunities he is presented with, that's an impossible task. There's not much chance he'll get the opportunities that he should, but I still fully support him.

I'd like to mention this...I've been telling people about Paul and they're usually pleasantly surprised when they actually take a little time to research him. His grassroots support is spreading fast.

 

[Biker]

Ravnew...

Well, I didn't support the bastige before, but now he's definately out of my cool book.

Biker

 

[gego]

Of course Ron Paul will not win. He can not win because the overwhelming majority do not want freedom; they want to be taken care of; being taken care of includes not only the welfare state, but gun control.

He can not win because he tells the truth. One of the truths he told last night was that our government foreign intervention has made us hated in many quarters around the world. The crowd does not want to hear that our government might be at fault, particularly since so many people have as part of their identity, American, and cannot distinguish between themselves and their government.

The long 200+ year march from freedom to slavery is just about complete.

 

[antarti]

Yeah, but the purpose of the debates isn't to convince the faithful, it is to convince the undecided.

With such a divided Presidential electorate, the undecided come down to something like 4% of voters. If the GOP faithful stay home (cough, Guiliani, Romney, cough), you can win all the "undecideds" and lose big.

Whom do we remember?
FDR, Reagan, Kennedy, Lincoln, TR. Why? They were good speakers.

Anybody who lived through the past 8 years is also going to remember Bush also, precisely for his lack (not despite his lack) of speaking skills.

Frankly none to few of us have ever heard Lincoln, Teddy, and FDR deliver a speech. They are "remembered" because they are the ones we read (ok, were made to read) about in school, which is a whole other can of worms... and I'm not opening it up except to point it out.

Bottom line: We heard about them (over obviously much better Presidents) because somebody else decided we should and built an industry/agenda around them.

That brings me to 2 points:

1) I don't want my consent "manufactured" with "Rudy McRomney" (like it was with TR/FDR/Lincoln when I was young).

2) The Republican Party is one area where Ron Paul knows better. IMHO, he IS being disingenuous while rubbing the GOPs rhetoric in its face: The Republican party was, and still is, the corporatist/mercantilist party of Lincoln in every way/shape/form. I find the irony delicious, and watching so-called conservatives/neoCONs/Evangelicals/all-other-fragments-of-the-GOP try and cope with somebody who is truly "conservative" (unlike the GOP itself, but like its rhetoric) is pure delight. Dr. Paul stands to bring down the very miltiary-industrial-media complex the "conservative commentators" rail about (pro when it suits them, con when not
). Frankly that scares them.

They know what side of the bread the butter's on. I'd like to keep my own "buddah" (money, rights) for a change.

A good candidate overcomes that, smacks down the opposition, and becomes so popular that the news media has no choice but to pay attention.

Don't you have it backwards? The media gives us the analysis, sound bites, etc, all neatly packaged (read: carefully edited) for our consumption. They draw/distract our attention, not try and respond to it.

 

[Deanimator]

Anyone that doesn't believe that our foreign policy invites terrorist attacks is a fool. It may not be popular but that doesn't make it untrue. Dr. Paul still polled ahead of Rudy.

Our foreign policy has in the past also invited attack by the Tripoli Corsairs, Britain, Germany, and Japan. That doesn't mean that foreign policy was wrong.

Your wearing nice clothes and driving a nice car invites mugger and carjacker attacks. So what?

Ron Paul was merely running true to Libertarian form with which I've been familiar since the 1970s. That's why I'll NEVER vote for a Libtertarian.

 

[Deanimator]

Biker, yes Romney said that he believes in the 2A but also supports an AWB.

I just heard him say that in a clip on the Dennis Praeger show.

Romney's off the list.

I will NEVER vote for Giuliani, EVER.

I will now NEVER vote for Romney, EVER.

 

[Deanimator]

I didn't get to watch the debate. How would you compare Ron Paul to, say, the current Commander in Chief as far as speaking ability?

George Bush says essentially sensible things badly.

Ron Paul says existential gibberish badly.

 

[Biker]

Listening to Limbaugh on the radio, he is, predictably, doing his best to subtly discredit Paul while supporting Rudy.
Sad...

Biker

 

[thrasher64]

I think Paul did well and is getting tons of press from this. Sure most of it is questionable, some bad and some good. But his name recognition just shot up by 1000%

 

[cbsbyte]

What Ron Paul said is not the issue but how he said it. I actually completely agree with is assessment on the reason for 9/11 but he should have not said it so bluntly. For the most part Republicans voters only want to hear the Pro America stance, and don't want to hear how our actions in the middle east have endangered us over the years. We are as much to blame for 9/11 as the terrorist that did it.

 

[Correia]

Don't you have it backwards? The media gives us the analysis, sound bites, etc, all neatly packaged (read: carefully edited) for our consumption. They draw/distract our attention, not try and respond to it.

No, I don't have it wrong. The day of media stranglehold on information is done. But being able to blame the media/establishment/stupid voters for not winning is standard Libertarian playbook.

I'm sick and tired of us losing, and then whining about it. So many of us here don't really want to win, because then we can't play the victim anymore, and whine about how we're pure, but the system is broken, so we can't win.

We lose, and then we say it is because people "can't handle the truth". Well, who's fault is that? Theirs, or ours, for failing to present our position?

Which happens to have a completely different demographic voting pool compared to internet polls. TWo polls in a row showed Ron Paul at the top....hmmm

Unless it is a scientific poll of registered Republicans who are going to be voting in the primaries, then it doesn't mean jack squat.

 

[Deanimator]

I think Paul did well and is getting tons of press from this. Sure most of it is questionable, some bad and some good. But his name recognition just shot up by 1000%

Dennis Kucinich has 1,000 times the name recognition of Ron Paul.

Do you think Kucinich has ANY chance of becoming President of the United States?

 

[Deanimator]

What Ron Paul said is not the issue but how he said it. I actually completely agree with is assessment on the reason for 9/11 but he should have not said it so bluntly.

Paul's claims are errant nonsense.

I'm not living in my own personal "Goundhog Day", so I actually remember the criticisms of Bush just before 9/11. He wasn't involved in the Middle East ENOUGH, or so they were saying THEN. I guess he took THAT criticism to heart...

 

[cbsbyte]

Paul's claims are errant nonsense.

Thats nice but you are wrong.

 

[Correia]

To be asked what we should be doing about terrorism now, should not be answered with what was done wrong in the past, but rather what we intend to do about it now.

Because even if we did screw up since the 1950-present, it is what it is now. And there are lots and lots of very bad men who've made it their goal in life to kill as many of us as possible.

I don't like using analogies in debates, but it is like being diagnosed with cancer.

"I'm sorry, you have colon cancer."
"Okay Doc, what should I do about it?"
"Well, you should have ate more fiber."
"Okay, agreed, but what do I do now?"
"You should have ate more fiber."
"All right, but what do I do now?"
ad nauseum.

Whether we should have gotten involved with the shah of Iran doesn't matter now. We've got tens of thousands of very bad people who want to saw our heads off, and that needs to be addressed. A good leader is going to have to address that.

 

[Tim James]

I love it how "personal responsibility" (i.e., Muslims flying planes into our buildings) goes out the window when it's time for self-flaggelation about America. We've done some dumb things, Muslim terrorists are evil people, let's move on.

I didn't actually see the debate, but I can't decide if this is good because it raises awareness about Ron Paul and his other good ideas or if it's bad because it made Rudy look good with the simpleton crowd. Maybe I should stop arrogantly worrying about it and just hope Magical Fred Thompson swoops in to save the day.

 

[Deanimator]

Maybe I should stop arrogantly worrying about it and just hope Magical Fred Thompson swoops in to save the day.

That's my only hope. I thought Romney MIGHT be palatable until he expressed his contempt for the Second Amendment.

It's starting to look as though it's either Thompson or no trip to the voting booth for me.