(10/26/11) Ron Paul on Fox News - Official Thread

[fatjohn]

Grr have to find the links now that are buried in this thread. Matt, if you per se want to start official threads, do it right and edit your first post when the tubes come up.

 

[bunklocoempire]

The Krauthammer exchange on the Suez/Panama Canal question was awesome: "Study it, talk to the Congress, identify the enemy, declare war, go in, win and be done with it."

BOOM. You could literally see Krautie's nuts shrink up to his throat.

Krautie's neck always looks like that...

But seriously...

That gem from Paul is gold. "..win and be done with it" is a strategy much more preferable to nation building, bribing, making money on any outcome any which way from Sunday, and most importantly -with minimal loss of life.

I'll be using this one on the "He's weak on defense" strategically challenged crowd.


Bunkloco

 

[idiom]

Dunno what ya'll are on about. It was great.

However I may be a tad biased because when RP says three words and then moves to the next sentence I hear the entire paragraph he was about to unravel and skip to the next sentence with him.

People who don't know RP's stock answers by heart really don't have a hope of following at that pace.

However, that is why he has us. Every person who gets his positions becomes rabid. Its working, it just needs to work faster. We have to put in all the extra time ourselves.

Even Jesus only bothered converting 12 people directly.

 

[SharedSacrifice]

I agree. It just seems like Ron has done a 180 on the immigration issue since 2007. He's become influenced by the Libertarian Party on this issue. I remember he had some hardcore anti illegal immigration ads back in 2007.

He really hasn't. He just never went into the detail. Bachmann has evaded what she'd do. Ron's record of VOTES speaks for itself. The TONE of the ads was unnecessary, but I don't think his positions have changed at all.

That's the thing. If I didn't know all about Ron's voting record, I probably wouldn't support him. He really has an unbelievable voting record overall, and really even a very conservative one. But I just wouldn't get that if I simply listened to him in interviews like this and the debates. It's just frustrating to me that he goes on a show on Fox News and acts like he's giving an interview on MSNBC.

I agree it is frustrating and I think it is because many of staff nearest to him are movement libertarians and have an exaggerated opinion of Johnson's potential influence. I think they are simply wrong, if that is the case. Paul people are Paul people.

I find the above exchange interesting as I evidently must now research the content (and apparently 'tone') of those 2007 ads as well as some person name "Johnson" (not Gary I hope)...and an entire movement within this party apparently (or even potentially) influencing RP's campaign presentation.

The two-way fence question was a legitimate one and simply yet another example of somebody willing to say "hey, slow down a bit and explain this one for us..." resulting in an answer that at least I frankly would have to go back and view again before I could even comment on it (which isn't good if you're a fence sitting former GOP kool-aid drinker who's a little slow...but who holds the fate of your campaign in their collective viewing hands).

One thing that fence sitters today seem to do better than most presently refusing to broach the two biggest issues facing this country (who is here/how do we 'add' their societal costs if we refuse to quantify them and very simply shared sacrifice in regards to entitlements) is "add".

This trillion dollar plan addresses neither (with the former not even mentioned in the synopsis) which effectively puts off a 16 trillion dollar basic math fence sitter appreciating the closer-than-everybody-else 'effort' by RP's plan...but not much else with poor efforts such as last night's to look forward to (sorry, Ron...yet you have to nail the basics before traditional conservatives will ever look past whatever this "Johnson" movement consists of within your apparently influential circle).

 

[PastaRocket848]

i can only hope they've influenced his immigration stance. i think it is an arrow in the quiver when people pull the old "isolationist" line. how can he be the isolationist when he is the only person on the stage that doesn't want to fence off the country?

 

[SharedSacrifice]

He really hasn't. He just never went into the detail. Bachmann has evaded what she'd do. Ron's record of VOTES speaks for itself. The TONE of the ads was unnecessary, but I don't think his positions have changed at all.

I'd also offer that I too am impressed with RP's voting record...yet I find it of little significance 'today' with all of us responsible for the mess that we are in...but with no candidate to date willing to express that fact in terms of planned policy (the only 'vote' that really even counts at this stage of our drastically hemmoraging experiment with no bipartisan solution in sight for such a long period).

 

[Join The Paul Side]

The Iran, OBL, and fence answers had substance... he just needs to get a couple of one-liner talking points in there that people are going to remember. Doesn't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and become a walking soundbite

Why not? Herman Cain is a walking talking soundbite. Mr. 999 is now front runner. Soundbites are what the media uses to brainwash Americans that are too stupid to think for themselves.

 

[Melissa]

I too read this thread before watching the video and was scared to watch it but I really really should not have been. I think he did great!!! Spoke well and laughed a lot which shows he is a fun guy. Too anyone that criticized this video maybe it is time for you to stop watching them and go pass our slimjims..Dr. Paul did great

 

[Brett85]

i can only hope they've influenced his immigration stance. i think it is an arrow in the quiver when people pull the old "isolationist" line. how can he be the isolationist when he is the only person on the stage that doesn't want to fence off the country?

I'm sure a lot of libertarians like Ron's stance on that issue, but it's a killer in the GOP primary. It's one thing to support non intervention overseas. I certainly do, and I think more and more GOP voters are coming around to that. But GOP voters aren't going to go for a soft approach on immigration. Also, how exactly does building a fence along the border "fence off the country?" Are we going to build a fence along the Canadian border and along both coastlines?

 

[afwjam]

Paul did just fine. I did not see one major slip up. He just needs to continue getting his message out there.

 

[Tunink]

I thought he stumbled a bit on the fence, but ultimately got his point across in regards to not keeping illegals out either. I thought he could have brought up the president's wish/capability of cutting off the internet in the event of something against the "national security", that would stop a lot of wire transfers.

Some of you guys have some "chicken little" attitudes towards debates and interviews. Relax. He's doing fine.

 

[cero]

I find the above exchange interesting as I evidently must now research the content (and apparently 'tone') of those 2007 ads as well as some person name "Johnson" (not Gary I hope)...and an entire movement within this party apparently (or even potentially) influencing RP's campaign presentation.

The two-way fence question was a legitimate one and simply yet another example of somebody willing to say "hey, slow down a bit and explain this one for us..." resulting in an answer that at least I frankly would have to go back and view again before I could even comment on it (which isn't good if you're a fence sitting former GOP kool-aid drinker who's a little slow...but who holds the fate of your campaign in their collective viewing hands).

One thing that fence sitters today seem to do better than most presently refusing to broach the two biggest issues facing this country (who is here/how do we 'add' their societal costs if we refuse to quantify them and very simply shared sacrifice in regards to entitlements) is "add".

This trillion dollar plan addresses neither (with the former not even mentioned in the synopsis) which effectively puts off a 16 trillion dollar basic math fence sitter appreciating the closer-than-everybody-else 'effort' by RP's plan...but not much else with poor efforts such as last night's to look forward to (sorry, Ron...yet you have to nail the basics before traditional conservatives will ever look past whatever this "Johnson" movement consists of within your apparently influential circle).

*facepalm*

 

[chris41336]

Alot of us forget that the first time we heard Ron speak it was similarly stammered or long-winded and he still won us over. For supporters, we want to hear him improve his message because we've been supporting him for so long. New people, however, will be just like us when we first started to support Ron: impressed by his message rather than the delivery.

Besides, his delivery is exponentially better than it used to be. We are doing pretty good, guys. Don't freak out, just keep doing what yyou can to spread the message.

 

[SharedSacrifice]

"... New people, however, will be just like us when we first started to support Ron: impressed by his message rather than the delivery..."

Besides, his delivery is exponentially better than it used to be. We are doing pretty good, guys. Don't freak out, just keep doing what you can to spread the message.

I would argue that if this most recently introduced(?) and apparently groundbreaking 'trillion' plan itself is followed by no more debate than I've witnessed to date on RP's own forums...why would potential supporters such as myself be more impressed with the same message or 'plan'...over this thread with 100% more debate on whether he is truly getting his points across properly in the first place?

I'm not certain that many RP supporters (from the little that I've read on this forum) truly recognize the time frame that we are all working with here to save this country.

Your only chance in all of this is to perform well when given the chance, not to exclude any group (besides those of non-voting age) from the 'personal responsibility' of quickly and physically paying for our 'collectively responsible' mess...and very frankly (finally) admitting to even RP supporters that truly detailing cuts in all spending is physically possible in a decades(?) long political campaign.

If RP supporters refuse to accept the above and brush off opportunities squandered such as last night (see many but not all in this thread)...many traditional conservatives (myself included) are going to wonder what personal responsibility is truly all about in this campaign.

 

[Butchie]

I resemble that remark (for pretty much my entire life save a vote cast for Perot) and am an on the fence supporter of RP who evidently doesn't read 'Rockwell' (my sole libertarian exposure being the recent groundbreaking shows on the Fox Business Channel).

As others have mentioned, the man needs to slow down...stick to the question that is asked (us GOP kool-aiders are used to evasive answers so rambling responses, no matter the content, have the same effect)...and be ready with a pretty much stock answer for those instances where you may have been misunderstood in the past (whether quoted by the panel or simply responding to a film clip he somehow refuses to stay focused on even an answer that most would suspect is coming 'somewhere' in the reponse).

Most importantly of all (and ironically this is where he outshines all other GOP contenders) a fast talker/thinker such as himself needs to be spot on with the details concerning spending cuts.

If somebody is hammering you with questions concerning $200 billion cuts concerning the defense and security of our country...and you aren't countering quick enough to tick off $150 billion or so like a machine gun with accuracy and specificity...you're losing just as many voters who remember what the cold war was all about (fiscally) as you might be gaining through any promise to get rid of known waste/fraud or present can't-afford-it-anymore missions.

I don't applaud Fox for much anymore but this type of candidate forum has been the single most revealing and informative that I have ever witnessed. Every single candidate has turned noticeably more uncomfortable as time has progressed smack dab in the middle of four questioners...and I like it.

Amen

 

[69360]

I would argue that if this most recently introduced(?) and apparently groundbreaking 'trillion' plan itself is followed by no more debate than I've witnessed to date on RP's own forums...why would potential supporters such as myself be more impressed with the same message or 'plan'...over this thread with 100% more debate on whether he is truly getting his points across properly in the first place?

I'm not certain that many RP supporters (from the little that I've read on this forum) truly recognize the time frame that we are all working with here to save this country.

Your only chance in all of this is to perform well when given the chance, not to exclude any group (besides those of non-voting age) from the 'personal responsibility' of quickly and physically paying for our 'collectively responsible' mess...and very frankly (finally) admitting to even RP supporters that truly detailing cuts in all spending is physically possible in a decades(?) long political campaign.

If RP supporters refuse to accept the above and brush off opportunities squandered such as last night (see many but not all in this thread)...many traditional conservatives (myself included) are going to wonder what personal responsibility is truly all about in this campaign.

You can exclude groups, particularly those that have no chance of being converted to voters. We only need a majority to win. In the early parts of this primary cycle that could easily be 30%. So a strategy focusing on converting the parts of the population most likely to vote RP is most effective.

 

[JohnGalt23g]

One thing I noticed RP was able to do, and something he should consider doing a lot more often:

He has the ultimate trump card; "We're broke." Put some kind of twist on that to jazz it up, create conflict. Like, say; "Present a plan in which you include (indert policy here), pay for it, and balance the budget. If you can do that, then you are being serious. If you cannot, then you are not being serious."

Make them commit pen to paper.

 

[roversaurus]

I would argue that if this most recently introduced(?) and apparently groundbreaking 'trillion' plan itself is followed by no more debate than I've witnessed to date on RP's own forums...why would potential supporters such as myself be more impressed with the same message or 'plan'...over this thread with 100% more debate on whether he is truly getting his points across properly in the first place?

I'm having a hard time following you. Try shorter posts or something. Perhaps fewer parenthetical comments. Perhaps fewer points in a post.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

I'm having a hard time following you. Try shorter posts or something. Perhaps fewer parenthetical comments. Perhaps fewer points in a post.

This. I can't really draw any kind of conclusion from his posts either.

 

[SharedSacrifice]

"...Your only chance in all of this is to perform well when given the chance, not to exclude any group (besides those of non-voting age) from the 'personal responsibility' of quickly and physically paying for our 'collectively responsible' mess...and very frankly (finally) admitting to even RP supporters that truly detailing cuts in all spending is physically possible in a decades(?) long political campaign.

If RP supporters refuse to accept the above and brush off opportunities squandered such as last night (see many but not all in this thread)...many traditional conservatives (myself included) are going to wonder what personal responsibility is truly all about in this campaign.

You can exclude groups, particularly those that have no chance of being converted to voters. We only need a majority to win. In the early parts of this primary cycle that could easily be 30%. So a strategy focusing on converting the parts of the population most likely to vote RP is most effective.

The groups I was referring to include the above named RP voters expecting to redeem any entitlement 'promise' that he refers to in that portion of his Paul Ryanesque plan...and certainly every RP supporter expecting to convert only those that are 'needed' to gain the nomination...and then (supposedly by default) the White House.