Debate

[Nathan Hale]

Hmm, I saw this video on Peden's site:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOo1thauiCM

It's at a Ron Paul townhall meeting, and a member of the audience asks Paul why he won't debate Peden. Paul, alas, offers a ridiculous dodge. Obviously, Paul doesn't want to debate Peden because Paul benefits from this primary getting as little attention as possible. Of course, you can't say that to the voters. Which puts the man in an awkward position. Paul, after all, has been a huge proponent of debate access for the last year (for obvious reasons). Now the issue is turned on its head because Peden is the outsider.

I, for one, think that a debate is a necessary. A debate is always necessary in every political race. Why is Paul ducking one in D14?

 

[The One]

It is somewhat ironic isn't it?

 

[heartless]

I heard that an incumbent agreeing to debate a challenger is a sign of weakness. Kucinich has agreed to debate his 4 democratic challengers in his district

 

[Nathan Hale]

I heard that an incumbent agreeing to debate a challenger is a sign of weakness. Kucinich has agreed to debate his 4 democratic challengers in his district

A sign of weakness? Talk to any political strategist - when you're an incumbent and you're challenged, you seek to make the race as dull as possible so as to not draw attention to it, a "non event" to use the terminology of Clinton's 1996 presidential campaign. When a race is dull, the incumbent is favored, because they naturally receive more attention.

Considering this strategy, a stronger candidate is one who is more able to break these rules and actually meet his challenger on the field of battle. I always thought Ron Paul was the kind of person who would rise to such a challenge. But it looks like the Presidential campaign has taught him a little too much about Washington-style campaigning.

 

[yongrel]

Considering what Peden is saying about RP, I don't balme Dr. Paul for not wanting to debate him.

Nathan Hale, why so negative?

 

[Nathan Hale]

Considering what Peden is saying about RP, I don't balme Dr. Paul for not wanting to debate him.

Odd.... Paul couldn't wait to get a shot at Giuliani, McCain, et al when they said outrageous things about him.

Nathan Hale, why so negative?

How am I being negative? I'm an advocate of honest, open debate in politics.

 

[itshappening]

he doesn't deserve a debate, as RP said he endorsed him not long ago and is viewed as an opportunist

 

[Rede]

it gives a bad impression about the national campaign if he is engaging in congressional debates.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Paul is doing the RIGHT thing in ignoring a nothing challenger like Peden.

 

[theseus51]

A sign of weakness? Talk to any political strategist - when you're an incumbent and you're challenged, you seek to make the race as dull as possible so as to not draw attention to it, a "non event" to use the terminology of Clinton's 1996 presidential campaign. When a race is dull, the incumbent is favored, because they naturally receive more attention.

Considering this strategy, a stronger candidate is one who is more able to break these rules and actually meet his challenger on the field of battle. I always thought Ron Paul was the kind of person who would rise to such a challenge. But it looks like the Presidential campaign has taught him a little too much about Washington-style campaigning.

Ron Paul is not a diety or something, he's just a politician running for office. He may be unconventional in his views and political stances, but when it comes time for elections, he is pretty traditional. Use tactics that work, don't use tactics that don't work. Use radio and television ads, get endorsements, don't debate opponents you are beating by 40% in the polls, etc.

I'm reminded of Ron Paul's first campaign, it's pretty funny the one tactic he used against Bob Gammage: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15016924

 

[DRV45N05]

To compare the scenario between his Presidential Run and his Congressional Run is a huge logical fallacy. What he was opposed to in the Presidential Run was the fact that the people who were putting on the debates weren't inviting him, not that debates should be taking place and not that his opponents didn't want to debate him. In this Congressional Campaign, Ron would not be actually putting on the debate; another party would be putting on the debate. He is saying that he doesn't want to participate in the debate if one takes place. He has every right to not participate if he doesn't want to, and he has no obligation to participate.

 

[The One]

To compare the scenario between his Presidential Run and his Congressional Run is a huge logical fallacy. What he was opposed to in the Presidential Run was the fact that the people who were putting on the debates weren't inviting him, not that debates should be taking place and not that his opponents didn't want to debate him. In this Congressional Campaign, Ron would not be actually putting on the debate; another party would be putting on the debate. He is saying that he doesn't want to participate in the debate if one takes place. He has every right to not participate if he doesn't want to, and he has no obligation to participate.

It's not apples and apples, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "huge logical fallacy".

 

[Prez4TheNet]

And this is exactly why I have stopped supporting Ron Paul. He runs around the issues and never clarifies anything.

 

[TRosen75]

And this is exactly why I have stopped supporting Ron Paul. He runs around the issues and never clarifies anything.

From your previous posts on these forums it looks as if you never did.

 

[nate895]

And this is exactly why I have stopped supporting Ron Paul. He runs around the issues and never clarifies anything.

He never clarifies anything. Then you sir, aren't listening, or are too stupid to comprehend what you are being told.

 

[Flash]

Certain members on this forum forget Ron Paul still is running for president. Yeah he won't win, but hes going to try to campaign and win over as many people as he can. He needs to start a movement.

So basically, he has better things to do than debate a nobody.

And this is exactly why I have stopped supporting Ron Paul.

Mysteriously this is the same person who was negative about the blimp and negative about the money bombs. Hmmm. I wonder if its a coincidence that all of a sudden he isn't supporting Ron Paul.

I don't know what trolls think they can accomplish. Instead of debating peacefully, they try to infiltrate a forum (poorly) and somehow change our minds that way.

 

[nate895]

Certain members on this forum forget Ron Paul still is running for president. Yeah he won't win, but hes going to try to campaign and win over as many people as he can. He needs to start a movement.

So basically, he has better things to do than debate a nobody.




Mysteriously this is the same person who was negative about the blimp and negative about the money bombs. Hmmm. I wonder if its a coincidence that all of a sudden he isn't supporting Ron Paul.

I don't know what trolls think they can accomplish. Instead of debating peacefully, they try to infiltrate a forum (poorly) and somehow change our minds that way.

We can still pull this thing off.

 

[Prez4TheNet]

From your previous posts on these forums it looks as if you never did.

Wrong buddy, I was a supporter of Ron Paul before it was the "cool thing" to do. I was actively involved in his 1988 presidential bid and became disillusioned after the scandal that broke out with his remaining funds after his run.

I thought he had become more competent in running a campaign since then. I was the most active in my meetup group and was even featured in my local newspaper for political activism (a whole front page story too). Then the newsletter scandal hit and I was waiting for a competent response from Ron. All I heard was run around after run around. No satisfactory explanation has been given so far... and I hope Peden does make it an issue so we can settle the truth once and for all.... anyhoo, thats when I became disillusioned with the campaign and disavowed myself from it.

If anyone has been an opportunist its Ron. He is using his presidential email list to solict funds from people who are not in his congressional district. That is borderline unethical. I think Ron needs to be paying more attention to the needs of his CD instead of sending out scare tactic emails to get funds to fuel his congressional campaign. He needs to extend the courtesy to Peden that he was denied and railed against, and give him a debate. If he is so sure that his CD is in line with his ideals, then why is he so scared?


You know what, I'm probably going to get banned after this post, but I don't care anymore. I've had it with the campaign mismanaging the funds that I donated, the hours that I put in... and I hope everyone in this forum push the official campaign to give a satisfactory explanation of what happends to the funds after the run, lest you want to relive the '88 scandal again.

Thanks and good bye.

 

[Flash]

He needs to extend the courtesy to Peden that he was denied and railed against, and give him a debate.

He is running for president.
He is running for president.
He is running for president.
He is running for president.
He is running for president.
He is running for president.
He is running for president.

How many times do I have to say it.

 

[Sandra]

And this is exactly why I have stopped supporting Ron Paul. He runs around the issues and never clarifies anything.

And yet you still post to this forum? How nullifying.