Did the debate tonight hurt or help Ron Paul?

[john_anderson_ii]

Look- the debate was pretty much rigged. Anyone with half of mind could research Paul's statement on "Planes on Guns" and that question was specifically crafted .............snip........... disgruntled with the Republican party, and hopefully more people will research him perhaps. Either because they like him or because they think he's a moonbat. His contribution to the debate will be reported, and that's good enough at the moment.

Ron Paul wants to represent the disgruntled rep party, he should be pissed, damn pissed! The rest of us republicans are.

 

[expatriot]

I voted that it hurt Paul. The constant laughing at him by Rudy and the last question talking about getting rid of the FBI really hurt. I wanted to jump at the TV and punch someone.

The Huck exchange was great but that last question really killed it for me

Not that disagreeing against a negative misinterpretation is unappealing,

but rephrasing what I previously said elsewhere here:

Ron Paul represents the rising tide against which every weapon in
the establishment arsenal is aimed at.

Our marching orders are from the Constitution and that makes our
growing support for him a threat unmatched in recent political history.

That Ron Paul underwent such a vehement assault and prevailed just
underlines how seriously the next attempt to silence him will be.

Noting that he literally stands alone on the stage
defending constitutional behavior, his presence is perceptibly feared
by all around him.
They were all buddy-buddy and defensive of their own consensus,
indicating the depth of how seriously they all perceive Ron Paul's chances.

No amount of whitewash can cover up how it is no very obviously
a confrontation between the status-quo establishment and Ron Paul.
The only question remains is who will be the opponent who gets
to lose it to Ron Paul? He has already beaten the rest of the field.

Ron Paul is unanimously not wanted in the debates,
and that is precisely why he is winning.

 

[Madison]

Ron Paul represents the rising tide against which every weapon in
the establishment arsenal is aimed at.

Our marching orders are from the Constitution and that makes our
growing support for him a threat unmatched in recent political history.

That Ron Paul underwent such a vehement assault and prevailed just
underlines how seriously the next attempt to silence him will be.

That scares me a whole lot...but I fully believe it...the question is how far they are willing to go. If they are absolutely determined to keep him out of the picture, how far will they go? Recent American history shows a dark fate for all those who gained immense popularity and got close to bringing about significant change for the better.

 

[LibertyEagle]

But, considering how fast Ron Paul was to respond, how passionate and coherent his thoughts came out of his mouth- he was the winner. The fact is, that night Ron Paul looked presidential. The best moment is when he shot back, quick as lightning and without hesitation, "NO! We should take out marching orders from the constitution!" He actually looked thunderous.

Sure, I can always think of things I wish he would've said, but the fact is, I was damn proud of him last night. He looked like a President. He sounded like a President. That whole debate was crafted to dismiss him and make him look bad, but he stood his ground and fired back. It was electric.

GO, RON, GO! You made us very proud last night.

 

[J Free]

The publicity will certainly still help at this point. But Dr Paul is at a crossroads - and the proof is in the unified attacks on him. If he had truly been a frontrunner yesterday, this debate performance would have been devastating for him.

From this point on, he has got to make his points while BEING presidential. His purpose cannot simply be to score points or to appeal to those who are basically not Republicans but to win the nomination among Republicans.

To do that he IS going to have to broaden his appeal within the Republican Party. Not by changing his positions but by changing his emphasis. He had the opportunity to blow Huckleberry's challenge out of the water. Instead, he went into college professor mode - and a rather flustered angry professor at times.

He is not going to win the nomination by simply implying "I told you so" and he is not going to win it by assuming that every Republican out there in the audience is simply part of the crowd that has been attacking him for years.

He is spending way too much time emphasizing "the mistake" of going into Iraq. Huckabee is absolutely correct when he says that that is for historians. The issue is why we are in a position of permanent mission creep (no congressional declaration) and why the current mission of "security/policework" is unwinnable (no reason for any rational Iraqi nationalist to ever believe we will ever find a victory/exit strategy for Iraq if we haven't yet found reason to have a victory/exit strategy for the confirmed nationbuilding successes of Germany/Japan/Korea).

There are many Republicans (myself and a number of military folks I know) who believe that the war in Iraq was justified even if it wasn't declared by Congress. For the purpose of regime change in order to get ourselves extricated from the Clinton/Dem/Indyk mess of permanent "dual containment" and the half-win/stalemate of Gulf War 1. It is THAT mess which was 2 of the 3 stated reasons (troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraqi sanctions) for binliner's 1996 jihad fatwa. He has got to go for the support of the people who thought a couple of years ago (when a new govt was installed) that it was time to declare victory and go home.

Otherwise, there is a real risk that he is simply painted as an anti-war cut-and-runner. His positions on general nonintervention, congressional declaration, Iraq (and even federal reserve - warfare/welfare state) are all linked. Combined they make him unique - and uniquely Republican. But he MUST make those linkages himself on stage.

 

[belian78]

I think our new chant has to be "how many Americans have to die for the U.S. Government to save face?"

I will be making a t-shirt tomorrow!

I want one!

 

[Madison]

J Free:

It's not his fault he only gets limited time to speak. The moderators are busy asking The 3™ questions and giving them most of the time. Considering the time he was given, and the fact he won, is amazing.

He doesn't have to broaden his appeal to anyone. He's made all his positions clear, and any attempt to broaden his appeal would be fraudulent.

He is spending way too much time emphasizing "the mistake" of going into Iraq. Huckabee is absolutely correct when he says that that is for historians.

No, it's critical we acknowledge that it was a "mistake" (read: mass murder of thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's/Afghani's) right now so we can fix it, like RP says. He speaks the obvious truth, nothing more.

 

[paulitics]

The publicity will certainly still help at this point. But Dr Paul is at a crossroads - and the proof is in the unified attacks on him. If he had truly been a frontrunner yesterday, this debate performance would have been devastating for him.

From this point on, he has got to make his points while BEING presidential. His purpose cannot simply be to score points or to appeal to those who are basically not Republicans but to win the nomination among Republicans.

To do that he IS going to have to broaden his appeal within the Republican Party. Not by changing his positions but by changing his emphasis. He had the opportunity to blow Huckleberry's challenge out of the water. Instead, he went into college professor mode - and a rather flustered angry professor at times.

He is not going to win the nomination by simply implying "I told you so" and he is not going to win it by assuming that every Republican out there in the audience is simply part of the crowd that has been attacking him for years.

He is spending way too much time emphasizing "the mistake" of going into Iraq. Huckabee is absolutely correct when he says that that is for historians. The issue is why we are in a position of permanent mission creep (no congressional declaration) and why the current mission of "security/policework" is unwinnable (no reason for any rational Iraqi nationalist to ever believe we will ever find a victory/exit strategy for Iraq if we haven't yet found reason to have a victory/exit strategy for the confirmed nationbuilding successes of Germany/Japan/Korea).

There are many Republicans (myself and a number of military folks I know) who believe that the war in Iraq was justified even if it wasn't declared by Congress. For the purpose of regime change in order to get ourselves extricated from the Clinton/Dem/Indyk mess of permanent "dual containment" and the half-win/stalemate of Gulf War 1. It is THAT mess which was 2 of the 3 stated reasons (troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraqi sanctions) for binliner's 1996 jihad fatwa. He has got to go for the support of the people who thought a couple of years ago (when a new govt was installed) that it was time to declare victory and go home.

Otherwise, there is a real risk that he is simply painted as an anti-war cut-and-runner. His positions on general nonintervention, congressional declaration, Iraq (and even federal reserve - warfare/welfare state) are all linked. Combined they make him unique - and uniquely Republican. But he MUST make those linkages himself on stage.

excellent first post. I think some of us old timers on this board have such a bias that we think people will see the world like us. And your right on these points.

 

[krott5333]

any time he is on tv speaking it helps

 

[mconder]

The constant laughing at him by Rudy and the last question talking about getting rid of the FBI really hurt.

I don't know who it was laughing. I thought it was one of the commentators. Ron would get asked a question and the background laughing would start before Ron even began his answer. I wish paul would have said something like, "Hey, would you have some respect and stop with the cackling over there while I answer the question?!"

 

[JMann]

The laughing primarily came from Rudy. That kind of behavior will hurt him more than it helps. Clearly an excellent debate for Paul.

 

[fj45lvr]

I can't believe that people actually believe this helped paul in any way.....

while the over-riding principles are true his demeanor and content was not "presedential".....

IMHO the republicans that tuned into this will table Paul as a "loon" and move on and the tragic part is that they don't get to hear his actual message on ECONOMICS and SMALLER GOVERNMENT......to deal a fatal blow these adversaries are zeroing in on what is a weak spot in voter confidence and getting some very damaging blows---doing away with CIA and FBI---- that doesn't go over as not being "soft on defense"..... I agree with Paul that we need to get out of the mess ASAP but this other part with the agencies cements him as "unelectable" with the existing republican base.......and relying on new people to win the nomination is LONG SHOT .

 

[kunzang]

From what I can see, he is gaining more people's admiration by showing how he can stand by his principles in the face of adversity. Most folks I know have lost trust in government and politicians because of their ever-changing, self-serving agendas. They are longing for someone whom they can trust to represent them. During debates like this, which are aimed at discrediting him, he stands out from the crowd by the way he upholds his conviction, even when publicly ridiculed. I have many die-hard democrat friends who are now taking notice of Ron Paul because of the the obvious bias mainstream media has towards him. They want to know who this guy is that is so threatening to them and causing them to resort to such low-level, unethical tactics. As far as I am concerned, the more the media and their pundits try to ridicule Ron Paul, the more people are going to want to know who he is. This makes him the real winner.

 

[Slugg]

I can't believe that people actually believe this helped paul in any way.....

while the over-riding principles are true his demeanor and content was not "presedential".....

IMHO the republicans that tuned into this will table Paul as a "loon" and move on and the tragic part is that they don't get to hear his actual message on ECONOMICS and SMALLER GOVERNMENT......to deal a fatal blow these adversaries are zeroing in on what is a weak spot in voter confidence and getting some very damaging blows---doing away with CIA and FBI---- that doesn't go over as not being "soft on defense"..... I agree with Paul that we need to get out of the mess ASAP but this other part with the agencies cements him as "unelectable" with the existing republican base.......and relying on new people to win the nomination is LONG SHOT .

I can't believe you thought it hurt him. He made it perfectly clear, to sheeple, that he doesn't want to get rid of the CIA or the FBI. He wants to do away with Dep of Homeland Security. And I thought he made a great case for it.

If anything, he made himself look more electable in the debate. I think the common mistake is that current republicans are all Neo-Cons..and that is the biggest mistake every other candidate made when choosing their running platform. He definently pulled many 'fence sitters' with this debate.

What he also did, and more important, he galvanized the pro war/ anti war republicans. He has said, in no uncertain terms, "I'm not going anywhere, so you have to decide if you really want to fight or not!" That's awesome!!!

This debate helped, There is NO WAY AT ALL it hurt him. Anyone who is going to turn away from RP completely because of the stupidly worded question was against him to begin with.

The only 'mistake' I thought he made the whole night was calling the war illegal by international law. That was a mistake. He may have gotten a bit ahead of himself on that one. But, he was energized and it slipped....it happens. It's not going to kill him.

 

[wgadget]

Do I smell a troll?

 

[JaylieWoW]

Here's my take.

1) RP certainly did not come out on top.
2) He did stand his ground very well given that most of his questions were loaded to make him look bad to "mainstream Republicans" from the get go. Eliminating the FBI and CIA, Chris Wallace's cheap shot about taking our marching orders from Al-Qaeda, etc.
3) It was exposure, not good or bad, just exposure. As long as it gets more people to research, who cares if it's cuz they wanna see what this whack job is all about.

I think Huckabee did really well. Maybe he even won if there are ever any winners in these thing. McCain's performance was a surprise. Definitely his best so far.

As for Paul winning the text and online polls, we need to change the spin on this. We can't convince them that the polls reflect his true popularity. Hell, I don't even believe most of them. But what they really reveal that nobody is excited enough about the other candidates to vote in every online poll they can find.

I hope some disgruntled Fox employee can leak B-roll footage of Rudy laughing every time they asked Ron Paul a question. That really pissed me off.

I'd really like to see a well respected reporter/journalist spell out how disrespectful that was of Giuliani. He acted like a petty, spoiled, bratty child. No wonder his family doesn't like him, he probably doesn't respect anyone's opinions other than his own. This is a point I would passionately like to see driven home.

I agree with some here who expressed being glad they weren't in attendance personally. I have a really long fuse, but once its lit, get the hell out of the way! If I didn't like Giuliani before I certainly would magnify that dislike by the nth degree now. Smug politicians like Giuliani are the reason we have such a big government today. Grrrrr...!!

 

[stevedasbach]

Paul and Huckabee both won the exchange. This was the memorable moment from the debate -- the won that gets mentioned in the news articles and played over and over. Paul will pick up support from Republicans, Independents, etc. who are opposed to the war -- Huckabee will pick up support from pro-war Republicans who aren't keen on the so-called "top-tier".

Both developments are good for us. As someone else noted, there are now five solid pro-war Republicans spliting the pro-war vote; with only one candidate available who opposes the war. If Paul is able to consolidate the anti-war Republican vote (which is over 20%) and the rest split the pro-war vote evenly, Paul wins. And, as it becomes clear that the surge really isn't working, the pro-war vote will decline and Paul's will increase.

In terms of debating points, there are many points that Paul could have made clearer. However, strategically, he made news, which is exactly what he needed to do.

 

[sunny]

Did the debate...

I don't know about you guys, but I love this guy! He made the most RATIONAL and PASSIONATE arguments in the entire debate, the other Candidates were all posing and trying to give that Miss South Carolina-type answer....They were all so transparent and superficial, and call me biased, but Ron is the most HONEST and RATIONAL man on that stage.

Hannity and Colmes can kiss my large human backside, especially Hannity, but can we really blame them for their ignorance? They have been fully indoctrinated and just don't KNOW any better, but Ron held his own, I have tremendous respect for this man, doing what I myself attempted to do in 2000. I pray to God that Ron becomes our next President, and that he is able to accomplish a FRACTION of what he seeks to do.

He has stood up for we Veterans for a long time, He's a great American, one of the few left.

well said dan! i totally agree! except for the fact that they don't know any better - perhaps they do and they're just scumbuckets like the rest of the neo-cons etc.
as a christian woman i edited the other deities out of your post in my reply. hope you don't mind!

 

[Mastiff]

I think it is very important that Ron clarifies his position on the departments. I think his weakness is not the message, but it is how he allows these loaded questions to go on and on and on.
As soon as I heard that one question regarding eliminating the departments I knew Ron Paul was in trouble. He needs to emphasize that he is for stream-lining the bureaucracy because the departments have become inefficient, bloated, and extremely wasteful, instead of dividing the republican base more he can actually win some undecided votes over to his side if he tones the rhetoric down a bit. It really is a problem though as a business associate of mine has hanged his mind on Ron Paul today because that answer he gave although a good answer regarding the mishandling of information on 911 did not really address the issue of completely dissolving some of these departments. Lets be clear here, it made Ron look like an absolutely fringe candidate, and that is exactly what they are trying to accomplish.

To date I think this libertarian concept is his weakest link, and his abortion stance is another one that should be clarified more on states rights.

if I was advising Ron Paul these are the two issues that he really needs to do a better job in explaining more clearly, and he has to do it immediately after this debate so some people who were turned off by this performance might hear it and
give him another shot.

Overall his points were clear, concise, and he seems more passionate and confident than ever. He just needs to slow down a bit, take his time more, and let his lips catch up with his brain. Go Ron Paul!!!!!!!

Totally agree. Fox succeeded in making him look fringe. I love Paul, but sometimes it seems like he can't see the world through the eyes of a mainstream person. He needed to shoot down that FBI, CIA comment immediately, don't defend it. Paul is awesome to people who will take the time to read where he's really coming from, but most people won't.

I also think he needs to really answer the question on "what about a potential bloodbath in Iraq"? He keeps saying that people who say that are not credible, but that's really not true. Some people who care about that are just Joe's on the street. He needs a response, even if it's as simple as "it's already a bloodbath, and there is no compelling reason to believe it will be worse when we leave." Or something.

 

[emilysdad]

any time he is on tv speaking it helps

bump