Grade Ron's Debate Performance

[nasaal]

The reason we all hate watching Paul debate, it the reason we like him in the first place. He has no filter, he isn't a guy who censors his message in any way for anyone. If these things weren't true, most of us wouldn't even be supporting him.

 

[pauliticalfan]

I wonder how all the supporters have come on board so far, if Ron has never done well at the debates.

Um, because a person can have good and bad debates.

 

[daviddee]

...

 

[TheLasersShadow]

He needs to slow down and simplify the answers. The Bin Laden question hurt him half because of his position and the other half because he was not as clear as he could be on it.

Break it down ... YES killing bin Laden not bad wish we could have captured him instead. YES going into Pakistan without permission wrong imho but if only option then a must? wish he would explain that. Chinese dissident comparison bad, should have made it Chinese terrorist or IRA or some group who kills people.

 

[lasenorita]

Highlights:

• Social Security and the inflation tax
• Bases closed in '90s and relocated to 130(?) countries

These were answers that people could relate to. Retirees feel the effects of inflation. Veterans remember the bases closing. When Ron Paul talks to the people and ties his philosophical and policy viewpoints to how it affects their lives, we win.

Most educational:

• Military spending != Defense spending
• Taliban != al Qaeda

We realize this, but most don't. Dr. Paul challenging the questioner and pointing out that his views were being misrepresented was handled very well. Also, the comment acknowledging al Qaeda wants to kill us was a nice save because it dashed ideas that he's 'naive' about our enemies' goals. (Especially after the other candidates were on a kill, kill, kill message spree.)

Could be better:

• On the topic of the Second Amendment

Yes, it was hilarious that Santorum was charging him as somehow being against the Second Amendment, but the average viewer isn't sure about Dr. Paul's stance on guns. I really wish he had pushed his stellar record a bit more forcefully.

Cringeworthy:

• Rambling answer(?) to the OBL question.

Trying to see it from an objective viewpoint, it was not a good two(?) minutes: combined with the boos in the crowd and subsequent replies of the others on stage and off, it left a mistaken impression that Dr. Paul cared more about Pakistan than he cared about killing OBL — if he even wanted OBL dead. Ugh! I wish he had continued his train of thought on the Letters of Marque and Reprisal, but the moderator kept interrupting him. The content was solid, but he lost even me when he couldn't quite articulate his defense. I wish he would have emphasized that bin Laden is one (dead — ha!) enemy; we shouldn't be creating even more enemies and bin Ladens of the future by disregarding the lives and rights of others.



This was a horrible debate, though. Not for Ron Paul — from FOX. There was no real discussion on the economy, the #1 issue on many voters' minds. Romney got a question about bailouts, but that subject was dropped immediately for a foreign policy question. I don't even remember Dr. Paul mentioning the Federal Reserve! Tax rates and Bain capital was the farthest it really got to a "debate" about economic issues. Maybe it's different in South Carolina … but at 10% unemployment, I don't think the discussion on SuperPACS, who we should kill next, or who hurt whose feelings more topped their list of issues. This was a forgettable evening.


Ron Paul gets a B- from me.




ETA: Just watched the debate highlights. A++++++++

 

[jscoppe]

Those giving him an A+ really need some objectivity. The first few responses were stumbling, mumbling, non-sentence-completing garbage (he got much better as time went on). Of course Paul knows what he's talking about, but he's terrible at the skill of putting your views into easily digestible sentences. I don't think it would make him seem less authentic, I think it would improve his delivery of the message of liberty.

Sorry if I seem harsh, but I hope at least he's getting some coaching or will start. I just want our cause to have the best chance possible.

 

[rprprs]

This poll shows how clouded our vision is.

There is no objective observer, libertarian or not, who would say that he should receive anything higher than a C.

I gave a D+.

Ron doesn't accept any debate coaching, and IT SHOWS.

That will be too frank for most here, but I'm afraid I will have to agree for the most part.
My overall grade will be a C- because he did quite well initially, distinquishing and schooling on the difference between military and defense spending. The zero income tax answer was also on target. But it was downhill fast thereafter. There are just some things, such as the OBL issue, that can be seen coming from a mile away and, after all this time, there is little excuse for any imprecision in executing a response.

Don't get me wrong, I am firmly in the NOBP camp, and will continue to offer my full support, financially and otherwise. However, IF it's true that Ron has refused debate coaching, he was most unwise in doing so.

 

[Kluge]

Osama answer was very poorly delivered and is what people will remember since that is all FAUX news and CNN will be playing until Thursday...First rule of public speaking and debates is speak to the audience, he didn't do it very well on foreign policy tonight.

That's the only mention of Paul my mom made when I spoke with her. "He got off-topic and I couldn't follow him."

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I give him a C. Started out great, down hill after being ignored for awhile. Was never able to get a rhythm. I don't put too much stock into these debates anyway - they are all geared for sound bites and filling air waves...basically it's a televised cock fight. It's not about substance.

qft. I didn't see tonight's "debate", but if it was anything like the others, it isn't worthy of being called a debate. It should be called a Bickering Forum instead.

 

[Gigaplex]

I can't believe everyone is saying he screwed up the Bin Laden question. He got a lot of talking time on that and was able to get his entire full view out there. He was able to fully explain himself and said several times that he obviously still wanted to kill osama but just wanted to do it a better way if it was possible and Obama didn't even attempt to do it the proper way.

What would you have him do? Just try and weasel out of it and avoid the question? Screw that, he should always give straight answers to questions because that is why people respect him. Maybe he could have said it more smoothly but that seems like a minor point since he did get his entire message across and that is what is the important part. Ron Paul is not judged by the same standards as the other guys. He can get away with being anti-smooth because he's legit.

This was the second best debate of the cycle, IMO.

 

[Edward]

What would you have him do? Just try and weasel out of it and avoid the question?

Actually, he never did directly answered the question on "international law".

 

[RabbitMan]

He definitely threw himself on his own sword with that international law question. He is who he is, probably had a long day, and what's going to happen is going to happen. Let's just hope he gets rest for the Friday debate and we get 3rd to stay relevant. That rambling and answer dodging was cringe worthy though.

 

[ryanmkeisling]

Vote for Mittens if y'all don't like it, or even Obama.