Huckabee vs RP Who won? - Be objective please!

ghemminger

Banned
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
4,623
The fireworks were set off by Chris Wallace, who asked the isolationist Paul a question that led to Paul delivering an answer that sounded to many in the Republican audience as though he were blaming the U.S. for the 9/11 attacks, a position anathema to many Americans, even beyond the Republican base.

MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- (interrupted by cheers, applause) -- Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who have staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?
REP. PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They've been wrong on everything they've said. Why not ask the people -- (interrupted by cheers) -- why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.

Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don't want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.

I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It's the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in 30 more and reducing by five, totally irrelevant. We need a new foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend -- (bell sounds) -- our borders --


MR. WALLACE: So if --
(Interrupted by cheers, applause.)

MR. WALLACE: So, Congressman Paul, and I'd like you to take 30 seconds to answer this, you're basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (Laughter.)

REP. PAUL: No! (Cheers, applause.) I'm saying -- (laughter) -- I'm saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war -- (cheers, applause) -- we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war, and it's illegal under international law. That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (Cheers, boos.)


After a couple of other candidates had a crack at the question, Wallace let Huckabee get a little action.


MR. WALLACE: Governor Huckabee, the latest National Intelligence Estimate, which is out recently, says that even if we continue the troop surge -- and we're going to put it up on the screen -- Iraq's security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months, but levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high, and the Iraqi government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance.

Governor, if that's the best we can hope for, should we continue the surge?

MR. HUCKABEE: We have to continue the surge. And let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me. If I picked something off the shelf of the store and I broke it, I bought it.

I learned don't pick something off the shelf I can't afford to buy.

Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It's our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away because something is at stake. Senator McCain made a great point, and let me make this clear. If there's anybody on this stage that understands the word honor, I've got to say Senator McCain understands that word -- (applause, cheers) -- because he has given his country a sacrifice the rest of us don't even comprehend. (Continued applause.)


Wait a minute, isn't this the famous Colin Powell Pottery Barn rule? Are we supposed to now call it the Mama Huckabee rule? Anyway, Huckabee continued...


And on this issue, when he says we can't leave until we've left with honor, I 100 percent agree with him because, Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion that historians can have, but we're there. We bought it because we broke it. We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. HUME: Go ahead. You wanted to respond? He just addressed you; you go ahead and respond. (Continued applause.)

REP. PAUL: The American people didn't go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservative hijacked our foreign policy. They're responsible, not the American people. They're not responsible. We shouldn't punish them. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can't be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America. (Cheers.)

REP. PAUL: No. When we make a mistake -- (interrupted by applause) -- when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people through their representatives to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake! (Cheers, applause.)

MR. HUCKABEE: And that's what we do on the floor of the --

REP. PAUL: No! We've dug a hole for ourselves and we dug a hole for our party!

We're losing elections and we're going down next year if we don't change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact.

MR. HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important to the Republican Party.

REP. PAUL: We're losing -- we've lost over -- (cheers, applause) -- we have lost -- we have lost 5,000 Americans killed in -- we've lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan and Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? How long -- what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing is saving face. It's time we came home!

MR. HUME: Okay, gentlemen. Gentlemen, thank you. (Cheers, applause.)


Britt Hume could have just as easily said "Gentleman, back to your corners" and it would have seemed equally as appropriate.
 
Paul. Two wrongs don't make a right. I wish Paul had said that. He did say "it is the obligation of the people through their representatives to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake!" which was great.
 
Media.

The media keeps cutting this part out, and ending with Huckabee's line.

REP. PAUL: We're losing -- we've lost over -- (cheers, applause) -- we have lost -- we have lost 5,000 Americans killed in -- we've lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan and Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? How long -- what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing is saving face. It's time we came home!
 
Paul won, AND Huckabee won.
They both got positive points from that interchange.
Pro-war die-hards will like Huckabee's answer.
Anti-war people (70% of population) will like Paul's answer.
 
hmmm, i think huckabee won but paul is of course right.

the "we have to stand together" "united not divided states" and the "honor" thing unfortunately make great soundbites - every newspaper prints them as the last lines and don't mention pauls response ecause it's no hard punch but an explanation.

paul should resort to saying "we already won, we defeated saddam and checked for weapons of mass destruction" "we didn't find any, so we leave" "we HAVE won already"
or something like this - its better than saying "i want to win elections".
 
It's apparent to me that Paul won the exchange, but it helps if the media actually carries Paul's final statement in the face off.

"How long - what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing, is saving face. It's time we came home," Paul said.

Vietnam lasted from 1959 until 1975...Nixon ran on ending the "war" with honor, we didn't leave Vietnam until 7 years later
 
In all sincerity, if I was an undecided voter, Ron Paul would have absolutely won me over with his performance last night. Huckabee spewed meaningless homilies and buzz-phrases like a career politician, whereas Paul spoke from the heart and off the cuff!

BTW, Why do articles KEEP ON referring to Ron as an "isolationist"? I'm an isolationist, Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. A WORLD of difference separates the two.
 
hmmm, i think huckabee won but paul is of course right.

the "we have to stand together" "united not divided states" and the "honor" thing unfortunately make great soundbites - every newspaper prints them as the last lines and don't mention pauls response ecause it's no hard punch but an explanation.

paul should resort to saying "we already won, we defeated saddam and checked for weapons of mass destruction" "we didn't find any, so we leave" "we HAVE won already"
or something like this - its better than saying "i want to win elections".

At first I do like the answer: "we HAVE won already," but I like it less after thinking about it.
I am not sure it really is true that we have won.
Have we won anything in Iraq?
Paul was against the policy of regime change in 1998.
Paul was against the war from the start.
What have we gained?
Look at all we have lost.
I am not sure it is fair to say that we have "won" the Iraq War. Paul says it was a mistake to go in, it was under false pretenses, it was illegal and immoral.
We did not win the Iraq War.
We made a mistake and we have to admit it and change policy.
 
I would agree that they both won. They are both going to get publicity from this which is good. We know that Paul is right, but the neo-cons believe otherwise. I wish Paul had gone into something about not following bad policy blindly because we're suppose to be "united." But I think he did a good job of getting his point across and he was adamant about his stance. I liked his question earlier that went something along the lines of, Why should we believe the pro war advocates when they say things will work when they've been wrong this whole time? Don't remember the exact quote, but it was very effective. Huckabee probably won over some pro war Republicans, but as someone else already said, 70% of the American people want us out of Iraq.
 
Paul won, AND Huckabee won.
They both got positive points from that interchange.
Pro-war die-hards will like Huckabee's answer.
Anti-war people (70% of population) will like Paul's answer.

I didn't think of this one - Not a bad compromise

Huckabee had this all rehearsed and I thought - he had most of the crow with his "honor" crap and "divided States of America"

RP could have come back with " Your HONOR, our Soldiers BLOOD and sacrifce..." and then go into the saving face comment - but RP did well in the heat of the momnet
 
Ron Paul won, in that Huckabee may have gained a few more pro-war votes that might have gone to one of the other top-tier pro-war candidates that Ron Paul is competing with.
 
I would agree that they both won. They are both going to get publicity from this which is good. We know that Paul is right, but the neo-cons believe otherwise. I wish Paul had gone into something about not following bad policy blindly because we're suppose to be "united." But I think he did a good job of getting his point across and we was adamant about his stance. I liked his question earlier that went something along the lines of, Why should we believe the pro war advocates when they say things will work when they've been wrong this whole time? Don't remember the exact quote, but it was very effective. Huckabee probably won over some pro war Republicans, but as someone else already said, 70% of the American people want us out of Iraq.

I thought Ron did an excellent job in handling that exchange. While Huckabee muttered something nonsensical about "our honor" (while all but admitting that we WERE wrong to go there in the first place), Ron came back with the question (paraphrasing), "who many more American lives are willing to lose and how much more money are we willing to spend just to save face because that's all we're trying to do over there."

Paul 1, Huckabee 0

- Robert -
 
it depends on your perspective.

i think Mr. Huckabee analogy works well in a perfect world, but just cannot be applied to this situation.

The ONLY way to correct a mistake is to:

A) STOP DOING IT
B) Learn what you did wrong
C) Don't repeat it!

We cannot force the Iraqis to let us use them to redeem ourselves. It is very clear that they do not want us there. Even if they wanted our material and monetary help, they do not want an occupation by US troops.. which is what they have.

So even if you buy into his "you break it, you buy it" analogy - you either believe one of the following:

A) We now OWN Iraq - We conquered them, and they are now our property.

or B) We are responsible and should do all we can to fix Iraq - but we should first "honor" the requests of our victims to "get out and leave us alone!"

This isn't rocket science... i dont know why its even a top of conversation....
 
Truth is the troops already honarably won the war

Its the leadership in Washington that deserves the dishonarable discharge. War profiteers and incoherent imbeciles who made this clusterF#ck what it is has nothing to do with honorably serving troops. Its the policy and failed strategy from DC that is the only dishonorable thing and congress is riding the same bus of shame.
 
From the interchange and the debate as a whole:
Huckabee went from low second tier to high second tier;
Paul went from "longshot" to a clear frontrunner.
IMHO
 
At first I do like the answer: "we HAVE won already," but I like it less after thinking about it.
I am not sure it really is true that we have won.
Have we won anything in Iraq?
Paul was against the policy of regime change in 1998.
Paul was against the war from the start.
What have we gained?
Look at all we have lost.
I am not sure it is fair to say that we have "won" the Iraq War. Paul says it was a mistake to go in, it was under false pretenses, it was illegal and immoral.
We did not win the Iraq War.
We made a mistake and we have to admit it and change policy.

you are right, he should clarify that it was wrong from the beginning and unconstitutional, but then say that the mission pres. bush wanted his military to do is already accomplished and there is no reason to stay.
 
In all sincerity, if I was an undecided voter, Ron Paul would have absolutely won me over with his performance last night. Huckabee spewed meaningless homilies and buzz-phrases like a career politician, whereas Paul spoke from the heart and off the cuff!

BTW, Why do articles KEEP ON referring to Ron as an "isolationist"? I'm an isolationist, Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. A WORLD of difference separates the two.
RP is a career politician too... The difference is that he isn't a scumbag. He actually does his job.
 
Paul's answers were detailed and sophisticated, Huckabee was speaking in slogans like "divided we fall" and "honor".

Paul won.
 
As much as I enjoyed the discoruse between the two, I think Ron Paul wasted a good opportunity. While mentioning killed Americans was a good 1-2 punch, he should have stressed that we are running ourselves bankrupt.

Huckabee attacks with emotions. "When I was a little kid"... "we have to fix what we broke".... "we can't lose honor".....

Ron Paul should have counter attacked with "We are running our asses broke" theme. People respond to emotions, but they are just as responsive to $$. And I don't care if you're Hannity himself, you can't argue that bucket loads of money is spent on this war. Money that isn't even ours.

If Ron Paul started talking finances and money, he'd destroy Huckabee, instead of merely having a rebuttal for him.
 
Back
Top