I Was Disappointed!

Meh, it wasn't his best performance at all, but he did very well with the Iraq war questions, and also talked about how he DID vote for the authorization to go after "the" al Qaeda. I wish he would have used Mitt's "what about 9/11" interjection to buy another minute or two for himself, to talk about foreign policy more. And his last answer was good but he should have interjected how the constitution was written to limit government and defend liberty, not limit freedom and protect the government - government secrecy perverts the whole idea of democracy. Had he framed it that way, it'd have been a much better answer. At least he realizes his own faults though! :D

Time to get out on the ground and bring the message to the good people of Iowa!

PS does anyone have a timechart for the debate? Seems like ron got 3 minutes and Romney got 20.
 
In the long and short run, this debate is completely and utterly irrevelent - an old media debate early on a Sunday morning doesn't mean squat. What will win IOWA is boots on the ground and what RP does there at a local level.

We need to do well in the Straw Paul!

Very true. This far out, nobody is much paying attention except for the partisans and all of us Remnant who've woken up. We have a huge task to keep waking more folks up to joins us in the fight, that is the only thing we should keep focusing on, on a daily basis.

I pity Ron Paul for having to get on stage with those folks and pretend they don't make him want to vomit, even when they are absurd, rude little idiots. I'm a much lesser man, I would have denounced him loudly right there - but then, I'm not even an eighth of the politician that Paul is, heh.
 
Does anybody know where John McCain is getting all this evidence that we're doing better in Iraq?

Ron Paul's problem is that he's using logic in these debates and the debates are clearly designed against the viewer actually using their brains.
 
Does anybody know where John McCain is getting all this evidence that we're doing better in Iraq?

Ron Paul's problem is that he's using logic in these debates and the debates are clearly designed against the viewer actually using their brains.

I wondered about that too! That was the Anbar province they were talking about, wasn't it?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/alanbar_06-01.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2007/07/iraq-070720-afps02.htm
 
I'm disappointed that he received such little time. I also expected to say something to the effect he'd bring back constitutional values to the oval office but I don't fault him because he didn't. Overall, his debate performance was fine. It is disappointed there were no shining moments in the debate a la Paul vs. Giuliani on foreign policy that would have drawn in sky rocketing interest and support, but I guess you can't expect that every time, especially not in this morning debate which many didn't even watch or know about. All in all, at least Ron Paul didn't shoot himself in the foot or anything like that. The way I see it, this debate will only help Ron Paul by giving him more recognition. Hopefully he'll do well at Ames, two maybe three other candidates drop out, and he gets more time at debates and even more coverage.
 
I think the quotes, video clips and sound bites from this debate will be golden for Ron Paul.

The parts are greater than the whole because the debate was mediocre but Paul got some great points across.

Think about it, unless he's got the stage to himself, he's never going to have enough time to talk.

Part of what we are fighting in this movement is the silly notion that non-substantive and fluff spouting empty headed soulless dimwits can actually provide real solutions and change.
 
rest is essential

I think the debate format sucked. The questions were actually good...but 30 seconds to answer? And this debate was only 60 minutes right? Not 90 like the others.

Paul didn't do bad, he just never had any great opportunity.

And, he did look tired.

I think we, and the campaign handlers, need to pay much closer attention to this.
Dr. Paul is 71. He simply does not have the energy of a 30 year old. If you are in your 30's imagine being up, without sleep, for 3 days and then having to perform in a debate that is the most important in your life. I'm not saying there is any real problem with age, quite the contrary, Dr. Paul has exactly the experience and wisdom that comes with age that this country so desperately needs. I think he is intellectually at the top of his game today, but he does need adequate rest to perform at his max. The campaign needs to make sure that he gets it in this grueling race. ;)
 
Last edited:
Think about it, unless he's got the stage to himself, he's never going to have enough time to talk.

I have watched most of his speeches which range upwards and over an hour. Most politicians you have to shut down after a few minutes. I could listen to Ron Paul all day.
 
I have watched most of his speeches which range upwards and over an hour. Most politicians you have to shut down after a few minutes. I could listen to Ron Paul all day.

I agree, because most politicians say a lot of stuff without actually saying anything. Ron Paul actually talks about real ideas and principles not squishy feel good terms or verbal tap dances.
 
I though Ron did pretty well, keep in mind he is not talking to us "die-hards" that want some real meat, he is trying to reach people that have probably never heard of him.
My niece watched the debate( she knows little about him). The biggest thing she noticed was that he got little time. This in itself will tell the thinking person that there is something wrong in this picture.
 
I thought the biggest comedian on stage was Rudy when he said he was for the second amendment.
 
Back
Top