Mistakes Ron Paul Made In Debate

[BuddyRey]

I'll agree with most of these. If I could sum it up in as few words as possible, Ron Paul's biggest mistake was that he was too much of a gentleman. Disrespectful bastards like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney blathered well beyond the point of "ok, we get it already," whereas Ron Paul respectfully followed the rules, even when CNN shill Wolf Blitzer gave him far less time for answers and responses than the others. If Ron Paul wants to stay in these debates, he's got to open a can of constitutional whoopass in the next one, to show everybody what makes him different from every other candidate, Republican and Democrat.

 

[kelldor]

He didn't get any chance to discuss monetary policy, his strongest suit. In foreign policy he is strong, if your against the Iraq war and not brainwashed by the constant hummdrumm of "911, 911, 911, 911, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism. There's a lot of pro-war republicans out there, so his foreign policy message doesn't appeal to them as much.

Everyone is feeling the pinch from their wallets these days, and the thing that helped Ron Paul in the 1st debate the most was his monetary policy platform, Federal Reserve, IRS, Infaltion Tax stuff.

In the 2nd debate the lashing out by Rudy turned out to benefit Ron. But now, Ron is still responding to that with the Mozedeqh overthrow in '53, etc. When Ron continues this, he's just countering Rudy's move.

In the next debate it is critical that Ron Paul gets back on message and plays the ace up his sleeve, and that's his stand on honest money. That's the best way he can go on the offense. Make them other buffoons have to play defense for a change.

 

[rp4pres]

I think he should continue to focus primarily on the Iraq war. 70% of Americans are against this war so he can make a lot of hay here. The pro-war Republicans are going to be spread across 9 other candidates. He is the only choice for anti-war Republicans, independents and libertarians. He can even pick up support from conservative anti-war Democrats fed up with their party's sell out on the issue.

There are a lot of traditional conservative values that are being shredded by the NeoCon Iraq war champions. For example, the Patriot Acts impact on personal liberty and privacy, the trillion dollar cost of the war being passed on to our children, the historical failure of nation building at the point of a gun, the unprecedented immoral and unChristian premptive war strategy, etc, etc.

The NeoCon's Iraq war is wrong from political, economic, constitutional and moral angles. This issue is Ron Paul's battle axe and he should use it to bludgeon his pro-war opponents whenever they misrepresent themselves as conservatives. Ron should use his battle axe to take back our party and show America what real Republican values are all about.

In other words, I think he should keep doing what he's been doing.

 

[romelll]

We also must remember:
Rudy has been on speaking tours for how long? So he has gotten a decent stage presense.
McCain is old hat at this.

Romney has that cool appearance.

If this was on the radio, RP would have won on points. He did not interupt to answer quetions or give a sour face when someone answered a question. Things he must work on is the arms flailing. And smile.

 

[PaleoForPaul]

210 years ago?

3. He's not combative. Ron Paul's views were mainstream 210 years ago but are now radical. This makes Ron Paul a revolutionary.

His views would have fit in fine 20 years ago in the Reagan administration, and they are in line with how Goldwater viewed government.

Even his view on the gold standard would have been mainstream just 40-50 years ago.

He isn't a radical, although he seems like one since the Bush's have corrupted conservatism.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Captain Shays...

I think you're right and I wish you'd forward those comments to the campaign headquarters.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Folks, if we do not print out some campaign literature (he now has a couple of things on his web site), burn some CDs and head out to pass out these things, door-to-door and anything else we can think of, he is not going to succeed.

Dr. Paul is doing everything he can humanly do. The rest is up to us. We know his principles are sound. There is a plethora of speeches, articles and videos out there, or we have the talent to create the video we think we need.

We've got to get busy, or this thing is going to be all over.

 

[LibertyEagle]

In the next debate it is critical that Ron Paul gets back on message and plays the ace up his sleeve, and that's his stand on honest money. That's the best way he can go on the offense. Make them other buffoons have to play defense for a change.

Man, do I ever agree. He has the brain, the principles and the knowledge to make the others skitter off to the corners where they belong. He needs to get back to the basics. That is where he truly shines.

I also wish he'd find the opportunity to issue a few hits about the national ID, Bush's SPP and the NAU.

But, I agree with the first post in this thread too. Dr. Paul has spent too much time talking about bringing our troops home from Iraq, without talking about what he has proposed to go after bin Laden. It's in his speeches and he needs to SAY IT so the American people know there is a better way. It also reinforces that he's as tough on national security like Reagan said he was.

 

[beermotor]

Dr. Paul's latest piece, The Price of Delaying The Inevitable in Iraq, released on Dr. Paul's own website yesterday, was brilliant. Every day Dr. Paul is alive is such a bonus to us all, don't you think?

Yeah - can say the same about the late Murray Rothbard, too.

Honestly I think it's better to not be overzealous about the gold standard. Talk more about how we are in deep economic doodoo and "something" needs to be done; i.e., we need to scrap all these managed trade deals, immigration, foreign debt ownership, etc. The gold standard is a panacea for a LOT of things, but 80 years of indoctrination will take a long time to undo in the general populace.

 

[USAFCapt]

Illegal Immigrants

as scapegoats was a very nice way of putting it and I had never though of the issue that way.