Rand's CNN debate perfomance was ok

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

It's better than last time but he really lacked energy. Id like to see more quick delivery and passion.

 

[Bigdubya]

I liked Fiorina's rant about the abortion thing. Seems to me that she is the only one to actually be so genuinely repulsed by it.
I thought about the old adage about how evil flourishes when good people remain silent and do nothing...

Made de me think of this:

W.B Yeats Second Coming
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.


Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.


The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

But I guess instead, what rough beast, his hairpiece come round at last, swaggers towards Washington to be elected.

 

[Rad]

He came off pretty good with his cool, collected seriousness. Its how I thought he should come off and I said so before when others wanted him to be aggressive. Maybe he reads these forums? It must be hard going up there and speaking on ones feet in front of the world. He could project his voice a bit more (get a speaking coach if he doesn't have one). I think it was well done. Foreign policy. I watched the clips. He needs to take his opponents to the woodshed concerning Saudi Arabia's support for terrorism.

 

[Jonderdonk]

well, i think its not really a matter of being 'offended', its more of ....who the hell are these people coming in here and trashing our guy. There are real warriors in here who would take a bullet for Ron and Rand if need be, so any 'slight' against them will be met with resistance.

If I were wanting to trash Rand Paul, I would not be on this forum. I've read his book three times, I donated as much as I could to the money bomb, and I'm an active member of Students for Rand at my college. And it absolutely IS a matter of being offended if you thought I was "trashing" Rand Paul in any way, shape, or form.

I will be the first, second, and third person to give Rand a big 'ol pat on the back if/when he starts leading in the polls. But the fact of the matter is that his numbers are not good right now, and I'm choosing to embrace reality. Every time I see something that I think Rand could improve upon in order to appeal to a wider audience, I suggest it on here in the (perhaps misguided) hope that some "higher-up" will see it and it could have some sort of impact on his campaign. It doesn't mean I'm right; I'm just trying to add to the discussion.

I am not "trashing" Rand at all. His performance last night was a major step in the right direction. He MASTERFULLY handled the exchanges with Bush and Christie by articulating the logical ramifications of their own positions and forcing them to backtrack on what they had just said. That was absolutely brilliant. I am all in for Rand in 2016; don't doubt that for a second.

 

[Bigdubya]

In the spirit of the OP, I think it worthwhile posting our thoughts about what might resonate with America more. So, to Trumps "Rand doesn't belong here..." Attack I would have been impressed if he said something along the lines of. "Are you scared to debate all of us?" And if Trump said more of the "there too many" or even if he said "not scared of YOU, that's for sure, then he could call him out and challenge him to a 1:1 debate publicly. I think that would be Trumps worst nightmare. He is too good at the short sound bite quips, but make him give a real response to a real line of questioning from a real conservative with real ideas and knowledge of national issues and I think a Trump flops. Just my $.02

 

[65fastback2+2]

I was pretty vocal before the CNN debate with my criticism of how Paul fared in the first (FOX News) debate and what I thought he needed to do if he was going to make any push forward in the polls with regular GOP voters, so I thought it only fair to give props where due.

Rand did a much better job staying composed in this debate. He didn't rush his answers or get emotional when attacked. He really looked like one of the few adults on a stage full of clowns. Kudos and props to Rand and his debate prep team. They got that right and if Rand maintains that, it will help.

I also think his reluctance to out Jeb as a pot smoker spoke well for his character and should likely be appreciated by folks who noticed.

However, there is still a glaring problem with his debate performances. When Rand speaks, you can tell he is principled, has a grasp of the issues and thoughtful. That's great. He's got some gravitas. Unfortunately, his thoughts are communicated too passively. He needs to use language that asserts what he will do rather than what approach is better/logical. He doesn't come across (in the debates) as someone who is a leader - someone who is taking charge and grabbing the bull by the horns (this is especially true on foreign policy issues).

Most GOP voters are not policy wonks. They are looking for a cult of personality they can embrace and identify with. Someone strong who doesn't take shit and speaks confidently about what they plan to do. This is why Trump (and now Fiorina) have been or are generating a buzz with voters. It's not about any policy positions they hold.

$.02 FWIW

So he should lie and act like a dictator?

What you just said literally makes ZERO sense. In fact, what you claim is a "glaring problem" has another nominee surging in the polls.

You cant have it both ways. Either its harmful or it isnt. And Carson surging shows that it isnt.

 

[CPUd]

In the spirit of the OP, I think it worthwhile posting our thoughts about what might resonate with America more. So, to Trumps "Rand doesn't belong here..." Attack I would have been impressed if he said something along the lines of. "Are you scared to debate all of us?" And if Trump said more of the "there too many" or even if he said "not scared of YOU, that's for sure, then he could call him out and challenge him to a 1:1 debate publicly. I think that would be Trumps worst nightmare. He is too good at the short sound bite quips, but make him give a real response to a real line of questioning from a real conservative with real ideas and knowledge of national issues and I think a Trump flops. Just my $.02

He's doing good right now to sit back, give well thought out responses when they point the cameras at him, and let the others cannibalize each other. Pretty safe to say he's done with tronalddump, the press seems to be moving on from him, too. Rand's poll numbers *might* go up a few points with the polls that are being conducted this and next week, but there's not going to be any real movement until 3 or 4 candidates drop out of the race and those supporters give him another look.

 

[TommyJeff]

Rand had a much improved debate (from fox to cnn) and might have won the last hour or so of the debate. Outside of one key answer I thought this debate had a lot of shining moments for him

 

[HarryBrowneLives]

I think Rand did pretty well. First, he didn't have much time and CNN didn't see too have much control of the thing with everybody butting in and jockeying for position. All CNN wanted to do was make it a reality show catfight between the so called top tier. One thing I though he missed a bit was the question about how the world/country would be different with him as POTUS. He focused only on world affairs and said nothing about domestic issues.

Donald Trump is a bigger mouthed version of Newt Gingrich without the knowledge. If you remember, Newt was riding high in the polls simply by attacking the media and the trailer park wing of the GOP just ate it up. Same thing is happening with Trump. The way you attack Trump is not name calling, but exposing the lack of substance he has. Unfortunately, the media just loves the former and already knows the latter.

 

[pmbug]

So he should lie and act like a dictator?

No, that is not what I said.

What you just said literally makes ZERO sense. ...

I don't think you understood what I said. Most everyone else who responded to this thread did understand. I will try to give you an example. Instead of saying (paraphrasing - not transcribing from a video):

Ronald Reagan talked to Russia during the cold war. Things aren't as bad now. We need to keep talking to people.

He can get the same message across with a more active voice that communicates that he will be the one taking the right action:

As President, I would keep the doors to diplomacy open. I would follow the example of Ronald Reagan who ...

It's a subtle difference, but it makes a huge difference in perception by the audience.

You do understand that many lifelong politicians spend years training for public appearances - both in debate training (what to say, how to respond to hostile questions) and in body language (how to stand, smile, use their hands, etc.) for non-verbal communication. Rand is not employing these techniques as successfully as he needs in order to project the kind of leadership that many of the unwashed GOP voter masses are looking for.

 

[pmbug]

... CNN didn't see too have much control of the thing with everybody butting in and jockeying for position. ...

This is another thing I was thinking about, but did not specifically mention.

When you watched the debate, there are times you see one of the candidates butt in out of turn and it is annoying - they are not adding to the discussion, just grabbing for airtime (Walker, Kasich and Huckabee IMO, came of really badly in this regards). But when a candidate used the tactic more selectively - when they had something substantive to add to the topic, like Rubio did on foreign policy, the audience respects and appreciates it. Rand was very meek in seeking approval from the debate hosts for talk time when everyone else just interjected when they had something to say. Even Carson managed to interject a few times. IMO, you have to own your position on that stage. Either you believe you are a front runner - a worthy candidate - and what you have to say is important - or you don't. Being too submissive to the moderators, while polite, sends the wrong message to the audience.

 

[klamath]

This is another thing I was thinking about, but did not specifically mention.

When you watched the debate, there are times you see one of the candidates butt in out of turn and it is annoying - they are not adding to the discussion, just grabbing for airtime (Walker, Kasich and Huckabee IMO, came of really badly in this regards). But when a candidate used the tactic more selectively - when they had something substantive to add to the topic, like Rubio did on foreign policy, the audience respects and appreciates it. Rand was very meek in seeking approval from the debate hosts for talk time when everyone else just interjected when they had something to say. Even Carson managed to interject a few times. IMO, you have to own your position on that stage. Either you believe you are a front runner - a worthy candidate - and what you have to say is important - or you don't. Being too submissive to the moderators, while polite, sends the wrong message to the audience.

They "appreciate" because Rubio was selling what they WANT. The best GD sales men in the world can't sell something the majority of the audience DOESN"T WANT!

 

[euphemia]

If the American people want something, then it really is their voices who matter.

 

[acptulsa]

If the American people want something, then it really is their voices who matter.

The media doesn't think so. The media is happy to tell them what to want. Are you saying only the media has a legitimate reason to tell people what they should want, and we don't?

Des this smell of legitimacy to you? Is the media's agenda more important than God's?

 

[timosman]

If the American people want something, then it really is their voices who matter.

Even if it is obvious to a 5 year old standing on a side they are being played for fools. YES WE CAN!

 

[klamath]

If the American people want something, then it really is their voices who matter.

Yes the American Republican voters want something and it aint what Rand is selling. If Carly can get up there and say she won't even talk to the president of the largest nation on earth and the voters eat it up, Paul doesn't have a chance no matter how good he is.

 

[acptulsa]

Yes the American Republican voters want something and it aint what Rand is selling. If Carly can get up there and say she won't even talk to the president of the largest nation on earth and the voters eat it up, Paul doesn't have a chance no matter how good he is.

Don't bet the farm on it. There's a lot of evidence that Republicans are slowly waking up to the fact that the Foxshit they've been eating ain't chocolate after all. If Trump can see that and use it, and we'e smarter than Trump, we won't prove it by giving up seventeen inches from the finish line.