4um: Review of January 5th, 2008 ABC GOP Debate

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Author! Author!
See other Author! Author! Articles
Title: Review of January 5th, 2008 ABC GOP Debate
Source: 4
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 5, 2008
Author: buckeye
Post Date: 2008-01-05 21:57:08 by buckeye
Keywords: Ron Paul
Views: 1811
Comments: 103

Facebook URL
Quick synopsis
Ron Paul, my focus during this event, was tired, slow to articulate his points, and easily overwhelmed by aggressive partisans.
McCain appeared to withdraw his insistence on amnesty, and then spent excess time interrupting other candidates who were differentiating themselves from his former positions — in defense of what he had apologized for.
Romney was effective at articulating his technical perspectives on issues (medical care, immigration) but clearly will not deviate from the Bush doctrines of war.
Thompson was reserved and came across as a fat cat at times. He smirked at Ron Paul several times.
Giuliani was about the same as he has always been. He smirked and laughed mirthlessly at Ron Paul several times.
John McCain was especially demeaning to Ron Paul during discussion of war.
Smirking and chuckling was prevalent when Ron Paul was talking about the Federal Reserve and inflation.
Illegal Immigration

This is my main reason for posting this thread.
It became abundantly clear that no one on the stage would deal with illegal immigration adequately. PC rules the day. we are not being heard yet.
Ron Paul lost an incredible chance to demonstrate his resolve on this issue, but he came close by emphasizing welfare.
The other GOP members are weak-kneed and left themselves with massive openings for abandoning their commitments to deal with immigration.
Huckabee talked about building a fence, and sounded like he's been listening to Gilchrist; his credibility is very low in my opinion.
The American people have NOT communicated their anger effectively with these people.
Ron Paul's demeanor

This was a fair debate with an open format.
Rushed, combative, on the defensive in many cases.
Unable to keep up with cross-talk and interruptions.
Should have worn a red tie, I'm hearing.
Ron Paul's victory
He kept his temper when badly mistreated not by ABC, but by the other participants.
He kept his humor, and joked several times.
He did articulate the threat of inflation/monetary-abuse.
He did talk about civil liberties and preemptive war.
He did talk about free enterprise and the Constitution.
He is the only candidate truly planning on implementing change.

Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 47.
#1. To: FOH, christine, iconoclast, Cynicom, who knows what evil, lodwick (#0)
ping

buckeye posted on 2008-01-05 22:01:27 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#3. To: buckeye (#1)
Paul was the only one who didn't make a complete ass of himself.

who knows what evil posted on 2008-01-05 22:04:05 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#7. To: who knows what evil (#3)
Paul was the only one who didn't make a complete ass of himself.

yeah, the rest of them just didn't seem like very nice people. I'm not saying you should support someone because you'd like to have a beer with him, but by the same token, you probably shouldn't support someone who you'd rather see get beaten up in a bar fight.

kiki posted on 2008-01-05 23:13:10 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#14. To: kiki, buckeye, All (#7)
the rest of them just didn't seem like very nice people

The Republican establishment is not made up of "very nice people".
I have been musing over what shape Dr. Paul's game plan may take as the 2008 race goes forward.
I do not see evidence of RP's throwing much of the treasure chest around, and I have come to feel strongly that he will declare third party (unless someone on a white horse charges in, and I don't know who the hell that would be).
Perhaps it is just wishful thinking on my part, but I believe the good Doctor may/has come to the conclusion that the most realistic step toward return to a Constitution based government may be first putting a stake through the heart of the faux "conservative" party in the form of a huge and painful and undeniable rejection of the treasonists in November.

iconoclast posted on 2008-01-06 9:16:06 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#15. To: iconoclast, christine, kiki, scrapper2, Cynicom (#14)
...I believe the good Doctor may/has come to the conclusion that the most realistic step toward return to a Constitution based government may be first putting a stake through the heart of the faux "conservative" party in the form of a huge and painful and undeniable rejection of the treasonists in November.

I'm watching this again (see [ABC Debate 1-5-08 Complete]).
I'm reminded of the following among the others:
Refusal to recognize the war's failures (Ron Paul got his alternative ideas out fairly well).
Refusal to admit that immigration policy has been terrible.
Glib attitudes toward the loss of America's manufacturing base.
Wanton reaffirmation of the intents of telecommunications spying, the Patriot Act and the MCA (Ron Paul talked about civil liberties).
An intentional lack of interest in inflation and monetary policy (Ron Paul nailed it on the price of oil).
Leaving the Democrats aside, we're seeing a headlong rush to take up the treasons Bush baton here.
I have to say again that Huckabee's preemptive health care was the most disturbing demonstration of his collectivism that I've heard to date.
Iconoclast, I hope you are RIGHT. For America's sake, I hope so.

buckeye posted on 2008-01-06 10:15:37 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#39. To: buckeye, palo verde, iconoclast, christine, kiki, scrapper2, Cynicom, robin, all (#15)
I believe the good Doctor may/has come to the conclusion that the most realistic step toward return to a Constitution

I have needed to think about this... for some time, before anything could/should be said. To be frank, I had trouble watching the debate. If there are people, and obviously there are, in America that were attracted to what the 'others' in this so-called debate had to say, then America is truly deserving of what is planned for her.
On the other side, for those who were not/are not familiar with Dr. Paul's message, I doubt he converted many. Robin is correct; there was a concerted effort by all others to belittle the message of Dr. Paul. That was pretty well done, although it is the only thing that was pretty well done 'by them.' And the message that Dr. Paul was putting out was intended for his base; this is a BIG mistake.
There is a common theme that runs through today's politics in America and that Dr. Paul needs to put out, or he is done.
1. We were told before the invasion of Iraq that the oil would pay for all expenses. We have now spent or committed more than 1 tillion dollars (repeat repeat repeat) and we can not afford to repair New Orleans - pay for health care - repair our infastructure - cut taxes for the middle class - repeat endlessly. Everytime something is said about paying for something, base it on i trillion dollars spent in a needless neverending war. Ask how much is enough? Ask if we need to spend 2 trillion. 3 trillion. 4 trillion.
There really is no other way to get this into the view of most Americans.
2. China now has more than 1.3 trillion dollars in reserve. Money that we Americans have spent on Chinese products because we no longer have any manufacturing in America. And, by the way, how many years did it take for China to accumualte all of that money? Yet, in Iraq, we have spent/commited more than 1 trillion dollars in just 4 years!
3. A prestiges British company/research institute (?) recently did an analysis of deaths in the civilian population in Iraq. They used internationally accepted methods in doing this, methods which have been used in many different locations around the world and which methods are accepted by the UN -- this research revealed that as many as 1 million EXTRA Iraq civilians have died in Iraq since the United States invaded the nation. 1 million needless deaths. 1 million. Repeat. Plus more than 4 thousand Americans have died there, and we have more than 20,000 (?) severly wounded, increased suicides, and etc.
No one needs to attack the others; all they need to do is put before the American public the facts that the major media denies, and, then back everything up on the web site. That is all that it takes, and I could not see that this is being done. Basically, he is playing, as far as I can see, by 'their' rules.
Keep playing by their rules, and this is simply, as I suspected from the beginning, an excercise in futility.
You are all correct in that Dr. Paul's message is the only message that is different. BUT...... therein lies the problem, because that means that it is outside of what Americans have come to consider normal. Which means that it is outside of their confort zone. Not many people are willing to change; it requires something akin to shock to force change on them, and, there was no shock in his message during the debate. And in particular in NH, that is something that would have been valued.
Dr. Paul was a gentleman. Gentlemen do not win these kinds of fights.

richard9151 posted on 2008-01-06 12:11:04 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#47. To: richard9151, buckeye, Peppa, kiki, scrapper2, Cynicom, Peppa, TwentyTwelve, who knows what evil, tom007, Dakmar, lodwick, critter, Robin, ALL (#39)
Thank you Richard for your long thoughtful post, I appreciate it
Dr Paul is offering USA citizens great government
If we do not get him in right now, we will have 4 years of hell ahead of us
If we do succeed in getting Ron Paul in Office, we will have saved our Constitution
the liberty of the people of the United States of America will be ensured
and we will not continue to rain hell with out bombs all over the world
God gave us free will
and by the grace of God, by a miracle, we still have free elections
If Dr Paul were not running, there would be no choice
we would have hell for next 4 years
Ron Paul gives us the choice for something completely different
we can save ourselves from hell by voting him President
Dr Paul does not need to do more than what he is doing
which is offering this choice
We will find out if our citizens choose it
whatever choice they make we will live
There won't be a second chance
without Dr Paul in Office, there will be police state
I doubt there will be free elections again
they will be fixed
I see no reason at this point why I should not trust my fellow citizens to make the right choice
I honestly believe Ron Paul is the candidate God supports, and having God's support is no small potatoes
It is early in the game, Ron Paul did beat Rudy in Iowa, he was only 3 points behind McCain and Fred Thompson
Ron Paul will do better in New Hampshire, and even better in South Carolina
Why not keep our chins up
All my love,
Palo

palo verde posted on 2008-01-06 12:58:40 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 47.
There are no replies to Comment # 47.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 47.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um

Quick synopsis

Illegal Immigration

Ron Paul's demeanor

Ron Paul's victory