Freedom4um

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: 1792
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 # 58.

#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  

#58. To: iconoclast, BrentFromCanada, rowdee, buckeye, robin, Cynicom, christine, All (#14)

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

It used to be that there were lots of paleocons in the GOP - the real conservatives. I think Dr. Paul speaks to them as well as the libertarians as well as to some Dems. I'm thinking that not only does there need to be a new GOP party but America truly needs a viable 3rd Party alternative. Most other countries in the Western World have at least 3 parties or more. Canada's NDP party has become a powerhouse in some provinces and recently has become the Prime Minister maker or breaker with the Liberals. The 2 party system is un-natural and dangerous ( too easy to bribe and control and to make under the table deals with one another) for a nation to keep for so many years as we have. That's why we're in the bind where we are.

If Dr. Paul went the 3rd party route - makes no difference to me ( the media hairdo's will try to spin it as RP going back on his word...screw 'em).

BUT if Dr. Paul does do 3rd party, I hope he doesn't have some weird new age inclusive name like reform or liberty lovers or whatever. He has always described himself as an old fashioned conservative, a GOP'er like what the party used to be and the new party should refer to those values in its name without chasing off the libertarians and centrist Dems who like traditional values. Constitutional Party has already been taken. Any suggestions?

scrapper2  posted on  2008-01-06   13:17:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Replies to Comment # 58.

#60. To: scrapper2 (#58)

If Dr. Paul went the 3rd party route - makes no difference to me ( the media hairdo's will try to spin it as RP going back on his word...screw 'em).

He did not give his word, in fact he said he has the right to leave himself some wiggle room (that was to Russert).

robin  posted on  2008-01-06 13:19:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#61. To: scrapper2 (#58)

I hope he doesn't have some weird new age inclusive name like reform or liberty lovers or whatever.

Agreed.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-01-06 13:21:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#62. To: scrapper2 (#58)

Any suggestions?

Jacksonians?

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-06 13:22:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#65. To: scrapper2 (#58)

FPP

Freedom Peace & Prosperity - is that too long a handle?

Lod  posted on  2008-01-06 13:32:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#102. To: scrapper2 (#58)

Constitutional Party has already been taken. Any suggestions?

As you know, we are in close agreement on the third party need.

Do you think the Constitution Party would reject an infusion of spirited Paul backers? Hell, they've had problems finding anyone that can found on Google to head their campaigns.

Don't fight 'em, join 'em. If we don't do it this spring, we should seriously get started after the Nov election.

Go Ron Go

iconoclast  posted on  2008-01-08 09:56:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#103. To: scrapper2, buckeye, , *Ron Paul for President 2008* (#58)

I think you'll be delighted to see what the CP has to say on its website about the good Dr.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=613#Paul

iconoclast  posted on  2008-01-08 10:04:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

End Trace Mode for Comment # 58.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest