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: 1779
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 # 88.
#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
#45. To: richard9151 (#39)
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.

Right on.
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.
That's exactly what I'm saying here. I think one way he can do that is seize the illegal immigration issue by the horns and point out that he's the only one who won't pander to Hispanics, but will execute our domestic policy on behalf of all Americans equally. (I just heard on the McGloughlin group that the Democratic party is securing much of the Hispanic vote due to their friendliness toward illegals and their plights.)
Ron Paul started out so powerfully in this debate by implying early on that he was probably tougher on winning the war on terror by being focused on specific enemies rather than using symmetric methods to fight the war. But he lost the chance to deliver that message because he was a gentleman.
Ask how much is enough? Ask if we need to spend 2 trillion. 3 trillion. 4 trillion.
The GOP puppets and fair haired boys on that stage besides Ron Paul have no problem with deflating the value of the dollar ad infinitum. Ron Paul could have seized on that and driven it home. Our national defense is more tied to the value of the dollar than any foreign threat they can summon, and did with the city-nuking theme in the next DNC segment.
...this research revealed that as many as 1 million EXTRA Iraq civilians have died in Iraq since the United States invaded the nation.
I don't know whom to believe on this issue, and there's no doubt in my mind that the infighting we've seen is a major factor here, in any case. One thing is clear: our casualties have been wasted on this war. Our suffering has been for naught. Our young people are in wheel chairs and buried in cemeteries because of an invalid foreign policy that none of the other CFR puppets are going to change one iota.
Keep playing by their rules, and this is simply, as I suspected from the beginning, an excercise in futility.
Very true, and yet we have to be intelligent enough to rewrite the rules for ourselves without being seen as anarchists. A third party is the right way to go in my view, especially given what happened in Iowa and Wyoming.
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.
You nailed it. The common attack on my criticism of the Patriot Acts is "what freedoms have you lost?" The Establishment is careful to leave crumbs for the people such that they can be persuaded that their lives are acceptable.
Dr. Paul was a gentleman. Gentlemen do not win these kinds of fights.
Perhaps. The American people will have to think for themselves, and if they do not, we cannot force them to do so. Some people prefer self-posessed gentlemen over marionettes regardless of the issues involved.

buckeye posted on 2008-01-06 12:54:30 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#78. To: buckeye, Peppa, kiki, scrapper2, Cynicom, Peppa, TwentyTwelve, who knows what evil, tom007, Dakmar, lodwick, critter, robin, ALL (#45)
this research revealed that as many as 1 million EXTRA Iraq civilians have died in Iraq since the United States invaded the nation.
I don't know whom to believe on this issue,

This is the problem when you do not do the reading and research needed to prove that which you are exposed too.
The information about the civilian deaths in Iraq was done by a Britsh organization using internationally accepted methodologies. The same methods that were used in Africa to justify interventions in Africa, and, the methods are accepted internationally AND BY THE UN, except as used in Iraq.
In addition to this, there is now evidence to show that there may be as many as 5 million orphans in Iraq. Since the majority of the deaths SO FAR in Iraq were not children, it is not hard to correlate this two numbers; more than 1 million cilivian deaths -- more than 5 million orphans.
Now, take that a step further; 5 million orphans who can not feed themselves will translate to another 1-3 million additional civialian deaths if the war continues.
Now, tell me that something could not be built around this in the campaign. And, should be.
And every time this is talked about, 1 trillion dollars is mentioned again and again and again and again. Endlessly. So, if any of you have a contact inside of the Dr. Paul effort, I suggest that you begin talking.

richard9151 posted on 2008-01-06 15:17:20 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#79. To: richard9151 (#78)
What if this is true? Some people refuse to allow us to leave Iraq because they see that the suffering is now ours to alleviate. One way Ron Paul could lose even more supporters is if he promised to pay reparations, as one Iraqi war veteran's group has been requesting.

buckeye posted on 2008-01-06 15:23:17 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#80. To: buckeye (#79)
What if this is true? Some people refuse to allow us to leave Iraq because they see that the suffering is now ours to alleviate.

You alleviate suffering first, by stopping the killing and the hoarding of food -- by the US and her allies.
Second, you alleviate suffering by permitting the people of Iraq to go back to work. Stop with all of the foreign workers, who have stolen the work which belongs to the people of Iraq.
Third, you permit the people of Iraq to begin to rebuild their own nation in their own vision using the proceeds from the oil which is theirs.
As to reparations, have you ever heard of Viet Nam? Or, Korea? In both instances, we correctly paid. How much could/would the US pay, compared to what the war costs?
In addition, the attack on Iraq by the United States and Britian was, according to international law, a war crime. Dr. Paul can use this to better explain his positions, and, end any questions about reparations/continuing the war.
Do not tell me that he could lose support over an issue that is so easily resolved with a very little bit of thought.

richard9151 posted on 2008-01-06 15:33:46 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#81. To: richard9151 (#80)
I don't believe that we paid reparations to either North Korea or Vietnam. If you have documented evidence, feel free to submit it.
Your other points suggest continued American involvement in Iraq, which is exactly what we do not want. Let them take care of themselves.
Ron Paul has made his positions clear on this matter. I would not support him if he had not.

buckeye posted on 2008-01-06 15:39:31 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#82. To: buckeye (#81)
I don't believe that we paid reparations to either North Korea or Vietnam. If you have documented evidence, feel free to submit it.

Please, buckeye, don't try and excuse actions of the US government.
http://www.pownetwork.org/docs/part2.htm
POWs and Politics - Part 2
For instance, much of the money paid to Hanoi for JTF-FA activities is being sent by the U.S. Navy Regional Contracting Office in Singapore through the Bank of America to the account of the External Affairs section of the Communist party.
Much of the money paid to Viet Nam was paid with the excuse that it went to pay for the recovery of the bodies of US servicemen. That would indicate that somehow a sense of regret (?) started in Washington, DC, that is not supported by the evidence about what was and what was not done about MIAs, not only in Viet Nam but in Korea and WWII as well.
In addition, I said nothing about North Korea. I said Korea, but that only makes sense when you know, as I have posted before, that the Korean War originated and was planned in New York. The payments can be counted however you wish, but stop for just one moment and think about this;
US troops have been in Korea for nearly 60 years. The US has a national debt of, what, 9 trillion dollars? How much of that is directly attributable to the Korean War and occupation? With interest, probably in excess of 1 trillion.
There is one more thing which is a fact; after the money was paid in each case (in whatever form you wish to state it), US and British corporations and banks moved in and it was 'business-as-usual.' And if you really want to understand, simply study who owns and controls all of those fancy South Korean corporations (as well as all of the Japanese); New York and London bankers (i.e., the owners and controllers of the Federal Reserve). When everything is said and done, it will be the same in Viet Nam, even if you and I can not see the reality of the situation.

richard9151 posted on 2008-01-06 16:31:19 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#86. To: richard9151 (#82)
Please, buckeye, don't try and excuse actions of the US government.

When did I make excuses? I made none. Ron Paul makes none. He simply says we should come home.
Much of the money paid to Viet Nam was paid with the excuse that it went to pay for the recovery of the bodies of US servicemen.
I don't see any of that as reparations. I have no intention to support any form of reparations in Iraq, and I would not support Ron Paul if he wanted to add that to my tax bill in 2009.

buckeye posted on 2008-01-06 16:36:11 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#88. To: buckeye, richard9151 (#86)
don't see any of that as reparations. I have no intention to support any form of reparations in Iraq, and I would not support Ron Paul if he wanted to add that to my tax bill in 2009.

Maybe if our government promised to send to the Iraqis all the neocons who caused the Iraq invasion and give the Iraqis the go-ahead to do what they want, no holds barred with the anti-America/anti-Iraq neocon likes of Wolfowitz, Feith, Kagan, Kristol, Krauthammer, Pohoretz etc - that might be viewed as sufficient re-payment???

scrapper2 posted on 2008-01-06 16:44:40 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 88.
#90. To: scrapper2 (#88)
...hat might be viewed as sufficient re-payment?

You suppose that we owe them anything at all. I don't think we do.

buckeye posted on 2008-01-06 16:47:52 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#92. To: scrapper2 (#88)
Maybe if our government promised to send to the Iraqis all the neocons who caused the Iraq invasion and give the Iraqis the go-ahead to do what they want, no holds barred with the anti-America/anti-Iraq neocon likes of Wolfowitz, Feith, Kagan, Kristol, Krauthammer, Pohoretz etc - that might be viewed as sufficient re-payment?

Toss in smirkI & II, cheney, and rummy and you'd prolly have a deal.

Lod posted on 2008-01-06 16:49:42 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 88.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um

Quick synopsis

Illegal Immigration

Ron Paul's demeanor

Ron Paul's victory