back to top27 Comments to “I missed the debate!”

1. BY Amphipolis 10.10.07 AT 1:10 PM

   I saw the first hour. I don’t know who “won,” but I thought Fred rocked and Rudy did better than Romney.

   Ron Paul made me throw things at the TV.

   Report comment to moderator

2. BY outkast 10.10.07 AT 1:12 PM

   I don’t think presidential debates should be about who “wins,” but rather be an open discussion of the real issues voters care about. If anyone wanted to learn about the nuances in the stands of various GOP candidates on taxes, on the economy, on the line-item veto, etc, yesterday’s debate was the perfect opportunity to view those distinctions.

   Other than Ron Paul turning every single question into an ecuse to rant against the war in Iraq, I think each of the candidates expressed themselves well.

   BTW, does McCain need a hearing aid or what?

   Report comment to moderator

3. BY Hamachi 10.10.07 AT 1:17 PM

   Harrison, I suspect you really are the winner this time. I didn’t watch either. I guess Romney chose not to wear an American flag pin, like Obama. Maybe they’ve been recalled due to Chinese lead content?

   Report comment to moderator

4. BY krm 10.10.07 AT 1:42 PM

   I thought this one was rather entertaining.

   Chris Matthews distinguished himself as a patheticly biased partisan hack.

   Guilliani came off well, as did Thompson (after a slow start) and Romney wasn’t bad but put me off a bit. The lower tier candidates were lower tier.

   Report comment to moderator

5. BY Anlir 10.10.07 AT 2:12 PM

   Harrison,

   I too was reading a book instead of watching the debate. I’m on page 100 of Stephen Colbert’s “I am America!” book. It’s so funny I was laughing out loud in the bookstore. People thought I was on something

   Report comment to moderator

6. BY Kyle A 10.10.07 AT 2:12 PM

   I didn’t watch.

   I agree with Outcast. I don’t care who won. I care who was right the most.

   Report comment to moderator

7. BY metanoia 10.10.07 AT 2:16 PM

   KRM:

   Just curious. What made them “lower tier?” The fact that they only have a few percentage points of followers, because their stands on issues were “lower tier,” or they lack leadership “persona?”

   I didn’t learn much on their positions, as they have made most of their stances clear through their websites. I was looking for how they interacted with each other, especially when they were challenged by another or the moderator.

   I didn’t notice anyone as a clear “winner,” but I think Romney, Thompson and Guiliani lived up to most expectations while Brownback, Tancredo and Hunter held their own.

   Is it my imagination, or does Ron Paul come across as a wacko of the second degree?

   Report comment to moderator

8. BY outkast 10.10.07 AT 2:29 PM

   No, it’s not just your imagination, Metanoia. Paul even looks like a Mad Scientist character!

   Report comment to moderator

9. BY Derek 10.10.07 AT 2:34 PM

   I like Ron Paul’s ideology, but he doesn’t seem to address questions very well in debate. I didn’t see this particular debate: I saw PBS’s a week or two ago.

   Not sure he’d make a great president, but getting rid of most of the federal bureaucracy and giving power back to the states seems like a pretty good idea

   Report comment to moderator

10. BY outkast 10.10.07 AT 2:45 PM

    Agreed, Derek, there are indeed a lot of stands Paul takes that I love (and wish more GOP candidates would take up). But all of those great ideas he has are overshadowed by his looniness.

    Report comment to moderator

11. BY jjf 10.10.07 AT 2:53 PM

    I am a Ron Paul supporter, but I actually do agree with Derek. Given our mediated age, Ron Paul just doesn’t look presidential. His voice modulates too much (almost like he’s whining) and his smaller physical stature does not compare well again Romney’s ken-doll looks.

    But Ron Paul is hands-down the most well-read and intelligent candidate. If you watch him in question and answer sessions, he can reference books, studies, historical facts and ideas, etc. Other candidates, by comparison, just fall back on reiterating a talking point.

    Furthermore, he’s principled in the very literal sense that all his opinions are based on adherence to a certain principle: the intent of the Constitution. With most of the other candidates (with a few exceptions), I get the impression that their opinions are based on strategically winning interest groups.

    In debates he does tend to steer every question he can toward the war. I imagine because that is very much his image among this field of contenders — the principled anti-war candidate.

    Ron Paul is the best 19th century candidate in either party. I think he won’t end up doing well in the 21st century because image counts over substance, and intelligent and nuanced answers are less preferred than vague applause-inducing axioms.

    Report comment to moderator

12. BY dstocker61 10.10.07 AT 3:01 PM

    I think we all should be going mad when the top tier of the Republican party suggests that that lawyers should decide when a country goes to war (instead of the Congress), that a little country like Iran is an iminent threat to the United Staes (Russia had 40,000 nuclear weapons and we avoided war) and that it would be a good idea to have 0% interest rates (it so comforting to know that US Senators have a good understanding of economics-maybe they should atleast know the understand inflation).

    Report comment to moderator

13. BY outkast 10.10.07 AT 3:11 PM

    In debates he does tend to steer every question he can toward the war. I imagine because that is very much his image among this field of contenders — the principled anti-war candidate.

    JJF: In other words, Ron Paul’s answers are “based on strategically winning interest groups” such as the anti-war crowd?

    Report comment to moderator

14. BY krm 10.10.07 AT 3:22 PM

    Metanoia – On position matching quizes, a couple of the lower tier guys tend to come out on top for me; but I fully realize that they aren’t going anywhere – even in the GOP primaries. If they went into the General Election they’d be making Goldwater and Mondale look like close calls. Their performances made it clear that they aren’t going to challenge for top tier status.

    Ron Paul comes across as being from outer space, but from a planet slightly less far away than Lyndon LaRouche. And purely single issues candidates are worthless.

    Report comment to moderator

15. BY A 10.10.07 AT 3:30 PM

    JJF, unfortunately, you are correct. Ron Paul is no movie star, and he will lose votes because he does not look or act like a media celebrity.

    I did not watch the debate, but I watched a few clips on YouTube. Besides Ron Paul’s well-rounded background (I can tell he’s read entire libraries), I was impressed with his determination. No other candidate comes close in articulating a vision for America.

    Ron Paul has a very difficult job. Not only must he state his position, he must explain entire issues to an audience that is ignorant about the workings of the Federal Reserve, foreign trade, etc. I’m amazed how well he does explaining these complex issues in a short-answer format.

    I think Ron Paul brought up the war so many times, because that is how he can win. Yes, he has supporters who want to abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve, among other things. But the largest common denominator among voters is stopping this unconstitutional foreign occupation. Ron Paul is the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, who will end the war ASAP. Because of this stance on the war, Ron Paul has many dedicated supporters. Since the votes of war hawks will be spread out over so many other candidates in the primaries, Ron Paul will receive the most votes. Whether the Republican convention will nominate him is another question.

    The Republican convention would be wise to nominate Ron Paul, because he is the only candidate who can beat Hillary. Like it or not, the war will be the biggest issue in the 2008 election. If the Republicans nominate any other candidate, Hillary has the war trump card in her favor. If the Republicans nominate Ron Paul, he has the war trump card, because Hillary voted for the war, and Ron Paul did not. Ron Paul may be called a dark horse, but he is the only electable candidate in the field. Remember, dark horse candidates have been elected before.

    Report comment to moderator

16. BY Anlir 10.10.07 AT 3:58 PM

    You know, I really do admire Ron Paul for one thing: his determination in the face of fierce opposition from the Republican party. I admire people who go against the status-quo, who throw a monkey-wrench into the best laid plans, and who speak up for the minority point of view. He seems intelligent and principled.

    I also admire Ron Paul supporters. They’re so determined and dedicated. They’ve smartly used the internet and home-made signs to spread the word.

    Alas, I’m afraid it will be for naught. The big-wigs of the party will never allow him to win. I kind of see him as the “Howard Dean” of 2008. He won’t go out with a scream, but I’m afraid his support is a mile wide and an inch deep.

    Personally, I could never vote for him because I’m a socialist democrat. But I do tip my hat to him.

    Report comment to moderator

17. BY jjf 10.10.07 AT 4:26 PM

    Outkast:

    JJF: In other words, Ron Paul’s answers are “based on strategically winning interest groups” such as the anti-war crowd?

    Ah, cleverly turned, sir.

    Perhaps so — I haven’t thought about it that way. But two points.

    First, I can also see he believes it sincerely. Romney on 2nd Amendment rights, for example, is not so convincing. Guliani on anything other than 9/11 (does he ever talk about anything else?) is not so convincing.

    Second, he can provide sound reasons for his position. We can’t automatically fault a politician’s beliefs as calculated just because people agree with him — of course they will. But if the best a politician can do is empty platitudes in support of some policy, then I get the impression that his support is just as empty. If he can give reasons, evidence, and cite historical precedent, then it seems his position is based on something other than the polls.

    Report comment to moderator

18. BY jjf 10.10.07 AT 4:42 PM

    As for Ron Paul being “crazy,” I see two reasons he is so labeled.

    First, it’s a way for people who cannot (or will not) argue with him to defuse and ignore him. Just label him as a crazy “moonbat,” obviously beneath even the dignity of a response, and go on your merry way.

    Second, it’s because his ideas are outside contemporary mainstream politics. Contemporary politics — left and right — favor concentrating power in the Federal government, which meddles domestically and internationally with regard only for achieving certain results, not for the legality or justice of such meddling.

    So if we want to ensure our “childrens is learning” (and who doesn’t, since any one of them, even the ones dumb as stones, might grow up and one day be president), we empower the Federal government to oversee education. If we want to protect traditional marriage, or advocate non-traditional marriage, we empower the Federal government to see it done. The fact that such powers are not expressly given to the Federal government and are therefore reserved for the states and the people is conveniently ignored in pursuit of the ends we think are worth it:

    “I beseech you, wrest once the law to your authority. To do a great right, do a little wrong.”

    In other words, Democrats and Republicans want to use exactly the same sprawling machine, just for different ends. Paul, on the other hand, advocates stripping the machine back down to its original dimensions.

    “It must not be. There is no power in Venice can alter a decree established: ‘Twill be recorded for a precedent, and many an error by the same example will rush into the state. It cannot be.”

    Report comment to moderator

19. BY Mr_Meaner 10.10.07 AT 6:42 PM

    I thought Rudy won the debate, because the questions stayed away from social issues.
    He got the best of Romney on that exchange about line-item vetos. He was funny. He acted very confident and competent. I didn’t like the fact that he danced around on a couple of things. And he never really seemed flustered.
    I still don’t want him as a nominee, but I will vote for him if he is.
    I thought Fred did great, considering it was his first debate. He rolled with, and even chuckled at Romneys Law and Order joke, and then shot one back. That hack Matthews took some shots at him, but they were all swatted down with humor.
    Honestly,
    I think that Duncan Hunter said more of the things I’d like to hear. And I wish he hadn’t been overwhelmed by the news-darling celebrity status of the top three.
    I don’t think Huckabee was very impressive at all. And I thought he let his nanny-slip show a little.
    Ron Paul worries me. I think this guy is suffering from BDS to such an extent that he is going to run as a third-party candidate, regardless of who wins the nomination.
    The following will then happen;
    Ron Paul will bring in 10-15% of the vote.
    Hillary will beat Thompson or Giuliani by two or three percentage points.
    And for the second time in two decades, a hobbit from Texas will be directly responsible for this country electing a Socialist.
    Good going guys!

    Report comment to moderator

20. BY Frank in Phoenix 10.10.07 AT 7:09 PM

    JJF (18 & 19):

    Well said. (Of course, it wasn’t a fair “fight,” but the l’il pipsqueak needs to be rebuffed nevertheless.)

    Report comment to moderator

21. BY Polites 10.10.07 AT 7:57 PM

    JJF, you’ve made some good points about Ron Paul’s challenge in a “mediated age”. Yet, he’s impacting new media of the internet in startling ways. Perhaps he doesn’t appear “polished” in big media, but his message is attractive to an ever growing grassroots who just keep watching this bookish, intelligent, and articulate man stick to his Constitutional principles on YouTube and read his well argued articles all over the internet. He may not be polished, but I can’t imagine he’d need (or even want) a speech-writer. He does tend to talk fast in those forums, attempting to fit in as much as possible in short bursts, but that is because he’s actually trying to argue his points rather than spout platitudes.

    And, by the way, I don’t think he’s harping on the war just to be anti-war and to appeal to that group. Certainly, that is part of his appeal, but the military adventurism and interventionism of our country is inextricably linked to Paul’s overall critique of our country’s drift from the Constitution, along with government bloat and the welfare state. If we were to accuse Ron Paul of being a “one note Johnny” his one note is, undeniably, “follow the Constitution!”

    Report comment to moderator

22. BY Frank in Phoenix 10.10.07 AT 11:42 PM

    Not bad for a lunatic …
    

    This year, the [Gun Rights Policy Conference] audience was the biggest ever. At the first conference I attended, in Dallas in 1988, Ron Paul gave a speech on behalf of his Libertarian Party presidential candidacy. I had liked Paul ever since I had met him in 1981, when Paul gave a thoughtful speech to a group of several dozen interns at which I was present (at the time, I was a congressional intern for Pat Schroeder). I voted for Paul in 1988, and in light of the performance of President George H. W. Bush, I’m glad I did.Last Saturday night, at the buffet dinner and reception, the speaker was Ron Paul. The difference between Paul as a speaker in 1988 and in 2007 was startling. In 1988, he was perfectly competent. This time he was electrifying. In 1988, his campaign could do little more than leave some literature on a table. This time, he had volunteers to hand out literature, including (for the recipient audience) devastating material on Romney and Thompson. (Included among the materials distributed were Romney’s gubernatorial signing statement of the Massachusetts ban on so-called ““assault weapons,”“ and a copy of Sen. Russ Feingold’s letter to Senator Thompson after the passage of McCain-Feingold, with Feingold’s handwritten thanks, claiming that the bill never could have passed without Thompson’s help.)Most impressive, however, was the large crowd of young people who showed up to hear Paul’s speech. They were enthused and energized, many of them sporting Ron Paul Revolution t-shirts. (The shirts are very clever, since they use “Revolution” to also say ““LOVE”,” which makes revolution seem a lot nicer.)I did a lot of work in the Gary Hart campaign in 1983-84, while I was at the University of Michigan’s Law School. In terms of support from young volunteers, Paul is miles ahead of where Hart was before the Iowa caucus. After Hart finished second in Iowa, and then won New Hampshire, his campaign attracted a huge number of students, but not before. Paul, on the other hand, has what appears to be a staunch contingent of young supporters already.~ Dave Kopel, “Ron’s Revolution: Could Dr. Paul really surprise us all?” National Review Online, October 9, 2007

    Report comment to moderator

23. BY Frank in Phoenix 10.10.07 AT 11:44 PM

    [Sorry for the duplicate post ... TESTING ...]

    Not bad for a lunatic …
    

    This year, the [Gun Rights Policy Conference] audience was the biggest ever. At the first conference I attended, in Dallas in 1988, Ron Paul gave a speech on behalf of his Libertarian Party presidential candidacy. I had liked Paul ever since I had met him in 1981, when Paul gave a thoughtful speech to a group of several dozen interns at which I was present (at the time, I was a congressional intern for Pat Schroeder). I voted for Paul in 1988, and in light of the performance of President George H. W. Bush, I’m glad I did.

    Last Saturday night, at the buffet dinner and reception, the speaker was Ron Paul. The difference between Paul as a speaker in 1988 and in 2007 was startling. In 1988, he was perfectly competent. This time he was electrifying. In 1988, his campaign could do little more than leave some literature on a table. This time, he had volunteers to hand out literature, including (for the recipient audience) devastating material on Romney and Thompson. (Included among the materials distributed were Romney’s gubernatorial signing statement of the Massachusetts ban on so-called ““assault weapons,”“ and a copy of Sen. Russ Feingold’s letter to Senator Thompson after the passage of McCain-Feingold, with Feingold’s handwritten thanks, claiming that the bill never could have passed without Thompson’s help.)

    Most impressive, however, was the large crowd of young people who showed up to hear Paul’s speech. They were enthused and energized, many of them sporting Ron Paul Revolution t-shirts. (The shirts are very clever, since they use “Revolution” to also say ““LOVE”,” which makes revolution seem a lot nicer.)

    I did a lot of work in the Gary Hart campaign in 1983-84, while I was at the University of Michigan’s Law School. In terms of support from young volunteers, Paul is miles ahead of where Hart was before the Iowa caucus. After Hart finished second in Iowa, and then won New Hampshire, his campaign attracted a huge number of students, but not before. Paul, on the other hand, has what appears to be a staunch contingent of young supporters already.

    ~ Dave Kopel, “Ron’s Revolution: Could Dr. Paul really surprise us all?” National Review Online, October 9, 2007

    Report comment to moderator

24. BY metanoia 10.11.07 AT 9:51 AM

    I guess it’s just hard for me to get past his appearance on the Morton Downey show.

    Report comment to moderator

25. BY krm 10.11.07 AT 3:30 PM

    Ron Paul might be a potent force to be reckoned with – if his constituents can push temselves away from their computers, find their way out of their mothers’ basements and go to the polls.

    Report comment to moderator

26. BY Polites 10.11.07 AT 4:59 PM

    KRM, perhaps you could be more original in expressing your disdain for those who support Ron Paul.

    Report comment to moderator