Republican debate in South Carolina: Ron Paul takes drubbing

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Trader666, Jan 17, 2012.

  1. Republican debate in South Carolina: Ron Paul takes drubbing
    1/17/12 1:26 AM EST

    MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. — The rivals who largely ignored Ron Paul for much of the campaign gave him a drubbing Monday night.

    The Fox News/Wall Street Journal debate pile-on began after Paul answered a question about whether the U.S. government had the authority to kill Osama bin Laden. Booed by the boisterous audience, Paul compared bin Laden’s capture in Pakistan to a Chinese dissident hiding in the U.S. and said the U.S. government wouldn’t want China to “bomb us and do whatever.” He also advocated attempting to capture and question top terrorists leaders instead of kill them.

    “I mean, if you think about Saddam Hussein, you know, we did that,” Paul said. “We captured him, and we tried him – I mean, the government tried him – and he hung — got hung. What’s, what’s so terrible about this? This whole idea that you can’t capture…what’s this whole idea that you can’t capture people?”

    Paul added: “Just think, [Nazi leader] Adolf Eichmann was captured. He was given a trial. What’s wrong with capturing people? Why didn’t we try to get some information from them? You know, we’re, we’re accustomed to asking people questions, but all of a sudden – gone. You know, that’s it.”

    Newt Gingrich quickly jumped on the Texas lawmaker, calling the comparison of bin Laden to a Chinese dissident “utterly irrational.” Romney moved to second the former speaker, adding the right solution for bin Laden was the “bullet in the head that he received.”

    Paul’s own words — and the strong counter-punch from his GOP rivals — had the net effect of isolating him from the rest of the pack on foreign policy. Combined with the fact that Paul has actually spent very little time campaigning in the state, there are questions about whether the dovish lawmaker — who wants all U.S. troops returned from foreign entanglements and won’t confront Iran over nuclear weapons — can actually compete in a serious way in hawkish South Carolina.

    “Congressman Paul has got his way of communicating and everything, and he’s kind of been the one who has been here the least,” South Carolina GOP Chairman Chad Connelly after the debate. “I don’t know if he decided to play here less or anything. I’ve kind of been the one saying, ‘Please, come on in, get in the state.’ So it’s going to be interesting to see what he gets on Saturday.”

    South Carolina GOP Gov. Nikki Haley, who has endorsed Romney, said Paul’s isolationist message won’t play here.

    “South Carolina is a very strong military state,” she said. “Very strong military state, patriotic state, and so I don’t think that that part of his message resonates in South Carolina.”

    Paul’s chief in-state surrogate, state Sen. Tom Davis — who was former GOP Gov. Mark Sanford’s chief of staff — defended the congressman’s debate performance.

    Davis called the crowd’s boos to Paul’s bin Laden response “misconstrued” and said that any time Paul hasn’t spent in South Carolina is devoted to campaigning elsewhere.

    “He’s running a nationwide race,” Davis said. “He’s not somebody that’s focusing on just certain areas … He’s not a niche candidate.”

    But Paul’s views on international relations have long been outside the Republican mainstream, and he is pitching his message way beyond the bounds of the 3,000-person debate crowd to a national audience and core supporters already sympathetic to his libertarian stands. His foreign policy views are more about slashing money from the federal budget — “waste,” as he called it to applause on the debate stage — and shoring up the military domestically. He is one of only two candidates who have served in the military and can claim more campaign donations from active military personnel than any other candidate.

    Speaking in a part of the state heaviest on retired military, Paul defended his pledge to cut military spending by arguing that he wouldn’t reduce domestic defense expenditures.

    “I want to cut military money. I don’t want to cut defense money,” he said. “I want to bring the troops home. I’d probably have more bases here at home. We were closing them down in the 1990s and building them overseas. That’s how we got into trouble. So we would save a lot more money and have a stronger national defense, and that’s what we should do,” he contended.

    He added, in a line that drew big applause — some of his only of the night: “You don’t understand there’s a difference between military spending and defense spending. Just because you spend — spend a billion dollars on an embassy in Baghdad bigger than the Vatican — you consider that defense spending. I consider that waste.”
  2. Guess I wouldn't go over big in S. Carolina... I say, Bravo Ron Paul!
  3. Ricter


    Well, he does make a point, though the use of "Chinese dissident" doesn't allow a fair comparison, which Newt jumped on (because debates are not truth seeking events). Might makes right. It's hard to imagine a scenario where a "bin Laden" equivalent is hiding inside the US and the Chinese send a team in to take him out, because the Chinese don't have the power over us to do so.
  4. Mvector


    Ron Paul Tied With Romney As Most Electable Republican

    Establishment myth that Paul is not electable debunked yet again

    Tuesday, January 17, 2012

    A new CNN poll once again debunks the myth that Ron Paul is not electable, showing the Congressman tied with Mitt Romney in a hypothetical head to head contest against Barack Obama.

    “The poll also indicates Paul statistically tied with Obama, with the president at 48% and the longtime congressman at 46%,” reports CNN. “But according to the poll, the president is doing better against two other Republican presidential candidates. If Rick Santorum were the GOP nominee, Obama would hold a 51%-45% advantage over the former senator from Pennsylvania. And if Newt Gingrich faced off against the president, Obama would lead the former House speaker 52%-43%.”

    Paul’s performance against Obama has improved compared to previous CNN polls taken over the course of the last year, illustrating his momentum.

    The results are similar to a CBS poll last week which found that Paul was just one percentage point behind Obama in terms of a head to head run off. Aside from Mitt Romney, the poll showed that all the other Republican candidates would be beaten by Obama.

    Numerous establishment Republicans have regurgitated the hoax that Paul is not electable in an effort to undermine his campaign, flagrantly ignoring polls which illustrate the exact opposite to be true.

    The corporate media has also been instrumental in manufacturing doubts about Paul’s electability, dismissing him as “the buffer between Mitt Romney and the other candidates,” a claim Paul has soundly rejected.

    “I’ve been electable,” Paul told CBS News last week. “I’ve won 12 elections already, and we’re doing quite well now. It’s amazing that I do so much better than those other candidates that are all electable. They’re all in fourth, fifth and sixth place, but they’re all electable, but I come in second or third, and all of the sudden people say, ‘Oh, he’s not electable.’ I don’t know how that adds up.”

    As Mark R. Crovelli highlights, when Republicans decided to pick a “moderate” four years ago in the belief that such a choice would secure the White House, it didn’t end too well.

    more -

  5. Mvector


    After huge volume of complaints, Fox reporter was forced to do-over post debate breakdown revealing that Ron Paul blitzed the debate in every category

    January 17, 2012

    The dirty tricks campaign against GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul reached new heights during the South Carolina debate last night, with virtual exclusion from the first 40 minutes of the program, poisonous questions in the second half, and a cringe inducing situation during the post debate analysis where Fox pundits were forced to admit that Paul had completely wiped the floor with the other candidates.

    During the post debate commentary, Fox reporter John Roberts blatantly excluded Paul from the charts and graphs he presented representing feedback from viewers.

    The results of Twitter surveys on which candidate had most accurately answered questions and who had performed the best were displayed with Ron Paul’s name nowhere to be seen.

    Almost one hour later, Roberts was called upon to go over the results one more time, after floods of complaints from viewers asking why Paul had been left out.

    “John, you caused a fury in my world.” Fox anchor Harris Faulkner began. “I have a bone to pick with you. You left off Ron Paul.” she added, before Roberts attempted to slime out of the fact hat he had totally excluded Paul from his results tally by saying that because Ron Paul won by huge margins in every category, it was unnecessary to report on it!

    Roberts then went through each debate topic again with Paul added to the graphic. As he explained the result Roberts downplayed and skipped over Ron Paul’s figures in every category, causing Harris Faulkner to interject.

    “John, can I stop you right there because I’m getting real time feedback.” Faulkner said. “Ron Paul did not just do well, he did the best from that chart. I just want to be fair because people are watching for this.” she added.

    Roberts then laughed out loud and flippantly said “his bars are bigger than everyone else’s, we report you decide.” before once again mocking Paul’s performance as he continued the presentation.

    Watch the unbelievable footage below:
  6. Mvector


    “John, can I stop you right there because I’m getting real time feedback.” Faulkner said. “Ron Paul did not just do well, he did the best from that chart. I just want to be fair because people are watching for this.” she added.

    Roberts then laughed out loud and flippantly said “his bars are bigger than everyone else’s, we report you decide.” before once again mocking Paul’s performance as he continued the presentation.


    Great Job Dr. Paul! Ron Paul 2012! Americas LAST CHANCE to get it right!
  7. Power over us is irrelevant. Do you really "think" that if a psychopath terrorist who did something on the scale of 911 to China was hiding in the U.S., we would help or protect him? :p
  8. Ricter


    As I said, it's hard to imagine the scenario (since we're so competent), but if you do give free-rein for a moment and imagine it, you can ask yourself, "would China be right to do this?"
  9. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  10. First you said China's lack of power over us is why it's hard to imagine, now it's our competence? The analogy is an obfuscation.
    #10     Jan 17, 2012