Ron Paul or Rudy--Who "Won" The SC Debate?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, May 20, 2007.

  1. I caught the rerun of the republican debate in South Carolina. All the media seemed to think Rudy won it with his verbal smackdown of Ron Paul. Paul had the temerity to suggest that our interventionist foreign policy might have had a role in 9/11 and made us a target for terrorism. Rudy jumped in and said that was nonsense and demanded he withdraw the comments. Paul refused and made a pretty reasonable defense of his statement and the case for not being the world's policeman.

    My impression of this latest debate is that the format is making the candidates look like game show contestants. It is extremely dangerous for the so-called top tier candidates, as they are forced to compete on a more or less even basis with the second and third tier guys. Someone who wasn't up to the minute on the latest money raising statistics might be forgiven for wondering how they became the top tier. Instead of ignoring nettlesome issues like immigration, they are forced to deal with the articulate Tom Tancredo. Ron Paul, dismissed as a joke by the inside the Beltway commentators, has struck a chord with plenty of people. McCain by contrast has seemed wooden and a bit oblivious.

    Now there is a move by party insiders to kick Paul out of future debates. I guess articulating what was once standard Republican foreign policy is now considered too troubling to be allowed. I thought Paul and Tancredo were the winners of this debate. Romney sounded fine, but his flexible positions on "core principles" are troubling and a bit reminiscent of Kerry and Clinton.

    Fred Thompson's decision to stay out this scrum is beginning to look masterful. None of the top tier guys has advanced his standing by participating. Thompson is looking more presidential by the minute compared to these guys.
  2. Maverick74



    I have to disagree. I know the Paul-heads will attack me for saying this, but Ron Paul was doing fine up until that point where Rudy basically bitch slapped him. After that Ron started stuttering and sweating and slurring his words a little. All I'm saying is that he got very nervous and tentative. That was the first time someone actually took his words and threw them back in his face. Up until that point he was doing fine.

    Look, I like Ron Paul and he is good for the debates. It would be a travesty if they kept him out of the future debates. Both sides need a trouble maker like that to mix things up a little. Not sure who that guy is yet on the left, or woman for that matter. But we need extremists in the debates otherwise everyone is just too polite and reads their talking points off the teleprompters. The Republicans have been far worse with that. I really can't see any difference between any of those guys outside of the issue of abortion. Paul not included obviously.

    I like having Paul in there and I hope he does well. I'm not against him and I hope he continues to make the other Republicans sweat. I want to see a real candidate emerge here. So far, no luck.
  3. I agree, although I disagree with his views on foreign policy, Paul should remain in the debates and all sides ought to have opportunities to be heard. At some point though, closer to game time, the field does have to be narrowed in order to get into some depth, but that should be after everyone is heard fairly and only those with no clear chance are eliminated. This I am certain will inevitably happen to Paul, and Rudy will probably miss him dearly.

    Republicans will need to focus on one thing: who can get more votes than Hillary. I predict that the running mates will become a bigger factor in this race than in the past.
  4. and then the poll numbers came out and sean hannity stuttered and shook his head in disbelief. after this sequence of events i think it emboldened Ron Paul not to worry about a "foxed" crowd and let the truth do its magic on all americans.. not just neocon fox'ers.

    the result of all this surpassed anyone's expectations. best thing that could have happened.... it got people talking and researching and we see Paul was right and mobster rudy was wrong and the fools in SC were idiots.
  5. There are major differences on immigration. The hypothetical question about how to get information from a terrorist before a bomb goes off revealed deep splits, although most of them tried to have it both ways by saying use "enhanced interrogation" but not "torture." What do they think enhanced interrogation is? McCain at least was honest in his answer, but it might sink him. Let's face it, about 95% of the public would not care what you did to a terrorist if it meant foiling a terrorist bombing.
  6. LT701


    i'll forgive the guy for being a bit uneasy, given that nobody else has had the gut to tell the truth AT ALL
  7. let me tell you something LT701.... don't come on here and act all pious. just because you make sense and are basically right on Ron Paul and the truth, it doesn't make it ok for you to make these ET Neocons look bad. DO YOU HEAR ME BOY ????
  8. jem


    by the way if anyone said I would torture him myself if I had to - to make sure we got the information we needed to save american lives.

    The race would be over.
  9. LT701


    my answer would be 'America is not the kind of society that condones torture as policy, and the results of torure of questionable anyway - the situation described would be quite rare. However, if it really happened, and someone used it because there was *no other way* to stop a serious incident, the American people would pardon him, and so would I'
  10. #10     May 21, 2007