Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Email Us
Except for one brief exchange, last night’s Republican presidential debate was something of a yawner as far as debates go. There were few winners and probably even fewer losers.
Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul fared reasonably well while Minnesota’s Michele Bachmann most likely exceeded expectations.
While Romney, the party’s presumptive frontrunner, emerged from the debate virtually unscathed, the Minnesota congresswoman, possessing a little more depth than some of her critics probably expected, proved that she clearly belonged on stage with the other six candidates.
“She was clearly one of the best-prepped candidates here,” said CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, whose candidacy came perilously close to collapsing late last week when 16 staff members abruptly abandoned ship, probably impressed a few people with his depth of knowledge and grasp of the issues facing the country.
His succinct opening line — “When 14 million Americans are out of work we need a new president to end the Obama Depression’’ — might have been the best one-liner of the evening.
Surprisingly, nobody asked the former Speaker about last week’s mass exodus from his campaign.
As usual, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul — who’ll turn 76 in August — came off as highly principled and provided one of the few sparks in the debate when he vigorously challenged Romney on the issue of withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan.
Romney said that he would rely on the advice of generals on the ground in Afghanistan in determining when troops should be removed, prompting a quick rebuttal from the fiery Texas congressman.
“I wouldn’t wait for my generals,” retorted Paul, a longtime noninterventionist. “I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I’d bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn’t start a war in Libya. I’d quit bombing Yemen. And I’d quit bombing Pakistan. I’d start taking care of people here at home because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars.”
It was the closest thing to a Reaganesque moment in the entire debate.
Ex-Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum arguably held his own during the two-hour debate, but demonstrated little appeal beyond his party’s splintered social conservatives, many of whom have already gravitated toward other candidates.
Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, probably disappointed some viewers by his unwillingness to go on the attack against Romney, particularly since he showed no such reluctance a day earlier when he said that President Obama had based his national health plan on Romney’s health care model in Massachusetts, derisively describing it as “Obamneycare.”
Pawlenty has yet to excite his party’s conservative base.
Meanwhile, Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, almost seemed out of his league, awkwardly defending his initial support for the $700 billion TARP bailout and then stumbling on his clarification of a statement made in March that he wouldn’t appoint Muslims to serve in his cabinet — a controversial comment that drew criticism from frontrunner Mitt Romney, who said that he would welcome Americans of all religious persuasions into his administration.
Cain, a Tea Party favorite, offered little in the way of substance during last night’s debate.
Cain is not and has never been a Tea Party favorite.
The Tea Party was created in opposition to people like Cain.
He doesn’t even believe the Federal Reserve should be audited, he supported the bank bailouts, he wouldn’t end the unconstitutional wars so he would continue wasting money on them, and he would raise the debt ceiling.
The war industrial complex, which owns the big media companies, keeps selling their sympathizers and apologists as Tea Party favorites, so you should beware of their lies.
great article. I am sharing it on Facebook.
Well written article. The debate was a “yawner” with John King’s interuptions annoying and undproductive at best.. no real difficult questions were asked of any of the candidates, which IS neccesary so that they can distinguish themselves from the others. Ron Paul was the only one I saw that tried to set himself apart.. and he did so quite well. That’s one consistent and honest man.. no matter what you believe.
Constitutionally, legislatively, and morally, Ron Paul has no equal. His 22 year voting record speaks for itself.
Mr. Paul has not survived in politics for 22 years and maintain the ethics and morality he has by being anything other than stellar.
If You refute the above comment, then I please invite You to listen to him speak about key issues. It is amazing how well he comes across because he doesn’t have to remember lies like other politicians. He understands what is happening in the world and knows how to apply the basic principles of liberty to achieve the real change that America so desperately deserves.
American to American we are all on the same team. So I present Mr. Ron Paul as my Candidate for 2011 and invite anybody to meaningfully and respectfully debate why he is not the best for American and its people in 2012.
Ron Paul = A real change, not for special interest, but for America’s Interests!
Thank You for Your time
Ron Paul 2012
Paul showed his age last night and that didn’t help him. What serves him so well is that he’s thoroughly consistent — if you grasp his fundamental principles you can predict his position on virtually any issue. It’s that internal consistency, intellectual and moral integrity, that holds him together.
Last night he seemed to have a problem choosing what to use to respond to questions, how to select short direct answers calibrated to resonate with folks who DON’T understand Austrian vs Keynesian economics, individual vs collective action, truly self-interested foreign policy. He knows his stuff so very well but he seemed to stumble over himself trying to get out thoughts in a logical, persuasive manner.
Paul needs a few clean, easily graspable metaphors.
For example, call him “The Man who would NOT be King.”
Use as communicative scaffolding a marvelous choice of words I’ve heard him use.
“I DON’T want to run your life (or the “medical industry,” or “the economy,” or “the world”.)
“I CAN’T run your life.
“I have NO constitutional or moral AUTHORITY to run your life.”
Pingback: Ron Paul’s Reaganesque Moment | The Freedomist- Freedom News
When Dr. Paul said he was the “Commander and Chief” it sounded true. He is ready and has the credibility to do the things this country needs in order to be prosperous and free again. I just hope enough people register as republican so that they can vote for him in their state’s primaries and caucuses.
Ron Paul is the champion of Liberty and the defender of the Constitution. Ron Paul 2012!! “A true patriot is someone who will challenge his government when his government is wrong” Ron Paul
Willard Romney will do what the military tells him to do.
Willard Romney is not Commander-in-Chief material.
How many veterans were on that debate stage?
Ron Paul won the the CNN online poll with 44%. Why are they not posting this? When Ron did the interview with Ron on AC360 CNN cut out the applause and replaced it with people mumbling. Why?
Ron Paul back in 2002 predicted the financial crisis- he may sound like he is going on a tangent but he knows what he is saying. Look up in Youtube “The Amazingly Accurate Predictions of Ron Paul” and spread the news!—-Please this only takes a few minutes and you depend on it.
Yep, Pawlenty and Cain performed very poorly last night. Paul, Bachmann, and Gingrich all had good moments where they articulated solid economic conservative principles. Romney was a phony, platitude spouting empty suit, and Santorum sounded better than in the first because he didn’t talk about his misogyny as much.
@Darcy – nice article – thanks!
@Joe – I agree with you about Romney – he is so phony it’s almost funny.
I respectfully disagree with you regarding Bachmann. She is surely the master of the soundbite, but I didn’t hear anything of substance.
I was actually surprised by some of Gingrich’s comments, they were thoughtful.
Overall I believe that Ron Paul offered real ideas, such as “maybe we should be patrolling our own borders, rather then Irag’s and Afghanistan’s”.
He isn’t the most polished speaker, but you can sense the truth about what he is saying. It isn’t about trying to play to a potential voter, as much as a attempt to educate them about what is wrong with our country today.
For my vote, he is the only one that is actually offering a real change from the failed policies of the last 50 years.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that will end all the wars. Both Republicans and Democrats support endless Wars for Israel, it all started nearly a decade ago under a false flag attack.
9/11 and Israel, here:
http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000190526
I agree with D Lind that Paul needs to work on his performance, and the requirement of political flare. Like it or not, people are not simply persuaded by ideas. They need to feel those ideas from a poised hand.
I also think Paul needs to posture his answers in the context of his central theme, by beginning each on something like this:
“As a strict constitutionalist, I believe…”
“The founders didn’t give us that option. They restricted the legitimate powers of the federal government to…”
The strength of Paul’s position (besides its obvious intellectual merits) is that he is calling the country back to its true roots in Liberty.
I also think he should take some lessons from Romney. While I agree Romney seems phoney and in fact seemed to be touting a lot of “Paul-isms” verbally to satisfy the trends moving toward Paul’s positions, he was the only one last night that actually was already campaigning against Obama. At least twice he challenged the president directly. I think Paul needs to start his campaign against Obama now too, almost ignoring his sparring partners in the debate a bit more.
Another thing Romney did is take the time to thank the verteran and his sons for their loyal service to protecting America’s freedoms. This stuff all sounds like posturing (because it is) but this aspect of “show” hits the emotional heart strings of American’s. And Paul would be able to deliver these kinds of messages with sincerity. The “professionals” all stole extra time during their answers to strike chords with people emotionally, not just answer.
Of course Paul actually has substance to offer, which gives him less time to color his responses emotionally, but people buy emotionally first, then rationalize the purchase intellectually after. Paul needs to sell his message, not just tell it.
Pingback: American Online News- Feeds from the Freedom News Network | Blog | Ron Paul’s Reaganesque Moment
Obamneycare is such a funny word.