Were Huckabee and Paul in the Debate?
Jan 31, 2008 Political
This is from the CNN website:
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, winner of the Iowa caucuses, hoped to position himself well among evangelicals and other conservatives to turn around several consecutive losses since Iowa. Long-shot candidate Ron Paul, a representative from Texas, also participated in the debate. CNN
Is it fair to say that Ron Paul, of Mike Huckabee for that matter, actually participated in the debate? Almost all of the questions were directed to Romney and McCain while Huckabee and Paul sat on the sidelines waiting to be asked a question or invited to respond to a McCain or Romney answer.
It was obvious to me from the start that CNN was determined to form the debate around Romney and McCain and provide America with who they believe to be the top choices rather than allowing the viewers to see all the candidates to take a decision. At one point Huckabee informed the moderators that he was part of the process as well and the barrage of questions they promised turned out to be one. Ron Paul stated he wanted to elaborate on something he was not permitted to discuss earlier and Anderson Cooper cut him off and promised him that in a few minutes he [Paul] would get a chance. More than five minutes passed as Romney and McCain were asked question after question while Paul was ignored.
It is also fair to say that Huckabee and Paul (even more so Paul) were kept on short leashes and not given anywhere near the time the other two received to address issues and attack each other. When Huckabee answered he was more thoughtful and expressed cogent thoughts without attacking anyone and Paul actually seemed like the adult on the stage. At one point McCain and Romney spent nearly ten minutes arguing about who said what regarding timetables. When Paul finally got to speak he said that they should be addressing the issues rather than arguing about petty stuff like who said what and when:
I don’t even think they should have gone [to Iraq], so keeping them for 100 years, where’s the money going to come from? (APPLAUSE)
You know, the country is in bankruptcy. And when I listen to this argument, I mean, I find it rather silly, because they’re arguing technicalities of a policy they both agree with.
They agreed with going in; they agreed for staying, agreed for staying how many years? And these are technicalities. We should be debating foreign policy, whether we should have interventionism or non-interventionism, whether we should be defending this country or whether we should be the policemen of the world, whether we should be running our empire or not, and how are going to have guns and butter?
You know, the ’70s were horrible because we paid for the guns and butters of the ’60s. Now we’re doing the same thing. And nobody even seems to care. The dollar is crashing, and you’re talking about these technicalities about who said what when?
I mean, in 1952, we Republicans were elected to stop the war in Korea. In 1968, we were elected to stop the war in Vietnam. And, tragically, we didn’t stop it very fast: 30,000 more men died.
So when I talk about these long-term stays, I think, “How many men are you willing to let die for this, for something that has nothing to do with our national security?”
There were no Al Qaida there. It had nothing do with 9/11. And there was no threat to our national security. They never committed aggression. It’s unconstitutional. It’s an undeclared war.
And we have these silly arguments going on about who said what when. I think it’s time to debate foreign policy and why we don’t follow the Constitution and only go to war with a declaration of war. CNN
I have to agree with Paul on this one (with regard to the debate). These guys spent a lot of time arguing about who said what on an issue they both agree with. No matter what one says about Paul, he makes sense on some of the issues and he is right that the issues matter more than who said what and when especially when they both agree with the policy.
Huckabee and Paul were ignored through a large portion of this debate. It almost seems that they received as much attention on stage as they would have if they had been in the audience. Governor Schwarzenegger got more face time than they did and he was sitting in the crowd.
Tags: cnn debate, mike huckabee, reagan library, ron paul
Ron Paul is Still Hanging in There
Jan 16, 2008 Political
Ron Paul is still hanging around and has done better in the last few primaries than Rudy Giuliani. The Michigan primary was yesterday and it was won by Mitt Romney (no surprise and not because of Kos). Ron Paul placed ahead of Rudy and Fred Thompson, two candidates who do not get excluded from debates. It also appears that Paul has plenty of money coming in while Rudy’s folks are going without pay this month. Rudy’s plan is to wait until Florida and the others are now trying to compete in the South. Dr. Paul seems to be plodding along and about the time Super Tuesday comes he might be in the best shape.
Romney was one loss away from being out, Huckabee and Thompson need to do well in the South and McCain might not win another state. By the time they get to Florida it will be important to have plenty of money for ads because no candidate can afford to run ads in all the states on February 5th and it is physically impossible for them to be in all of them. Florida is the last big showdown before the stuff hits the fan and Paul might end up in the best position.
If Fred loses SC he is probably out or soon will be. Same with Huckabee and Romney cannot afford many more loses or he is through. Right now it seems to be a race of staying power to see which one can afford to keep going. If the ones who are left make it to Florida and have little money for the blitz, Ron Paul just might sneak in and win.
He is still a long shot and there are still folks who don’t get him but he is the one who believes in reducing spending, reducing our presence around the world and fixing our monetary system.
Ron Paul gives the impression of being the tortoise running against the hares in the Republican Party. When the race is over he might just be the one to end up across the finish line.
I just wish he did not look (and act) like a grumpy old man.
Related items:
LA Times
Tags: Giuliani, money, primary race, romney, ron paul, thompson
Ron Paul Wins Fox Debate
Jan 11, 2008 Political
At least this is what the people who voted by text messaging said. Last night Fox News had a Republican debate that featured all contenders except Duncan Hunter. The debate was pretty feisty at points with candidates attacking each other. Fred Thompson finally showed a bit of spark and he was, in my opinion, the clear winner of the debate and the focus group also believed Fred had won. Mitt Romney had a good night, McCain was solid and Huckabee was strong on domestic issues but weak on Foreign policy as was Ron Paul.
Ron Paul had some supporters in the crowd and he, in my opinion, performed OK for most of the night. There were a few times though, where he looked like an angry, out of control old man. I don’t think the message is that far off but the messenger needs to find a better delivery. He ranted for 90 seconds about rushing to fight with Iran before being told that the others had praised the restraint shown by the military. I think it was a very subtle moment where Brit Hume was able to take him down a notch. It made Ron Paul seem out of touch or as if he was not paying attention. Paul said he could not hear the moderator but I was reminded of Admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot’s running mate, when I saw that exchange.
At the end of the debate Fox had text messaging voting set up so that people could dial in to vote for the winner. The results that were posted about 45 minutes post debate were Ron Paul ahead with 35%, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee tied at around 17 or 18%. I laughed when I saw those results because there is no way that Ron Paul won the debate and there is no way he is polling that high without the Ronulans voting over and over again.
The post debate text voting was exactly the same as the way Fox allows voting on American Idol which returns very soon. Perhaps Fox was tuning America back up so they could prepare to vote in that show. Whatever the case, Ron Paul was in the lead for one reason and one reason only, multiple text message votes by those who support Ron Paul and his revolution.
But believe me when I say, Ron Paul did not win the debate.
What was Fox thinking?
UPDATE: Several commenters have pointed out that one could only vote once. Another commenter pointed out that Paul supporters were more likely to be young and tech savvy. They are also the same people who will not show up on election day (not in the numbers that the less tech savvy will). Also, there were a number of posts in the Ronosphere telling everyone to be sure to vote. The fact that Ron Paul had more people willing to use a cell phone to vote does not mean he won the debate.
Tags: debate winner, fox news, ron paul, text message
How Will Ron Paul Do It?
Jan 6, 2008 Political
I have not decided on a candidate yet and since my state primary is after Super Tuesday it might not matter. I have tried to give everyone of them a fair shot at earning my vote. I have watched Ron Paul as I have the others and I like some of the things that he says. I agree with most of his domestic policy ideas and some of his foreign. I have a hard time taking his blame America for everything position. Yes, we as a country have done some things that are not nice. But we are not to blame for all the world’s woes. I would love to see us bring our troops home from Germany, Japan and South Korea and Iraq (but only after we win). I just have some trouble with his insistence that we caused the attack to happen and that our only interest is oil.
The thing that bothers me most about Ron Paul is that he never says HOW he is going to accomplish the things he espouses. He says that he will abolish the IRS. How will he do that when it will take Congress to pass the legislation? Paul says that he will go back to the gold standard. How will he do this without Congress enacting it? I like some of what Ron Paul says but he never tells me how he is going to get it done. Considering he has been in Congress for quite some time I assume he knows that Presidents do very little (regarding these kinds of issues) other than set an agenda and either sign or veto what Congress passes. Without Congress Ron Paul cannot do anything that he says he will. Paul cannot change things because of the very Constitution that he believes in following (and rightly so) and that means nothing will ever get done, regardless of who is president, without Congress.
This is not to say that the other candidates will accomplish what they say because they will face the same hurdles but at least they say how they intend to do things. McCain says he will work with members of both parties to hammer out bills they can agree upon. Thompson says he will put forth plans to work with Congress to get his things done. That is true for all the candidates except for Ron Paul. I like the guy and I like what he believes in but I want to know the HOW part.
As I stated, I have not selected any candidate and there might not be as many by the time I get a chance but I want to give them all a fair look. I want each to have a fair chance at convincing me why I should vote for them.
If some of his supporters, after reading this post, could comment and tell me how he will do these things I would be appreciative. I am not talking about the fringe folks who attack and go all nuts when someone writes anything perceived as negative about Paul. I mean the folks who support him and know his policies. If you know how he will do it or can steer me in the right direction then I would appreciate it.
Please don’t tell me why I should vote for him. Tell me what he is going to do and how he will do it. Convince me that he is the best person for the job.
Tags: assistance, how, method, revolution, ron paul
Is Ron Paul Allowed to Debate Now?
Jan 4, 2008 Political
As many people know, Ron Paul was excluded from the Fox News Forum and the ABC debate in New Hampshire. Those events are to take place this weekend and Paul was excluded from Fox who decided to only take candidates who had polled in double digits. ABC has criteria for inclusion. In order to be in the debate a candidate has to meet one of these:
- place first through fourth in Iowa
- poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys
- poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys
As far as Fox is concerned, Paul does not have double digit support in New Hampshire so if that is their criteria he should be excluded. But, so should Fred Thompson who, in the latest Zogby Poll (1/4/08) polled lower than Paul. I can’t imagine Zogby is not one of the major surveys.
However, the ABC event should include Ron Paul because he polled at 7%. While Thompson polled at 2% he came in third in Iowa so he should still be included. When ABC and Fox announced their requirements they probably felt safe that Ron Paul would not be able to meet any of them. That is the case with Fox but Paul has exceeded one of ABC’s requirements and should be included.
I am willing to bet that ABC will not let Paul in the debate even though he has met their threshold. It is a shame, but they will exclude him even though he raised more money that Giuliani and placed 7% higher than him in Iowa. Of course, Giuliani has already been invited to the debate.
I am not in favor of excluding anyone. These people have decided to run for the presidency of the United States and all of them have some number of supporters. Additionally, the American people should hear everyone so they have all the information they need to take an informed decision.
I might not support Paul (I have not selected anyone as of yet) but I completely support his right to participate in the debates.
UPDATE: It appears as if Ron Paul will be part of the debate in New Hampshire. After posting this Drudge put up a story that did not make it clear as to whether he had been included or not. I checked the ABC site and he is listed as part of it. Duncan Hunter will not be invited. If he is still in he should be allowed to debate.
Tags: debates, exclusion, new hampshire, ron paul, zogby