No Rudy, No Jar-Jar

Jesse Walker | May 4, 2007

If you were tempted to watch the Republican debate last night but couldn't stand the thought of listening to anyone other than Ron Paul, this edit is for you.

Comments

Mike Laursen|5.4.07 @ 2:25PM|#

Thank you! I was hoping there was a YouTube link with just Ron Paul's part of the debate. I think he did great!

Untermensch|5.4.07 @ 2:27PM|#

Didn't watch the debate (don't have a TV at present), but it seemed that a lot of posters on Weigel's threads really lambasted Paul for coming off poorly. However, aside from the "critical decisions" question to which he served up a non-answer, Paul seemed to come off pretty well. I'm just glad someone was there articulating a position different from mainstream Republicanism. You know Republicanism is going off the rails when my family members who think that God himself endowed the Republican Part with its mandate are starting to question it. The other candidates may be trying to appeal to their "base," but I think it's a base that is increasingly moving away from them and looking for what Paul has to offer.

-UMensch

|5.4.07 @ 2:38PM|#

Too bad I didn't know last night that somebody was going to put this together. I could have saved 1 hour, 23 minutes and 6 seconds of pain.

The Wine Commonsewer|5.4.07 @ 2:41PM|#

Thanks, Jesse.

|5.4.07 @ 2:43PM|#

Jesse,
Thank you for that.
Ron Paul has no chance to win in the Republican primaries and I will not change my party affiliation to vote for him in a primary, but if he would run again as a Libertarian (or a miracle happens and the Goldwater wing of the Republican party reasserts itself) I would vote for him again to be president.

|5.4.07 @ 2:53PM|#

Untermensch,

I agree.

JLM,

I didn't watch the debate, and now I'm glad I didn't - I just watched the good bits.

If Dr. Paul loses the nomination (and, were I a professional gambler, there's no way I'd bet on him winning), then God bless him anyway for giving voters a real choice - giving conservatives a chance to vote for a real conservative, instead of having to choose between a statist Republican and a libertine Libertarian.

If he loses the primary, why not run as a 3rd-party candidate? Why should the best of all the candidates withdraw from the general election just because one of the cartel parties rejects him?

miche|5.4.07 @ 2:57PM|#

I've got most of the debate at my place. It is broken down into easy to swallow 10 minute clips.

|5.4.07 @ 3:40PM|#

7 minutes out of 90 = 7.78%
1 candidate out of 10 = 10%

Ron Paul got robbed!

|5.4.07 @ 3:45PM|#

I will not change my party affiliation to vote for him in a primary

Why not? I register as a Republican strictly to vote for the most libertarian leaning GOP candidate on the ballot. I'd rather that than not having a voice at all.

|5.4.07 @ 3:55PM|#

MP,
There will be Libertarian candidates in state and local races that I will want to vote for.

Edward|5.4.07 @ 4:17PM|#

It's not listening to Ron Paul that's the problem; it's looking at him.

|5.4.07 @ 4:42PM|#

There will be Libertarian candidates in state and local races that I will want to vote for.

You actually have a Libertarian Primary done by public ballot? What state is that?

Here in NH, it's all done at the convention.

|5.4.07 @ 4:44PM|#

According to a post I just read, Ron Paul vaulted from 9% (near the bottom of the rankings) to 35% (1st place) after the debate. Maybe there's hope.

|5.4.07 @ 5:29PM|#

Paul's got my vote! Rudy's should be a Democrat!

|5.4.07 @ 5:36PM|#

...Make that:" "Rudy should be a Democrat!"

Got too excited.

|5.4.07 @ 5:45PM|#

MP,
The LP in Washington state had major party status, but I had forgotten that they lost it after the 2004 general election. So, maybe I will be able to vote for Paul in a primary after all.

|5.4.07 @ 6:23PM|#

"Ron Paul has no chance to win in the Republican primaries and I will not change my party affiliation to vote for him in a primary"

The only way he would have a small chance in the primaries would be if every Libertarian/Independent libertarian in the country registered as a Republican, and doing so has actually crossed my mind. But it's not going to happen, and I'm not going to bother either. Nice thought, though.

Untermensch|5.4.07 @ 7:27PM|#

Wow. Looking at the online poll data, only Paul came across well. Everyone else had at best a minor boost in ratings, and more often took a significant hit. Paul alone went way up. I hope that some people take him seriously now...

Edward|5.4.07 @ 8:10PM|#

Ron Paul shouldn't be a Republican, at least not if he's a libertarian. From Reagan to Bush, Republicans have bloated the government.

|5.4.07 @ 8:39PM|#

From Reagan to Bush, Republicans have bloated the government.

That's certainly true with King George Bush, but not Reagan. Note that the rate of growth of government slowed under Reagan, relative to Carter. Also, many areas of government actually shrank during the Reagan years, including overall discretionary spending. Note also that the Federal Register, the log of all federal regulatory activity, also actually got smaller.

Lastly, GOP members of congress tend to vote for far less government spending than do their Dem counterparts.

http://www.ntu.org/main/misc.php?MiscID=13

The import of this fact is more of a condemnation of the Dems than a kudos for the GOP. Although there are, among the Republicans, some folks wh are genuinely frugal with our money. Check a roster of the House Republican Study Group. The best Dems for fiscal conservatism, who are BTW better than the Bush administration, are to be found in a group called the Blue Dog Democrats.

.

|5.4.07 @ 9:00PM|#

Good news is that Dr. Paul, as Chris Matthews affectionately calls him, has been invited to the next debate in South Carolina later this month.

A bit of a bizarro note here, I noticed that the SC GOP's logo at the above link has a star-and-crescent in it. Go figure.

|5.4.07 @ 9:04PM|#

Of course, if you thought Chris Matthews was tough on him, wait till Brit Hume, formerly a voice of moderation on FOX News, now a BushBot like the rest, gets a shot.

|5.4.07 @ 9:05PM|#

You know what? After re-watching the debate, I've got to say that Paul actually wouldn't make that bad of a president.

|5.4.07 @ 9:06PM|#

Ron Paul wins MSNBC online debate poll

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/4654

|5.4.07 @ 9:12PM|#

The question was:

"Who showed the most leadership qualities?"

Mike Laursen|5.4.07 @ 10:50PM|#

Ron Paul shouldn't be a Republican, at least not if he's a libertarian. From Reagan to Bush, Republicans have bloated the government.

The Republican Party is just another granfalloon. If Ron Paul can use it to serve his wampeter, then more power to him.

|5.5.07 @ 12:37AM|#

Thanks for this "greater hits" compilation, Jesse. As painful as it was last night to listen to the other candidates while watching the entire "debate" (what a sick joke calling it that) off MSNBC, it was a necessity to show the contrast between Paul's "seeking approval from the choir" semi-watered-down but honest libertarian stance (but necessary if he hopes to secure the ticket from the party) and the other absolute statist warmongering politicos, blinded to the impossibility of a "victory" in Iraq, trying to be as bland and vague as possible in order to get the votes they need to obtain the immoral power they seek.

I hope, if by some magnificent sweeping grassroots movement he becomes the Republican's candidate and actually competes for the presidency as a major-party candidate, he loses the "old-time conservatism" presentation and takes a more "freedom, peace and prosperity" stance to woo Democrats and Independents.

More power to him, though I wish he'd lose the anti-immigration and anti-abortion legs of his campaign. But still would be a remarkable hope for a free society if he gets a realistic shot at the presidency. One of the few true sheeps in wolf's clothing in D.C.

But the main thing that pisses me off is MSNBC's post-debate coverage declaring that all Republican candidates at the debate were united in the quest to win the war in Iraq ... what part of "I opposed this war in the first place" did you guys NOT understand???

|5.5.07 @ 3:42AM|#

But the main thing that pisses me off is MSNBC's post-debate coverage declaring that all Republican candidates at the debate were united in the quest to win the war in Iraq ... what part of "I opposed this war in the first place" did you guys NOT understand???

Never let the truth get in the way of a good narrative.

|5.5.07 @ 9:20AM|#

I usually don't read opinion or "in-depth" pieces at mainstream media websites, but I made an exception here because I wanted to see what MSNBC's people thought of Ron Paul. I was utterly amazed at the sight of all these journalists turning out five paragraphs of banality and calling it "in-depth analysis of the debate", rife with errors like the one zbillster notes above. What do they teach in journalism school nowadays?

perilisk|5.5.07 @ 12:27PM|#

We really need to pitch to help Ron Paul get some voice/oratory training, and maybe get a stylist to help him out. The only people that came off well in that debate were Romney and Paul, on account of style and substance, respectively. If we could somehow combine Romney's looks and delivery with Paul's ideas, we would have the ubercandidate.

|5.5.07 @ 5:47PM|#

To expand on the above post, Paul sounds intoxicated during this segment:

http://www.wmur.com/politics/13212896/detail.html

Mike Laursen|5.6.07 @ 11:37AM|#

I don't get the criticism. He looks fine. Give him the right pair of glasses, and he'd look like Harry Truman.