Saturday, January 7, 2012

Ron Paul's microphone at New Hampshire debate and post debate analysis

What was with that? I am no Ron Paul supporter but I am convinced that his microphone malfunction to start was absolutely no accident.

More to follow...


Post Debate Analysis


First of all, Rick Perry is done. He sealed his fate the instant he said he would send troops back to Iraq. Newt Gingrich had a good rant about anti-Christian bias that elicited cheers from the crowd, then finished with a thud when he said he would be watching college basketball on a Saturday night. As a whole...tonight was the Mitt Romney show from start to finish. Nothing but a big fat slobberfest over Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney, the king of platitudes, was smooth as usual. But, my goodness, why doesn't anyone truly, directly, boldly attack him and his liberal record? This was highlighted by the ABC commentators (not that I have much respect for them) but why didn't Ron Paul of all people do it? Instead, Ron Paul, in his erradic, quirkiness, lambasted Newt Gingrich for not serving in the military. Who cares?! I resent Ron Paul and his foreign policy, but a big part of me does want to support him, because I am all in on his domestic views. Part of me was rooting for Ron Paul tonight, especially after his microphone had issues to start. What a coincidence. It didn't take long before that sympathy for him faded, when he went on some ridiculous whiny rant about minorities not being treated fairly in the military and whites getting preferential treatment in the justice system. A meager attempt at Ron Paul to reign in the minority vote. I would like to hear any Paul supporters' thoughts on this. My support for John Huntsman as slowly grown these past few weeks and I think he would be a great pick for vice president. Santorum had his moments, and reiterated he is a strong candidate. His best line was in response to Ron Paul saying what a wonderful thing it was that our Navy rescued the Iranians in the Persian Gulf: "Under your presidency, we wouldn't have had any ships to rescue them." The bottom line from tonight's debate is this. No one did anything meaningful or unforgettable to attack Romney. In fact, who is the candidate who consistently attacks Barack Obama? Romney. While Romney attacks Obama, the rest bicker amongst themselves. And Ron Paul, the one with enough power and pull to bring down Romney focuses on his old worn out whining about government being too big instead of ripping Romney. If Paul wants mainstream GOP support he's going to have to do that. Mitt will win New Hampshire, and the way it is looking, South Carolina. Another thought to end with. Supposedly, according to the token Democrat commentator (don't remember her name and don't care), Mitt Romney is the weakest candidate to challenge Obama. That only tells me the opposite, that the Dems are most afraid of him.

As always, no matter who wins the nomination, they have my vote. Anyone but Obama. Your thoughts on tonight's debate are welcome in the comment section.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

It sounds like you want a jerry springer debate. We need opposite. why would you want them to fight and "rip" each other. We should be with each other trying to find who is wisest to govern and speaking about the necessary issues. Which Dr. Paul was doing. And saying Ron Paul went on a whiny rant about minorities and the justice system is absolutely insane. Why is that not important people's lives and families getting screwed over by the judicial system is not important? If it happened to you you would think otherwise. Unjustice anywhere is important my friend. Also Paul focusing on problems with big government is exactly what we need in this time not two men bickering. I feel you have been swallowed up by the system at least from reading your post. And you have forgotten what a debate (on our american issues) is supposed to be. I want a president who takles issues with blazing common sense not a president who can call out beat on his chest and "rip" another man. I support your right to voice but i do not support your voice and i hope debates do not become what you want. Ron Paul for pres. He is the only one serious and consistent for over 25 yrs of real change. Fact is fact everyone else up there is just more of the same. Records show not these sentences. Namaste.....

Anonymous said...

i'll be suprised if you approve the last commment you got.

Hack said...

Anonymous, this post was mostly in support of Paul. If he doesn't directly attack Romney now he isn't going to be the nominee. Your defensive comment is all too typical of Ron Paul supporters. And Paul's statements on minorities being treated unfairly in the military is absolutely bogus. As was his statements about blacks and whites "using drugs equally". Facts please.

Anonymous said...

As a Ron Paul supporter here is my opinion. His talking point on inequality pertaining to drug laws has merit because of the disproportionate numbers of minorities doing time for non-violent crimes. However I do think it became more of a tangent once he talked about the judicial system as a whole and it wasn't a very focused statement. You ask about him targeting the minority vote? Those letters are the only baggage associated to Ron Paul, his record and several testimonies from minorities he has close relationships with indicates he is no racist, but when in the national spotlight he no doubt has to do what he can to win the confidence of all ethnicities. This brings me to my next thought, about the thought that he should be taking Romney head on since he has the means to carry forth a national campaign and is in second in New Hampshire. Ron Pauls message hasn't changed one lick since his 2008 campaign, yet his national support has gone up tremendously. This can either be attributed to a shift in philosophy by the public (lets hope so) or his campaign is more organized, strategic, and is willing to play more of the political game so to speak. I believe his campaign's strategy at this point is to poise himself as THE Romney alternative, so focus is put on eliminating Gingrich and Santorum from the picture. To me, all of those candidates are identical except Ron Paul, but the general public isn't there yet. I hope for the day that people will vote based on a candidate's philosophies and platform, but unfortunately we are still in the era where focus has to be put on strategy, and as a side effect we miss out on intelligent debate (Ron Paul tried this in 2008, and for the most part still does). But it's pretty obvious from these debates that the media outlets organizing the debates have no intention of encouraging such a debate. I will vote for Ron Paul and I hope more people do too. It's going to be hard to stomach watching anybody but Ron Paul debate Obama as the proof is in the pudding that Obama and Romney share the very similar philosophies: pro nebulous wars with no end in sight, massive government spending/debt, expanding federal powers, etc. In 2008 I lost a lot of hope with watching the opposition Ron Paul's campaign faced within the party coupled with the public's buy in to the hype of Obama, but this election I've been more encouraged because the growth in support for Ron Paul despite the fact his platform hasn't changed. This gives me hope that if the same growth can be produced in 2016 with another worthy candidate (Gary Johnson perhaps), then we might have a legitimate chance to change our ways shift our thinking. We are closer now than ever, but with all the media outlets beating the Romney drum, it suggests today is not the day, sadly, unless people ignore who they're told to vote for.

Hack said...

Anonymous,

Thank you for the civil and well thought out answer and I have to say, as a conservative who does not side with Paul (simply because of fundamental disagreements on foreign policy) I like much of what you have to say. I think if Ron Paul were younger, and better at articulating his points he could be a monster candidate. Right now, it's Mitt Romney or Ron Paul. I do pose this question though, would you support a Mitt Romney/Ron Paul ticket?

Allen (formerly known as Anonymous) said...

Hack,

Would I vote for Romney/Paul ticket? So I think we'll have to play make belief, haha, but I would consider how effective Ron Paul would be in our government as a vice president as opposed to being a congressman. I think he's currently fighting the good fight as a congressman and is working within the system the best he can to change the mindset at that level, after all, that's where our laws legislation begins. Before there is any real change in policy or philosophy at the executive level, I think our legislative and judicial branches would have to reflect this. As you noted your reason for not supporting Ron Paul, I can't picture him being able to influence Romney on decisions presidents are granted to make. But admittedly I can't help but to think it would indeed be a giant step for the liberty movement if Ron Paul was a vice president nominee and I'd most definitely vote for the ticket. I have a question too, and this is for anyone to chime in. People say "anyone but Obama" and he here the inverse from democrat voters, but how has your personal day to day life really changed over the course of the years between Clinton, Bush, and Obama? I ask this because it's my claim that the policies are so similar that the system can't change (by intention). The line is dividing gone. Democrats have been slapped in the face and can't claim they are the "peace party", and Republicans can't claim they are "fiscally responsible."

Allen said...

One thing I do want to say for record is I don't think this thing is over like the big media outlets would have us believe. Ron Paul is a legitimate contender for the nomination. I'm disgusted with the continuous treatment he gets by big media. It blows my mind that he finished strong in Iowa and is second in New Hampshire, yet there is so much effort to ignore and undermine him and act as if Santorum and Gingrich are the front runners.

Hack said...

I agree Allen! Though I am no Paul supporter, I will vote for him in a heartbeat if he gets the nomination.

Bruise Lii said...

Ron Paul does not need the republican party, the Republican party needs him. None of the GOP candidates can beat Obama - mathematically. If Romney wins the nomination, he will never get the votes from Ron Paul supporters. And if Paul goes third party, it's game over for the republicans. Paul is truly the only electable candidate. On foreign policy, even if Paul is wrong we will at least save billions of dollars and the lives of those fighting overseas. Why do you think that Paul has received more donations from active duty military members than all of the candidates combined, including Obama? The military wants Paul as their Commander in Chief, and if we truly support the troops, we should truly listen to them. If republicans seriously want to beat Obama, we better wake up and get behind Ron Paul. This is the reality of the situation. Why shouldn't we all get behind Paul so that we can make history and win rather than trying to fight a worthless, losing battle?
Are any of the other candidates even worth fighting for? Can we honestly say that we trust any of them? If you look at Ron Paul's record, he has always voted in favor of the constitution and protecting US citizens. Just because the mainstream media keeps repeating that he is not electable does not make it true. If you actually take the time to look at the facts and compare his record against any of the other candidates, Paul is unquestionably the closest to the definition of a conservative who believes in the Constitution, and he religiously practices abiding by it and protecting it.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is doing EXACTLY what he should be doing.........watching these carbon copy imbeciles tear each other down and slowly but surely build up his base. Then when fake conservatives rally around someone but him....he should run 3rd party and snag a boatload of disillusioned dems and independents as well. The republican party is a sham and should be dismantled