I said this after the last debate, even to the Ron Paul web site. Paul is only winning various polls because of a motivated support base, many of whom vote like they would for American Idol. 45 minutes after the debate finish and Ron Paul is ahead in the electronic polls about who won the debate.
Ron Paul did NOT win that debate. He has rabid supporters who are very active on the internet and with text messaging. I applaud their zeal and the Paul campaign for embracing such activism on their behalf. However, just because someone won the polling on Fox News or MSNBC, that does not mean that they have the majority of support or won the debate. I get messages from his campaign begging me to vote for the candidate. Last debate, I did vote for him, since I believe he did win the debate. Not this time, though.
Ron Paul may just have lost the race with his comment on the reason for the 9/11 attacks.
3 comments:
It's sad that people think Ron lost the debate because he told the truth. He is the only one of the 10 Republican candidates who is honest enough to say what everybody knows, but most everybody wants to deny:
Our foreign policy actions DO have consequences, and our constant meddling in the Middle East has contributed to inciting anti-American sentiment. To suggest otherwise is to simply ignore reality.
And note that that is a long way from saying "America is responsible for 9/11." No, what they did was wrong, and anybody who thinks Ron supports the terrorists is a moron. But a real leader understands that when bad things happen, you can't just do nothing but give in to knee-jerk reactionary hysteria, treat the symptoms, and ignore the underlying issues.
We DO need a non-interventionist foreign policy, and getting out of the Middle East would improve our relations with the Islamic world. Would that stop *all* jihadists from attacking America? No, but it's a start and it would be better than the current situation.
Ron Paul told the truth as he understands it. He basically said that we brought 9/11 on ourselves because of our intervention in the Middle East. He is just plain wrong about that. He may have some validity to his statement, but it certainly is not the main reasons why we were attacked. Regardless of whether or not we were in the Middle East or not, we would still be getting hatred from these same people. Period.
Go back and read, Phillip. I agree that we do need a non-interventionist foreign policy and have always believed that.
I disagree that "everyone knows". That is why there are 10 different candidates and not just one.
You don't treat symptoms of radical Islam. It is not treatable. All that they understand is the brutal use of force, unfortunately. They have proven this time and again for about 1400 years.
By the way, I did NOT believe that Ron Paul "lost the debate" so much as he "did not WIN" the debate. I certainly don't believe he "lost" because he told the truth as he knows it. It was because what he did say was inflammatory and a bit inaccurate. Besides that, I didn't really see anyone who won or stood out in Tuesday night's debate.
Post a Comment