[tpaine]

Most of the careful listeners understood the esoteric point that Ron Paul was trying to make, but they were also groaning about the tin ear quality of his choice to make it.
At a time when the intense debate is about what to do currently with where we are, it is useless to bring up a point such as the one Ron made.

Good criticism. - Paul is not known for his logical finesse.

If he is trying to advance his good points of better government by using the limits of the Constitution as a strength, keeping the message on point is of the utmost importance.

I agree with you, and Paul would be wise to expand on his constitutional points.

Knowing that he is a marginal candidate, why did he not advance his principles, in general, rather than going off into such a useless dead end that could be so easily mischaracterized?

Good question, best answered by the '60 second sound bite' format of the debate.

[KC Burke]

Hope you are doing well, you ol’ curmudgeon, I'm running all over the countryside.

While not a RP supporter, I was hoping he would stick on message and drive home the strict adherence issue. If he had done that, without getting cute with stuff like his usage of the 911 report lanquage, he would have been harder to marginalize and more useful to advancing the issue of constitutional utility.

Sure, he is getting beat up -- he only has himself to blame, IMHO.