Replies

well, I watched the whole debate and I have to say I was a little dissaponted Paul spent all his time on foreign policy. He fumbled around with it a bit, not stressing the nonintervention and nonnationbuilding and robert taft approach. He had a perfect opportunity to hit one out of the park against the IRS and went off on a tangent. I think he should have stressed his domestic agenda more. He also seemed a bit too angry. So, I still think he did well, but he has this wonderful domestic agenda, the most conservative constituional candidate on, which he didn’t even mention. Also, what was the slip up about international law about? He sponsored one of the only bills introduced to get the US out of the UN!

Keep in mind he is not a conventional socialist pol of either party. His background is that of a doctor, not a lawyer like Giuliani or Romney. These folks are debate champs with plenty of drill and rehearsal from their campaign machines. The other second-tier candidates, non-lawyers, did little better, mostly borrowing GOP/WH talking points or trying to co-opt the positions and smooth rhetoric of the frontrunner campaigns like Giuliani or Romney.

If you watch the key sequences twice, you'll notice that RP was quite strong in his responses, despite provocation and attack questions or rude remarks from other Republicans on the stage. And Hume/Wallace were playing gotcha with all the candidates but focusing most on Ron Paul and discrediting him with their own political views. You'd think that Hume was running for office. Or maybe just for Giuliani's press secretary.

I suppose if we're electing a Debater-In-Chief, I might have to reconsider my support for RP.