Tonite Ron Paul's Inflection Point?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul absolutely failed this interview. I think I have actually lost some respect for him after how abominably bad he did.

He tried to talk over Bill. HUGE mistake. Bill is the biggest loudmouth on TV, it's his show, and Ron Paul is not NEARLY intimidating enough to even attempt such a feat. He acted surprised when Bill didn't let him finish his statements (which makes me actually question the congressman's intelligence), and really got frazzled. Over all, I'd say he came off as a whiny little bitch.

This is how you do a Bill O'Reilly interview.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think you are misunderstanding just how difficult the presented situation is. There are so many built in assumptions built in that it's very hard to get people out of that, esp considering RP's strategy of trying to work within people's assumptions.

Imagine what would happen if he were to ask: "Is it voluntary?" "What justifies the territorial monopoly?" "Why can't I choose how my property is spent?".

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The other day, when I pointed out that I was a little disappointed that RP isn't quite as "polished" as the other candidates, someone pointed out to me that that's probably because he usually comes less "prepared" (in the sound byte-generating sense), and just tries to answer the questions.

However, I agree that that strategy is a recipe for disaster (given RP's positions) on O'Reilly's show.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is part of the reason Paul has no shot. He doesn't have people in his ear telling him what to say. The serious campaigns have speech writing and communications staffs that help the candidate polish their message. I'm not saying Paul has to sell out or water down his message, but it would help if he had people help him make is message more appealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only intellectually honest position with the Iraq war, as I can see it, is far and away the most unappealing: "I don't know."

There is not one human being on this earth who can legitimately claim to know to any meaningful certainty what will happen if we stay, or what will happen if we pull out. If we look to authority, we are incredibly torn between the decisions, and the most authoritative individuals on the subject have proven in the past to be phenomenally wrong.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The other day, when I pointed out that I was a little disappointed that RP isn't quite as "polished" as the other candidates, someone pointed out to me that that's probably because he usually comes less "prepared" (in the sound byte-generating sense), and just tries to answer the questions.

However, I agree that that strategy is a recipe for disaster (given RP's positions) on O'Reilly's show.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is part of the reason Paul has no shot. He doesn't have people in his ear telling him what to say. The serious campaigns have speech writing and communications staffs that help the candidate polish their message. I'm not saying Paul has to sell out or water down his message, but it would help if he had people help him make is message more appealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

No this isn't the reason he has no shot in this election. He's not that well known and his key issues aren't discussed that much. IMO though his key issues are very important issues and should be disucssed a whole lot more in the media. I don't think Paul supporters expect him to win this election but they want to get his ideas out there to be more in the main stream discussion. IMO his campaign has been a success to this point.

[j555]

I think part of his appeal is that he's not a typical, slick politician. When he speaks, it seems to be sincere and genuine. I'd say his message is pretty appealing the way it is. This setting where he has to cram his explanation into 10 seconds before he's cut off isn't his strong suit. Watch the Google interview if you want a better representation of his views.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I think part of his appeal is that he's not a typical, slick politician. When he speaks, it seems to be sincere and genuine. I'd say his message is pretty appealing the way it is. This setting where he has to cram his explanation into 10 seconds before he's cut off isn't his strong suit. Watch the Google interview if you want a better representation of his views.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. IMO FWIW one thing Paul campaign supporters want is to generate enough interest in him to have people start considering his ideas. I think they're succeeding towards that end.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
He acted surprised when Bill didn't let him finish his statements (which makes me actually question the congressman's intelligence), and really got frazzled.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignorance =/= lack of intelligence. He's probably never seen BO before and maybe someone warned him and the warning just sounded like standard media behavior to him.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul absolutely failed this interview. I think I have actually lost some respect for him after how abominably bad he did.

He tried to talk over Bill. HUGE mistake. Bill is the biggest loudmouth on TV, it's his show, and Ron Paul is not NEARLY intimidating enough to even attempt such a feat. He acted surprised when Bill didn't let him finish his statements (which makes me actually question the congressman's intelligence), and really got frazzled. Over all, I'd say he came off as a whiny little bitch.

This is how you do a Bill O'Reilly interview.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think you are misunderstanding just how difficult the presented situation is. There are so many built in assumptions built in that it's very hard to get people out of that, esp considering RP's strategy of trying to work within people's assumptions.

Imagine what would happen if he were to ask: "Is it voluntary?" "What justifies the territorial monopoly?" "Why can't I choose how my property is spent?".

[/ QUOTE ]

What would happen if he asked those questions? Why do you think he didn't?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The other day, when I pointed out that I was a little disappointed that RP isn't quite as "polished" as the other candidates, someone pointed out to me that that's probably because he usually comes less "prepared" (in the sound byte-generating sense), and just tries to answer the questions.

However, I agree that that strategy is a recipe for disaster (given RP's positions) on O'Reilly's show.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is part of the reason Paul has no shot. He doesn't have people in his ear telling him what to say. The serious campaigns have speech writing and communications staffs that help the candidate polish their message. I'm not saying Paul has to sell out or water down his message, but it would help if he had people help him make is message more appealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, this is probably true. Style is far, far more important than substance.

[sightless]

[ QUOTE ]
And what city do you destroy when a terrorist with no avowed national affiliation sets off a dirty bomb in Chicago?


[/ QUOTE ]
Just level few cities of a country which provided them nuclear weapons. Seems reasonable and shouldn’t be too hard to find out where terrorists got their Nuke from. This policy seems like a pretty good deterrent and would discourage states giving nuclear material to terrorists.


[ QUOTE ]
you assume they are all rational to start with. In the case of Iran and NK, they arent.

[/ QUOTE ]
everyone is rational

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He acted surprised when Bill didn't let him finish his statements (which makes me actually question the congressman's intelligence), and really got frazzled.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ignorance =/= lack of intelligence. He's probably never seen BO before and maybe someone warned him and the warning just sounded like standard media behavior to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a very hard time believing that a Republican Congressman has never seen OReilly or have a VERY good idea the m.o. of that show. If he didn't know going into what he was in for, he didn't appropriately prepare.