Last night —
live-blogging the GOP debate — in the 34th item on my 36-point list of observations, I said:
Who most improved his case? I asked the question out loud and immediately thought: Rand Paul. Meade answered: Rand Paul. But he's got a long way to go....
My son John, who was also live-blogging, wrote:
I don't agree that Paul especially helped himself. He was good, but he was also good in the first debate, and that didn't improve his poll numbers. With such a crowded field, I don't expect Paul to get any bump from tonight. If some more candidates were to drop out and Paul had a great debate night, then I could see him getting a boost.
I think Paul's problem is mostly that Republicans don't agree with his positions on various issues. It doesn't matter how well and conspicuously he speaks. They don't want what he's selling. I feel like adding that he has the old doesn't-seem-presidential problem — he's a cantankerous rebel — but that hasn't hurt Trump.
पोस्ट्स
२५ टिप्पण्या:
I agree that Republicans are not buying what Paul is selling. I thought that Christie was easily the most improved debater. Not sure that it will be enough to actually change his prospects (people really hate him over a photo-op), but I think that he bought himself a little more support.
It would help if Paul were taller and better looking.
All of this reminds me of when all four members of Kiss released solo albums on the same day in 1978.
Donald Trump would be Gene Simmons, possibly.
I am Laslo.
Flabbergasted that two candidates think we should out foreigners on the 10bill
Crazy
"Flabbergasted that two candidates think we should out foreigners on the 10bill"
Only if they're truly gay.
I want Rand in the debates because he has an important point of view, even if I don't always agree with him.
I feel like adding that he has the old doesn't-seem-presidential problem — he's a cantankerous rebel — but that hasn't hurt Trump.
The distinction is that Trump has Charisma and comes across as the alpha male while Rand looks like the runt of the litter.
Also, Trump is an unabashed populist while Rand has principled positions that he'll defend even if not popular.
Rand is the only one who gives a damn about civil liberties. He's better off actually in the Senate, I think.
Flabbergasted that two candidates think we should out foreigners on the 10bill
That and relatives. They do know that to be on currency, the person has to be dead, right? If we're suggesting women to go on the $10 bill, I suggest Sally Ride.
"Also, Trump is an unabashed populist while Rand has principled positions that he'll defend even if not popular."
This is what goes through my head whenever someone claims that Trump isn't afraid to say what he really thinks.
I think they should leave Rand Paul and Kasich in all the debates and make them answer the points made by Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina on why the nuclear deal is bad. Kasich was advocating for the deal but his opponents didn't get a chance to make him explain why he doesn't agree that Iran can and will evade the sanctions. His answer would be Hilary's (or whoever) so then the debate would be about the Democratic positions which would be good.
I'd like to see Carly Fiorina taking on Kasich and Rand Paul head on - that would be a debate.
And the Planned Parenthood answer by Fiorina also pointed toward Hilary and Obama. Instead of saying "well in my state we defunded Planned Parenthood" she goes, "Ms. Hilary, look at those videos and then explain why you support PP." How damaging is it to women who went to PP and were told their unborn child was just a blob of tissue and then they see that it had a human heart and brain which PP was selling after charging extra for late term abortions. How do those women feel? What do they think - now? Why don't they matter?
In other words regardless of poll standing I think the candidates advocating the established Liberal, Democratic positions on Iran,immigration, Common Cause and whatever major stuff - namely, Jeb, Rand, Kasich - they should be left in to debate the outsiders' tear-down-this-establishment-shit positions. That would be a real debate and would attack the Democrats.
Possibly the establishment has something to say on why we need to wait to see whether Iran is trustworthy, etc. and need to wait for our brave, loyal allies like Russia and China to step up and support us. But I think that it is as Fiorina says: they've been in it so long they don't realize how bad things have gotten. That's what I think but I would like to hear more and not from Hillary.
Rand Paul's message was overtaken by events like the ISIS surge and the Iran treaty.
The GOP base now wants to bomb ISIS and perhaps Iran too.
Rand Paul's noninterventionism is past its sell-by date.
The distinction is that Trump has Charisma and comes across as the alpha male while Rand looks like the runt of the litter.
Maybe Paul should spend more time on his tip-toes.
Rand Paul thought his opposition to the Gulf War would score points with the crowd. It didn't.
Republicans seem to believe that we won in Iraq (at least that's what Obama told us) before Obama threw it away when he withdrew our forces. Republicans aren't isolationists. They would rather fight terrorists over there than over here.
"They would rather fight terrorists over there than over here."
I agree, but you can't just throw boots on the ground anywhere at any time with seriously altering our ROE to win.
I don't think anyone (outside of Trump and perhaps Cruz) on that stage would be willing to do that.
established Liberal, Democratic positions on Iran,immigration, Common Cause and whatever major stuff - namely, Jeb, Rand, Kasich
I don't think Paul is a fan of Common CORE. It's centralized top-down governing at its worst.
This - "I think Paul's problem is mostly that Republicans don't agree with his positions on various issues. It doesn't matter how well and conspicuously he speaks. They don't want what he's selling. I feel like adding that he has the old doesn't-seem-presidential problem — he's a cantankerous rebel — but that hasn't hurt Trump."
"I think Paul's problem is mostly that Republicans don't agree with his positions on various issues."
Am I the only one that thinks this is an ironic statement, given the front runner?
The Donald has already attracted the messy hair freaks, so Rand Paul's disregard for his personal appearance has to change. Hillary wears wigs that don't fool anybody, so Paul will have to go the beard route.
It's his only chance unless he can hire Carly's fashion expert.
He should grow a goatee, declare himself to be his mirror twin from another dimension, and insist he is nothing like his old man.
Paul was supposed to be some kind of rebel and tea party activist. Then he went to DC and turned into Mitch McConnell jr. Attacking trump and supporting open borders just doesn't appeal to most Conservatives but I'm sure he has the "Reason Magazine" vote locked up.
Paul's low poll numbers are also indicative of the fact that Libertarians are big force on the internet and a big nothing in real life.
People in the US believe in freedom, for everyone. They do not like losing to ISIS. When they see women sold in sex slave markets it strikes a chord.
Obama did what Paul wanted and pulled all the troops out of the middle east. We are seeing what happens when the US chooses to lose. Nobody wants what Obama gave us and Paul endorsed. Most of us actually care.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा