For all of you out there who watched the Republican Presidential debate last night on Fox, you saw a pretty good show. John McCain did a better job than usual, Mike Huckabee is giving a commendable effort, Rudy Giuliani did fairly well, although he focused on his record as the mayor of New York too often for my taste, and Fred Thompson made it official, although he wasn't actually at the debate. But out of the few irrelevant candidates who continue to linger, Ron Paul is actually making a difference. That last sentence may seem a bit paradoxical, so let me explain. Ron has no chance of winning. He just isn't going to. But that doesn't mean he isn't making a tremendous impact on the debate taking place towards the nomination. Between the other 7 candidates, there hasn't been a whole lot of difference. All support the surge in Iraq, and indeed the war itself. All support tax cuts, and to be honest, what Republican doesn't? By playing the wild card in the debate, Ron Paul is "shaking up the establishment," and giving a punch to the debates they would otherwise be lacking.
First off, the obvious part. Ron Paul is against the war and wants to come home. While I disagree with that assessment, it adds to the debate; Republicans are being challenged within their own party and will be more prepared for when the real deal comes against the Democrats in the near future. For the past 6 months we've been killing ourselves watching these 10 second answers and soundbites, and last night we finally saw a debate, and what a difference it made. Also, this shows a variety of ideas coming from within the party and giving the Republican Party the "big tent" status is so often claims. This was no more evident than when Paul and Huckabee had their exchange about the merits of withdrawing troops vs staying to finish the job. Giving sharp answers back and forth, each having his own merits, both candidates drew wild applause from the crowd, and thus invigorated all of the candidates themselves. Notwithstanding, isn't this what a "debate" is actually supposed to be about, honest back and forth conversations? Had Ron Paul not been in the race, vital discussions such as those would not be taking place.
Second, legal issues. After Paul said he would leave the Arabian peninsula because it inflames Muslim tensions, Chris Wallace asked the prototypical rebuttal "You would take your marching orders from Al Qaeda?" Ron gave the best answer of the night saying "No, I would take my orders from the constitution!" That was perfect, and it was the right answer. Presidential power is growing at a large rate, and granted, we are in a time of war, but the Republican Party needs a reminder that it is the party of smaller government. Again, Ron Paul is giving the party the shot in the arm it needs.
Third, spending/cutbacks. All Republican candidates are going to favor tax cuts and less spending. However, Ron Paul is taking it a step further and talking about cutting entire agencies. Asked about his take on what could have averted the 9/11 attacks, Ron Paul explained that private companies take care of their own security time and time again and do a good job at it, and thus had some of the airlines been in charge of their own instead of the TSA, better security might have been provided in the form of stronger cockpit doors, and better detection services.
Fourth, this type of active debate is not taking place on the Democrat's table. All we are going to hear from the Democratic debates is that Bush is bad and who can pull out the quickest. That sounds like a bad junior prom date, and accomplishes about the same objectives, a quick screw job that will soon be regretted.
This is why having people like Ron Paul in the process is such an asset. He is not going to win the nomination, but that in and of itself is not a reason not to compete. By competing, and raising quality and insightful, and more importantly, REPUBLICAN issues, he is giving the Republican party the kick in the pants it needs to stay on top of its toes and win in 2008.
First off, the obvious part. Ron Paul is against the war and wants to come home. While I disagree with that assessment, it adds to the debate; Republicans are being challenged within their own party and will be more prepared for when the real deal comes against the Democrats in the near future. For the past 6 months we've been killing ourselves watching these 10 second answers and soundbites, and last night we finally saw a debate, and what a difference it made. Also, this shows a variety of ideas coming from within the party and giving the Republican Party the "big tent" status is so often claims. This was no more evident than when Paul and Huckabee had their exchange about the merits of withdrawing troops vs staying to finish the job. Giving sharp answers back and forth, each having his own merits, both candidates drew wild applause from the crowd, and thus invigorated all of the candidates themselves. Notwithstanding, isn't this what a "debate" is actually supposed to be about, honest back and forth conversations? Had Ron Paul not been in the race, vital discussions such as those would not be taking place.
Second, legal issues. After Paul said he would leave the Arabian peninsula because it inflames Muslim tensions, Chris Wallace asked the prototypical rebuttal "You would take your marching orders from Al Qaeda?" Ron gave the best answer of the night saying "No, I would take my orders from the constitution!" That was perfect, and it was the right answer. Presidential power is growing at a large rate, and granted, we are in a time of war, but the Republican Party needs a reminder that it is the party of smaller government. Again, Ron Paul is giving the party the shot in the arm it needs.
Third, spending/cutbacks. All Republican candidates are going to favor tax cuts and less spending. However, Ron Paul is taking it a step further and talking about cutting entire agencies. Asked about his take on what could have averted the 9/11 attacks, Ron Paul explained that private companies take care of their own security time and time again and do a good job at it, and thus had some of the airlines been in charge of their own instead of the TSA, better security might have been provided in the form of stronger cockpit doors, and better detection services.
Fourth, this type of active debate is not taking place on the Democrat's table. All we are going to hear from the Democratic debates is that Bush is bad and who can pull out the quickest. That sounds like a bad junior prom date, and accomplishes about the same objectives, a quick screw job that will soon be regretted.
This is why having people like Ron Paul in the process is such an asset. He is not going to win the nomination, but that in and of itself is not a reason not to compete. By competing, and raising quality and insightful, and more importantly, REPUBLICAN issues, he is giving the Republican party the kick in the pants it needs to stay on top of its toes and win in 2008.
Comments