Debate Blogging
By Thoreau
I don’t have the energy to blog it play by play, and I guess it doesn’t matter because no pro-war candidate will win next November if US troops are still dying in Iraq. (And Ron Paul, who is anti-war, wouldn’t win anyway.) But I have to offer this observation:
How has Ron Paul ever won an election? The man speaks too fast and sounds too intense. He needs to be confident and energetic rather than intense. There’s a difference. People who sound intense sound a little crazy.
That, and he sounds a bit nasal. He should prescribe himself some Flonase, given that he’s a doctor and all.
I know that this has nothing to do with policy, but it has a lot to do with elections.
EDIT: FWIW, I’d probably come across just as badly as Ron Paul if I were on TV. But I’m not running for President.
Comment by Dave W. —
May 3, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
I think he comes off as a bit crazy. I like him. Especially when he talks about 9/11 and the FAA. He reminds me of somebody, but I can’t think who.
Comment by Kevin B. O'Reilly —
May 3, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
Physicians aren’t allowed to write prescriptions for themselves.
Comment by Derek Copold —
May 3, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Paul has the right district.
Comment by Jon H —
May 4, 2007 @ 2:28 am
OT, but I just had to mention this someplace:
From an NY Times story about a Bush threat to veto any legislation that tries to change policy re: abortion.
“Mr. Bush said his veto threat would apply to any measures that “allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life.—
Wow! I guess the democrats needn’t worry about the defense spending bill after all.
Comment by Ultima Ratio —
May 4, 2007 @ 8:38 am
no pro-war candidate will win next November if US troops are still dying in Iraq
We disagree. Taking as read that one of the current candidates (Dem or GOP) must win, and that Ron Paul or Gravel will not be the nominees, then, almost tautologically, a pro-war candidate will win the election.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
May 4, 2007 @ 8:58 am
no pro-war candidate will win next November if US troops are still dying in Iraq
Wow. Where are you getting your happy pills, and can you send a few my way?
Comment by Derek Copold —
May 4, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
I agree with the last two posters. Obama, Clinton and Edwards are all intervention happy.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
May 4, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
It’s 2007 and the Blues can’t field a credible anti-war candidate? Meh.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
May 4, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Sorry about the grumping. I just expect more and more that in 2007 that I’ll futilely punish the Reds (who won’t learn the lesson) by voting for a Blue who will do the same things, anyway.
Comment by srv —
May 4, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
He’s not intense in person, he’s pretty personable and doesn’t talk fast. Given the format, he had to get in as much logic as fast as possible.
What would you do if you had an hour of network time and had to compete with 10 other nuts?
Comment by Thoreau —
May 5, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
OK, fair enough, most of the Dem candidates aren’t exactly doves. But I think it’s fair to say that if American troops are dying in Iraq in November of 2008, then the candidate who is more willing to get the hell out of Iraq ASAP will win. And that candidate will almost certainly be the Democrat. Or at least the voters will perceive the Democrat to be that candidate, and so the Democrat will win in 2008.
Which is not to say that the victorious Democrat will refrain from intervening in other messes around the world. Hell, for all I know the next President might not even withdraw from Iraq, maybe not even reduce our involvement.
But the voters will perceive the Democrat that way in November, as so the Democrat will win. It’s as simple as that, this time around.
FWIW, since I’ll be in California I’ll probably cast a protest vote for some candidate who has no chance of winning.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
May 5, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Thoreau, that all assumes Team Blue actually chooses a remotely anti-war candidate to run, which already looks unlikely at this point.
Now by the primaries next year, things could get so bad that every single hopeful from both parties is a get-out-of-Iraq-now-er, but absent some spectacular escalation of casualties, it doesn’t look like Team Blue is particularly interested in that policy at the moment.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 5, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
Thoreau, that all assumes Team Blue actually chooses a remotely anti-war candidate to run, which already looks unlikely at this point.
The thing about politics is that a lot of it has to do with perceptions and tribalism. Any Democrat whose first name isn’t “Joe” and last name isn’t “Lieberman” is assumed to be a closet dove by many voters. And the leaders of the Congressional Democrats are certainly pushing for something that resembles a withdrawal date. While they may not speak for their party’s candidates, they do shape the perceptions.
There’s a gap between perceptions and reality. Divorced Republicans are more likely than happily married Democrats to get support from so-called “family values voters” because they are perceived to be the ones who really care about families. Wealthy Democrats are more likely to be seen as sticking up for “the little guy” than less affluent Republican candidates. These are the perceptions.
These perceptions aren’t reality, but they do determine elections. Unless the Democratic nominee personally executes an insurgent on national TV in October of 2008, a lot of voters will assume that the Democratic candidate will get out of Iraq ASAP. And if American troops are still dying in Iraq, that perception will be enough for the Democrat to win.
Comment by mullah cimoc —
May 5, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
mullah cimoc say ameriki needing for remember vietnam war ending.
when last helicopter flying away the usa embassey how long before the gun of war going silent?
Answer: 3 day and now peace more than 30 years among vietnam people. back then time usa govt and control media say the same lying excuse for continue the kill.
special important: not the single viet cong coming for attack amerika during all this thirty year.
now patriotc ameriki man him needing for destroy israeli spy operations in usa starting with elimination the necon sending him to iraq for living in baghdad with mccain tell evryone how safe.