The Blue State Opinion: Ron Paul Wins First Debate

Here's The Blue State's ranking of how each candidate did -- going from best to worst.

1. Ron Paul - Even though Paul is ideologically off-the-wall on economics, substantively speaking he was the most consistent in his positions.  He showed knowledge of history and our constitution.  Republican viewers saw that.  He did not waver.  He is a strong, traditional conservative.
2. Mitt Romney - He came close to winning.  But his comment on abortion made him look like a flip-flopper.  When trying to reason why he changed his position on abortion, he said, "I studied it great length on this issue when I ran."  But aren't you supposed to study issues like that before you run?  In terms of his appearance, he did come across as Reaganesque.
3. Tommy Thompson - Clearly illustrated why he was a betterexpert on policy than any other candidate up there.  He was also theonly candidate to lay out a vision for Iraq.
   
4. Mike Huckabee - Showed that he probably thinks more like Karl Rove than any other GOP contender, especially after admitting he wished Bush had fired Rumsfeld right before the election.  How Rovean of him!  In the end though, he effectively touted his experience as a governor, and his understanding of policy.
5. John McCain - Humanely speaking, the one word we have to describe his performance was "scary."  He will be remembered for his quote about Osama bin Laden: "I will follow him (bin laden) to the gates of hell."  Whatever that was supposed to mean!  Realistically speaking, McCain was the most aggressive, and you could tell he was pretty desperate.  Comparatively speaking though, he did okay tonight
6. Rudolph Giuliani - Completely lied about Ronald Reagan solving the Iran hostage crisis.  In reality, the agreement was reached with Iran on November 21, 1980 -- two months before Reagan was inaugurated.  But comparatively speaking, he did come across as presidential by GOP fear-mongering standards.
7. Jim Gilmore - He did not do enough to stand out from the crowd.  Many mainstream Republican voters hadn't even heard of him prior to the debate.
8. Sam Brownback - Apparently Brownback him the world began just thousands of years ago (pertaining to the evolution question).  Too dry overall.
9. Duncan Hunter - Didn't have charisma or passion.  Our advice to Hunter is to smile for a change.  The driest of the all.
10. Tom Tancredo - Stuttered a lot.  When he finally got somewhere, he was too long-winded and ran out of time.  All in all, his performance was a brutal train-wreck.  I really hope he becomes the nominee.

So how would you rank the candidates?

Comments

[George]

I watched about 30 minutes of this old white man's abortion fearing convention and here's what I thought:

Tom Tancredo was hilarious. Just a pathetic mess of a candidate. You got this one right, Todd.

Huckabee i think is a big underdog here. He has charisma that the others do not. Not that I agree with him on anything (other than that Hillary Clinton should not be President).

I'm still not sure who Hunter or Gilmore are.

Guiliani is so scared to answer the abortion question it's pathetic at this point. Just say it! Abortion is a FAKE ISSUE - it affects next to no one. Get off it. And can he stop acting like he prevented 9/11? 9/11 happened. His city was not prepared in the least. It happened while Bush was in office. So why should we feel like he is the great protector?

Romney has no chance.

McCain is so damn old.

[The Mexican]

This does not go with whom I agree with; just whom I think won by presentation and substance.

1. Mitt Romney
2. Mike Huckabee
3. Tommy Thompson
4. John McCain
5. Ron Paul
6. Rudy Giuliani
7. Sam Brownback
8. Tom Tancredo
9. Duncan Hunter
10. Jim Gilmore

I didn't get a chance to get in on the Democratic debate, because, till recently, I've been studying for seven exams for the semester, and I also graduate, like Erick, but on Monday. For this debate, though, I'm still rooting for Ron Paul, and I think he had better stances on issues, and he didn't force his time or jump in on every opportunity to take stance (even though he needed to so he'd have more access to the conservatives). I think Romney won, because he presented charisma, solid answers to most issues, and and he wanted to take even more aggressive stances on the "global war on terror" whilst not saying he'd be more militarily involved. Also, I think this debate covered way more material than the Democratic debate--mostly because Chris did a better job of mediating.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

I agree with both of you about Huckabee. Definitely worthy of being a top-tier GOP candidate, especially compared to Romney and McCain.

Oh, speaking of which, if Romney makes it to the general election, he would probably be perceived by independents the same way Gore was in 2000. Too formal. Too disconnected. Too robot-like. Romney would lose...especially if he was up against Obama or Edwards.

And I honestly felt sorry for Tancredo...the same way I felt sorry for Bush in his first debate with Kerry. That was a disaster.

[Pablo]

The guys on top of the polls are deeply flawed. McCain is scary gung-ho. Old and tired. Guiliani was limping along with his tabloid sploched personal life before he became the messiah on 9/11. Romney has switched so many positions, I am not sure how he keeps track. I like Ron Paul on the foreign policy stance (nonintervention-mind our own bizness) and it seems he is not glossing over his positions to suck up for votes. Might not play in the primary, but would be good in the general campaign. I was impressed with the smoothness of Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Brownback....borrrringg! I actually felt sorry for Tancredo as he seems to struggle with every sentence. If Thompson has the fire in the gut, he will get in and shoot up to the top of the polls.

[Henry]

Agreed. Without question Ron Paul is the guy. He's the ONLY candidate anywhere who will take down the Federal Reserve!

[Brad]

I think Ron Paul pretty much dominated this debate. I especially enjoyed how he got the rest of the Republicans to flip-flop on the National ID in the middle of the debate. That was priceless. They went from supporting compulsory IDs for everybody to supporting them for just immigrants because Ron Paul attacked it as anti-freedom.

The only thing that could hurt Ron Paul is that he's anti-war, but so are a quarter of Republicans and certainly more to come as the election nears and they abandon our much-beloved president.

[granny]

Sorry to say: I thought the whole presentation was far superior to the Democratic debate.

I'm not talking content of opinions. The overall impression was far less hysterical, I thought. Candidates gave more answers and fewer repetitive campaign speeches - fewer tangents of rhetoric about how the responder is already the very best and most highly qualified, and experienced person - and, in fact, has already done more and better than any other living human on this very issue(exception Guiliani, and McCain); more straightforward answers; and far better questions, both in content and presentation.

I think this debate probably left a better overall impression. I can imagine voters tuning in for the second round, to see what else these guys have to say. I can imagine that the voter expects to hear the same things over and over from the Democrats.

Not a good report card, from my perspective ~

[Michael Wagner]

What exactly is it about Ron Paul's economic ideas do you consider "off the wall?" Is it the fact that he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve? The Fed is a private cartel of banks that has given us inflation, the Great Depression (and every recession since), reduced the value of the dollar to only 4 cents compared to 1913. Do you consider the idea of a stable currency, one that retains its value over time to be off the wall? Or do you really like the fact that inflation is a tax that robs the poor, destroys the middle class and benefits only the super-rich?
If you think Ron Paul's economic ideas are odd, it seems to me that you need to do some homework. I suggest you start by spending a few years studying the material at:
http://www.mises.org

[Brock]

Off the wall on economics? The one candidate who has actually studied econ is off the wall? The man who has written extensively on sound money and economic policy is off the wall?

Perhaps he has been warped by his years on the House Banking Committee, the Gold Commission, the House Financial Services Committee, and the Joint Economic Committee.

[Chris Huston]

I believe the stable currency that retained its value over time was referred to as the gold standard. These days inflation is just a natural part of an expanding GDP, as long as it doesn't cycle out of control. Inflation itself isn't an inherent evil, but has the capacity to do bad things, most prominently to mask losses in real world buying power as raises fail to keep up with national inflation.

[Steve Burden]

Brad, I am a republican (a libertarian republican, that is) and retired Military Intel--specializing in the Middle East--but even I support Ron Paul.

Taken on balance, his *non-intervetionist* stand is fine by me--and most of my republican friends, too. With all the other things so screwed up:,welfare state, creeping socialism, the border, government trampling of civil rights, corporate welfare, the national debt, etc., I think it is a small price to pay to not have to finance foreign wars that pose no real national security threat.

Give me 8 years of no more foreign wars, and spend the time getting government out of my wallet and my bedroom!

Ron Paul 2008!

--Steve

[Steve Burden]

Chris,

there is even a name for it: debasing a currency.

--Steve

[Will Blalocok]

Ron Paul is "off the wall"
economically?

Wow. I guess Blue State people
really DO enjoy indentured
servitude (if you even understand
what that means.)

[Whats the frequency, Kenneth]

Inflation has nothing to do with the GDP. It has to do with the government printing as much money as they want to steal out of your pocket. Essentially, it's stealth taxation. They do it to make it easer to pay for wars and other things real Americans are against.

[beermotor]

Ron Paul alone understands that WAR is the mechanism whereby these robber-baron politicians continue to fleece the country into oblivion.

Do you really think when another great depression comes (and it is coming, you can bet on it) these upper class jerks will be suffering? No way... it's the POOR who suffer the most. Followed closely by the middle class, who are about to become poor with a quickness, if anyone other than Dr. Paul becomes president.

The problem with the democrats is they have no answers to the problems - Ron Paul does. They want to continue with business as usual (their answers are this has been mismanaged, war is a good thing, raise taxes, etc). Business as usual is/has destroying(ed) this country.

[Scott]

>> Inflation itself isn't an inherent evil

Only if you concede that the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to wall street is also not evil. But I guess you work on Wall Street.

Study up, son.

[Richard Brodie]

Up until very recently I was filled with anger towards the entire Muslim world for what I perceived as their assault on Western Civilization. I would speak about turning Mecca into a sea of glass, etc., not understanding the real reason for their hostility (our military presence in their holy territories). Ron Paul, by his benevolent, culture-respecting non-nation-building ideas on foreign policy (and that does NOT mean isolationist) has enabled me to become healed and pacified of my irrational ire. The man does not have to be all preachy for you to see that he is a true disciple of the Prince of Peace. I really hope that the world will be able to see a letter like the following sometime early in 2009:

Dear President Ahmadinejad,

As the newly elected President of the United States of America I wish to extend, on behalf of the American people, a hand of friendship to you and the great people of the nation of Iran. I offer you my sincere apologies for the reprehensible, belligerent policies of the outgoing American government toward the Islamic world in general, and toward your country in particular. I am bringing our troops home immediately, and henceforth the United States will cease attempting to remold Middle Eastern countries, or any other sovereign countries, in its own image.

From this day we shall respect the right of all nations to determine their own destinies, their own forms of government, and their own institutions, asking only that such respect be reciprocated. Our government will not be providing aid of any kind, neither military nor "humanitarian", to any other countries, for such aid always implies some obligation, and is thus a form of the type of controlling intervention that leads to resentment, tensions, and ultimately conflict.

Nevertheless, please be assured that my administration will not attempt to interfere with trade between private businesses in both of our countries. Consonant with our preferred system of limited government and free enterprise, American business concerns, while they will not be allowed to deal with other governments, will be perfectly free to deal with the private business concerns of other nations. In particular, private Iranian nuclear energy firms will be free to do business with American suppliers of the technology and materials that might be needed to help your country develop the kind of a modern nuclear energy capability needed to to enhance the prosperity and living standards of the Iranian people.

May a new era begin - one of peaceful mutual friendship and respect between the peoples of America and Iran.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul, President of the United States of America