Thread: Paul attacks Huckabee's Campaign Tactics

Everyone here knows my distaste for the Paul campaign, but I agree with him here, although-as usual-his painful inarticulateness completely and utterly mangles the message he's trying to convey.

Have a look:

Relevant Video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrkltetQ0x4

And here's the transcript,

STEVE DOOCY: Mike Huckabee has started running an ad in Iowa, where you’re at right now, also in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and in the back, it’s a windowpane but it also looks a lot like a cross. And, and, we had a guest a little while ago who said it was inappropriate to be using religion for political purposes. Congressman, I’m just curious what you think?

RON PAUL: Well, I haven’t thought about it completely, but you know, it reminds me of what Sinclair, uh, Lewis once said, he said ‘when Fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.’ I don’t know whether that’s a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross like he is the only Christian, or implying that subtly. So, uh, I don’t think I would ever use anything like that.

DOOCY: So, uh, Congressm— you know, uh, Governor Huckabee is not selling fascism. He’s — simply sending out a Christmas message, anyway, just curious how you felt about that. Congressman, if you would sit right there in Des Moines just for a moment, we’re going to take a quick time out...

USA Today's take on things,

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/20 ... e-wit.html

His message was very clear and to the point - as far as I am concerned.

I do wish he would simply stick to voicing his own policies and not get caught up in this kind of thing.

Also, I am tired of people using religion to get votes.

A lady I know very well, told me not long ago, 'I just feel safer with George Bush in office - he's such a good Christian man.'

Politicians use it because it works, evidently.

Wow, I thought Paul was extremely well spoken. I was very proud of him for giving his true opinion; especially on a hostile network such as FOX.

How was Paul well-spoken?

The quote he claimed Lewis uttered was apocrypal-not that that in itself is a big deal, since politicians use misquotations regularly-and even his supporters have to do labor to convey the meaning of his words, the sentiment of which writers like Peggy Noonan and Charles Krauthammer were able to express very eloquently and lucidly in their columns addressing Huckabee's religious crusade. Paul, however, did just the opposite, i.e. made his views more opaque.

If I were a libertarian who wanted to increase my philosophy's representation in the Republican Party the last person I'd pick to be an exponent of my views would be Ron Paul, right behind Badnarik and Harry Browne. Just look at his debate performances, which have illustrated his lack of fluency when it comes to basic forensic techniques that I learned on my high school Lincoln-Douglas Debate team.

He would be as inarticulate as George W. Bush, if that were humanly possibly.

It seems he communicates quite well -

Personally, I don't need stilted utterances - just plain old everyday language that I understand does it for me. I am not at all interested in how large his vocabulary is - I want to know what he believes and what he plans to do for the country and it's people.

Shapka cracks me up. He is so ridiculous that is laughable.

Shapka, we "KNOW" you don't like Ron Paul... we know it. Now move along and promote the candidate of YOUR CHOICE. That would ONLY make sense, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Shapka, we "KNOW" you don't like Ron Paul... we know it. Now move along and promote the candidate of YOUR CHOICE. That would ONLY make sense, wouldn't it?

Not really, since this isn't GOPUSA, the DailyKos, or some other forum devoted solely to promoting specific political candidates or parties.

http://www.alipac.us/content-14.html

If an issue comes up within the context of the campaign I'll comment upon it by replying to or posting the relevant thread(s), but I don't feel compelled to hijack a forum with "Use Colgate, not Crest" promotional threads, which to me are the online equivalent of informercials.

BrightNail wrote:

Shapka cracks me up. He is so ridiculous that is laughable.

Hmmm........and I actually thought you were getting away from the personal attacks.

Originally Posted by Shapka

How was Paul well-spoken?

The quote he claimed Lewis uttered was apocrypal-not that that in itself is a big deal, since politicians use misquotations regularly-and even his supporters have to do labor to convey the meaning of his words, the sentiment of which writers like Peggy Noonan and Charles Krauthammer were able to express very eloquently and lucidly in their columns addressing Huckabee's religious crusade. Paul, however, did just the opposite, i.e. made his views more opaque.

If I were a libertarian who wanted to increase my philosophy's representation in the Republican Party the last person I'd pick to be an exponent of my views would be Ron Paul, right behind Badnarik and Harry Browne. Just look at his debate performances, which have illustrated his lack of fluency when it comes to basic forensic techniques that I learned on my high school Lincoln-Douglas Debate team.

He would be as inarticulate as George W. Bush, if that were humanly possibly.

Attacks couched in flowery language are STILL attacks...

My bad.

Let me try to rephrase the aforementioned statement(s) in a less combative way.

I don't think Ron Paul is able to convey the meaning of his criticism in a concise, coherent manner, despite the fact that he might be correct in this instance.

Anyway, people who disagree can voice their sentiments on USA Today's blog posting about this incident, which I believe is still open for comments.