Republican debate

Though I didn't watch it, I found this piece of the transcript funny:

 

I'm only about 30 minutes into it. Thompson sounds okay. McCain sounded pretty good. The rest of them to a man sounded like income redistributors and appealed to class warfare to one extent or the other. Woeful. Maybe it will get better.

 

What was sorely lacking in the GOP debate today, other than Congressman Hunter, was a populist streak to the comments by the candidates. Free trade is fine but how do we convince China to float its currency and convince other countries to reduce their tariffs and barriers on American products unless we are willing to threaten them with acting in like manner ourselves? I agree with Congressman Hunter on this.

 

Well, populism is okay, but some (in trying to sound populist) came off sometimes worse than Keynesian. Paul & Huckabee sounded at times as the worst of the bunch. McCain's suggestion to Paul that Paul should read Wealth of Nations should be heeded. Several others need to read it, too. I was very disappointed in Paul. He should've won easily. He usually displays a very good grasp of economic principles. Not in the debate. I now wonder about him economically.

Thompson's better answers were in his criticsim of the way China devalues its currency. I agree that Hunter made some good points, but the danger of slipping into nanny mode is always there when you're trying to appeal to the populists.

 

And I suggest that McCain read Human Action. Some other folks need to do so as well.

Me, too.

I have been following Ron Paul's career for over two decades and I have never considered him to be a very good communicator. I think that you have to bear this in mind. His ideas are basically the same as Ronald Reagan's on domestic policy but he is simply nowhere near as good of a communicator as Ronald Reagan was. Frankly, I think that I could take Ron Paul's points and do a better job of communicating them than he does.

 

How would you have better communicated it when he said " There has not been an imminent threat on America in 220 years" ?

 

I wouldn't have said it.

 

That would have been much better. Maybe he needs a history book!

 

I think one problem is that Ron Paul is not given much time to talk(I think he was given only about five minutes out of a 120 minute debate) and he is rushing through his answers. He does much better when he has time to make his points unhurriedly such as on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" this morning.

 

I agree that Ron Paul's communication foibles hurt him. His inconsistencies are not good either. Hence, my uneasiness with his positions (what are they really?

Paul had about as much time as any other second-tier candidate. He still should be able to lift himself above Tancredo (who is probably the worst communicator aside from Paul), et.al. I don't think he has.

I'd like to see just a debate among second-tier guys. Put Brownback, Paul, Tancredo, Hunter, and Huckabee in a room, and let them go for 90 minutes. However, the tv types would still only give them the standard 60 seconds.

One thing that would help Paul: you don't have to bring Iraq and the Gold standard into every answer. Tancredo needs to not mention Immigration in every answer. Rudy can stop saying how he cut taxes and hung the moon and caused the Yankees to win the World Series and how he is the reason 2+2=4.

 

I pretty much agree.