1 vote

Why not a debate challenge? Time to pick a fight?

I think Paul needs to make very specific, very public challenges to the other candidates...

He'd have to play up that the MSM doesn't want his message heard... and if any candidate is 'man' enough... etc.

Obviously the delivery of the challenge would be key.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Elements of such a challenge...

These are no-brainers - kind of inherent in any challenge...

Paul would have to play up that not accepting the challenge would mean:

- you are afraid
- you can't handle the challenge
- you can't defend your position
- you are backed by the MSM
- you can't handle the truth! :)

I think the MSM one might have some potential.

Paul vs. Gingrich

Paul vs. Gingrich

I like it..

It worked quite well for Gingrich.. he promoted his Lincoln Douglas debate for a while before he challenged Herman Cain. Ron Paul should challenge Mitt Romney to a 1 hour debate- there will be a network that will pick it up. There needs to be a sponsor for the event, maybe Ron Paul needs to listen to the congressman that hosted the Gingrich debate who said he "hoped the candidates from Texas held a similar format debate in Georgia".

Not a good idea unless it comes from "the campaign".

Congressman Paul is winning allies by remaining "above the fray," letting Jesse Benton and supporters "get their hands dirty". Yesterday, I suggested supporters heckle Santorum and Bachmann. What I meant was to dare them to challenge Ron Paul to a debate on foreign policy and national security and dog them at every campaign stop. Meanwhile, the campaign needs to broadcast a negative ad, attacking candidates who support torture, the Patriot Act, Gitmo and endless Middle East wars.

your statement is self contradictory..

paul supporters do not have the wits to hide their origin's whereabouts and they have shown as much.. it will just feed into 'those darn paul supporters' stereotype and turn off more moderates.. it's been shown that grassroots way is the way to go. turning off aggregate constituents in huge collectives in generalized statements in short 1 minute exchanges on stage isn't the way to go. it also opens up the probability of candidate smearing when one is losing a foreign policy argument and get desperate. smearing hasn't worked on sexual scandal because people want deeper issues, but it's hard to say if the same reaction applies on foreign policy front