Still Ron Paul easily had the most audience response…and got into his groove about half way through and, thus was able to get some of his points across.

Ron Paul’s ideas are definately out of the norm, which is really the reason for his success. Still those that only watch him on this debate would have a hard time understanding his stances.

Still, most people who discover and research Ron Paul end up rootin’ for him…so the more exposure the better.

BTW: On 9/24, Ron Paul launched an online $500,000 ‘end of quarter’ donation drive. That’s six days to raise $500,000. His supporters did it in three…so Ron Paul (with pushing from supporters) changed the goal to $1 million…and that was reached two days later.

It can’t be that Ron Paul really has real supporters…it must be online spammers…WHO RAISED A MILLION IN FIVE DAYS. I didn’t know spammers could show up to win nearly half the straw polls or give up a million on request.

He talked about things like Real ID but didn’t go into the reasons that it was bad (loss of privacy, more likely to arrest the wrong people etc.) He just said not a federal role but OK for states. If it is bad at the federal level, IMHO it is bad at the state level to.

I hope the next debate he can just be himself and educate us on what freedom really means.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_allamericanpresidentialforums_2007-09-28

Thank you very much.

I liked the way Morgan State kept the podiums up for the 4 missing Pubs. It really represented how chicken Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Romney are. Some Blacks like to think the empty podiums represent how Pubs have been harsh to minorities, but both the Dems and Pubs have worked equally hard screwing over minorities.

BTW: I must mention how Keyes (Black) sortof tried to justify why the big 4 weren’t there. What a GOP puppet.

Anyway, I’m really glad they weren’t there though. It gave me a chance to really hear the other candidates. Though I’m a stanch Paul supporter, the others impressed me…except Huckabee (but he impressed me in other debates).

The minority-based questions were tough. They often started with a debatable statement, and then they basicially asked the Pubs how they would end some symptom of racism (employment disparity, academic disparity, Darfur, etc.).

Some Pubs just kissed @ss (e.g., Blacks make the US great, the US should apologise for slavery, etc.), but mostly the Pubs (following Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Alan Keyes’ lead) gave the audience the hard truth: welfare and the culture it has created and is being maintained, moral decay in the family, illegal immigration (which does have a part), etc.

Though I must say some of the answers were pretty lame: minimum wage, porn, abortions.

Keyes had an interesting idea. Bring back the community justice-of-the-peace. Perhaps the success of Judge Mathis and the slew of other judge shows is due to people’s desire for local justice.

My wife is Black and votes mostly Democrat, but she sat riveted by the debate, shushing me, and cheering many times at the Pub answers. She liked all of them except Huckabee. Huck wasn’t so bad, but he just “sounded fake” and “couldn’t answer the questions well”, according to she-who-must-be-obeyed.

Personally, I like having a minority-issues debate because I like having themed debates where we can get to the nitty-gritty of the candidates’ stances. I wish there was a middle-east debate, an illegal immigration debate, an economic debate, etc.