Pejorative labels such as "Bushbot" are ever so substantive.
It's just shorthand for the kneejerk reactionaries who blindly support this administration's destructive policies
Maybe, but it comes across as name-calling. Are they 'kneejerk' because they support rather than oppose the president and 'blind' because they don't agree with you?
Anyone who takes umbrage at the audience at a partisan debate being screened in a partisan fashion is being somewhat naive.
What you're saying here is that unless we're in lockstep with the Bush administration, we're not good Republicans. How arrogant.
No, that's how you interpret what I said. What I said was that it's entirely expected that that the organizers of a partisan debate are going to screen the audience in accordance with their own position, and anyone who pretends to be dismayed by this is kidding themselves. Draw what conclusions you will, but Paul is clearly at odds with quite a bit of party leadership. Party National Committees almost always back "their" president officially, however peeved they might be privately.
Finally, I don't really care about the audience reaction. Ron Paul backers are almost exclusively backing an ideology first and candidate second. Regrettably, the candidate (and to a lesser extent, ideology) is somewhat lacking in broader appeal.
'Lacking in broader appeal'? Like Bush and his administration and his war?
I'm really not a big fan of "scientific" polls but they at least partially preclude sampling bias. Ron Paul's numbers in 'Republican candidate' polls haven't been promising (not even double digits).
More than anything else, televised debates measure a candidate's public presence. Ron Paul's has been underwhelming IMO. I wonder if those who champion Paul's "performance" in a debate refer to the political opinions expressed (maybe) or his effectiveness in expressing them (not). I have a good deal of sympathy or support for many of Paul's opinions, but I cannot stand watching him debate.
So to you, it's about 'performance' rather than principles? Here's hoping the American people are not as vacuous.
Read it again.
I support or sympathize with many of Ron Paul's positions,
but his persona leaves much to be desired. I don't care how ideologically pure he is if he isn't electable. It isn't just about "star power" either. Watching him in the debates left me decidedly underwhelmed primarily because of his failure to effectively communicate his platform on any level.
Ha! You do realize that in the 2004 elections, which showed record numbers, only 60% of those eligible voted? 4 out of every 10 ELIGIBLE voters didn't even bother to vote. Among those who vote, informed voters are a huge minority. Time and time again people display their ignorance and misinformed state (street interviews, polls, conversation). Most people form their opinions of candidates based on what they hear from friends, colleagues, and media (the internet is growing in influence as well) + their party affiliation + what they see and hear of a candidate. Guess what people are evaluating in staged debates, video clips, and sound bytes? It isn't policy. Rather, it's all about pithiness, plausibility, posturing, and presentation (the 'P's are incidental). In a word, it's about 'performance.' Joe Public: "Well, uh, he sounds like someone I'd support" "How so?" "Well, he was really convincing in the debate last night, y'now, said some good things"