Should Dr. Paul moderate his message?

[TwiLeXia]

I was reading the article on the baltimore sun and they were talking about how his speech went great... until he started saying that Iraq and 9/11 had no relation (which I completely agree with).

So although I think Dr. Paul is fantastic for speaking the truth, I also wonder if people would like him more if he didn't completely offend people while he does... for ex. calling for cutting the Dept. of Education, or saying that the Civil War shouldn't have been fought. (Once again I agree with Dr. Paul on these issues, but I am merely concerned about his appeal to the american sheep)

Yes - there are only 3 candidates left, and now is the time to get up and show that you can fully and better represent the traditional Republican party platform better than McCain or Huckabee

No - you must tell the cold truth and the hard truth, even if it offends a ton of people

Maybe - (post your opinion below)

[Mordan]

in some speeches he should play realpolitik and NOT talk about some issues. That would not hurt his principles. But otherwise he should sugar his message. like yes the truth hurts, but Osama is a freedom fighter. in his talk he tried to do it with the Soviet Union. but he should say it more clearly without stuttering

[Menthol Patch]

If he waters down his message one tiny bit he does not deserve anyone's vote.

Truth is more important than victory.

[anewvoice]

Ron Paul's strongest asset is his sincerity. Watering down sincerity is well, insincere. Ron Paul may not be the perfect messenger, but he needs to be himself and no more.

[Menthol Patch]

in some speeches he should play realpolitik and NOT talk about some issues. That would not hurt his principles. But otherwise he should sugar his message. like yes the truth hurts, but Osama is a freedom fighter. in his talk he tried to do it with the Soviet Union. but he should say it more clearly without stuttering

No, he should NOT sugar coat his message.

If he sugar coats his message then he is no better than the Republicans or Democrats.

[Electrostatic]

This poll is worded in a way that would make Frank Luntz proud.

[justatrey]

No way. The main reason I support him is because he is the only one left thats tells it like it is.

[Mordan]

No, he should NOT sugar coat his message.

If he sugar coats his message then he is no better than the Republicans or Democrats.

well sugar coating is not evil. It is just giving a perspective on things. Stop being a child. You know well like me truth is a relative matter. Telling your fat wife is fat leads you nowhere.

[bcreps85]

I disagree, and I watched the speech...I certainly didn't think the crowd seemed lost after those statements...it made me wonder what the hell speech the writer of that article was listening to, personally.

The only time I heard any "boos" in the audience was when he was talking about McCain...and I'm pretty sure it was directed at McCain.

[JMann]

It has nothing to do about 'telling the truth', he should speak to what he can change. The president isn't a very powerful person and would be less powerful under Paul. You don't have to change or moderate your message to word it more effectively for a national campaign. No need to say abolish the Department of Education, best to just say return control of our schools to the cities and neighborhoods. Same thing just one sounds cold and prickly while the other wording is warm and fuzzy.

[Menthol Patch]

It's all about telling the truth.

If you can't tell the truth then you are no better than any of the neocons.

[forsmant]

Its a problem of semantics. He could use softer words, instead of eliminate the IRS he could say cut taxes. That is not lying.

[FreeTraveler]

I had to vote no.

Now, if you want to post one that asks if Dr. Paul should focus more on the positive results of Liberty and less on the existing problems, I could answer differently.

[Naraku]

I think he definitely should moderate his message. He talks about foreign policy TOO MUCH.

Whenever he brings up Iraq or foreign policy people just go, "Oh and I liked him so much before I heard that." The media obviously plays a part in making him look bad, but it would help if he talks about more issues than foreign policy and in more detail.

Talk about why the Federal Reserve is bad, not just say it's bad to print money. Make it clear to everyone that the Fed is a horrible thing and causes more of our problems. Point out it's connection to the current crisis.

If bringing up foreign policy bring up things other than Iraq like pulling our troops out of Africa, South America, Europe, and parts of Asia outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Things like, "The Cold War is over why are we building more bases in Europe?"

Come out against Real ID, USA PATRIOT ACT, and surveillance. Talk about why they're bad so people can fully understand the problem.

He talks so much about Iraq and war and the real reason we were attacked on 9-11 that it just gets stale. We know his message is superb and most of the time he's spot on, but most haven't heard his whole message because he never gets it out.

[J Free]

No. Ron Paul should say what he believes.

The challenge is for us supporters. We must not fall into the trap of trying to persuade others to agree with everything RP says or is. If we disagree with him on Iraq, then say so. If we don't understand what he says on money, then say so. And if we are an independent or a Democrat who supports Ron Paul, then we should say so.

One of the ways that the media was able to marginalize RP was because MANY supporters tried to explain how RP position on Iraq fit into Republican traditions -- when the person doing the explaining was clearly and obviously not Republican. That created a credibility problem and made it look like a cult