I think Dr. Paul needs less speeches like the one in Ames

[mtbaird5687]

It was good that he was passionate and energetic. I like that in his speeches but there were a few things that I think really hurt the campaign.

My advice would be to keep the more 'extreme' ideas such as getting rid of the fed and department of education and try not to bring those out in the open too much. I know we are all for big change in this country but i feel that speaking about these issues to undecided voters will push them away.

I was watching his speech with my family and they were really starting to like him until he mentioned getting rid of the department of education. This scared them off and they started to think of Paul as more fringe and extreme of a candidate.

I think that if Paul could just focus on his message of bringing the troops home and reducing the size of the government he would do better. Talking about cutting funds to something doesn't scare people as much as saying you'll remove the whole department.

Just my two cents.

[BLS]

I understand what you're saying.

And I agree that his ideas may SEEM extreme to the public.
But the thing is you have to understand the GRAND scheme of his campaign.
Less government. It's ALL a mess. State Governments could run it much better than the feds. Plain and simple.

He doesn't want to make everyone home school their kids.
He just doesn't think the Fed's should be in control of it. They simply suck at just about everything they do.

[mtbaird5687]

Yea i understand that you need to understand the grand scheme but i feel that most people will just write Paul off as too extreme and not give his ideas a chance. If you get them interested in your foreign policy ideas they might look more in depth and learn more about everything Paul stands for.

[BlCkDeAtH]

It might seem fringe and extreme to people until they realize why Ron Paul says those things. The federal gov. wasn't given the authority to run our schools. They weren't given authority to print paper money. We all know this.

In reality, when Mr. Paul advocates abolishing all the things he wants to he highlights how far we have gone astray from the Supreme Law of the US. Like he said one time, and I'll paraphrase; Instead of debating how much funding these programs should get, we should be discussing whether they should exist at all.

The point I want to make is, is that if Ron Paul didn't talk about getting rid of the Fed or most of the Departments, he would sound just like every other politician.

[ChicagoLawyer]

The thing about scrapping the Department of Education is that was a major goal of the GOP in the 1994 elections. Now we can't even bring it up to a GOP event? I see where you are going with 7 years of Bush behind us, but there are millions of Republicans yearning for someone to advocate that. Ron is the only one saying things like that, and he should continue doing so. It's not fringe, it's what the GOP wishes it could be.

[jj111]

Ron Paul needs to spend time to explain getting rid of the Federal Reserve. If he has a good 3 or 4 minutes to spend on that topic, he can do a good job, but it's not the best winner for a short speech where he can only devote a small amount of time to it.

Getting rid of the Department of Education I think was a good thing to discuss in this speech to conservative audience. This is what the Republicans promised in their 1994 Contract with America, and I would guess that a lot more Americans in 2007 compared to thirteen years ago are beginning to understand that it might make sense to get the Federal government out of education.

[BLS]

Yea i understand that you need to understand the grand scheme but i feel that most people will just write Paul off as too extreme and not give his ideas a chance. If you get them interested in your foreign policy ideas they might look more in depth and learn more about everything Paul stands for.

Agreed. It's a big bite for the non RP supporter.
But you have to give him credit, he never wavers or panders.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I agree 100%

He needs a more moderate message. I mean, he doesnt havent to talk about getting rid of the DEP. of Education. That scares off 97% of Americans because they automatically think you're opposed to public education

Ive learned from the campaigns I've worked on in the past that the less you speak the better. Dr. Paul touches on way too many controversial issues. If he focused on Getting out of the War, eliminating the income tax and limiting the size of government, he'd convince all Republicans who are not neo-cons

But I yield to him because he knows better than I and has far more experience. I just agree with the original poster. My parents were watching and they agreed with everything but getting rid of the Dept of Education and getting rid of the FED

[max]

No need to sugar coat anything. When the media hate fest inevitably begins, those spineless people who are afraid of new ideas wont be with us anyway.

If we get bogged down in soft selling our message, the Establishment will steamroll us. There are enough pissed off non voter types out there who will respond to a strong message and that we can enlist.

Forget about the wimps. Trust me, even if you win them over now.....they will cave in when the media attacks finally, and inevitably, are launched.

Dont apologize for anything!

[mtbaird5687]

Oh i know, i fully support Dr. Paul. I'm just trying to find a way that the general public won't be instantly turned off by his ideas. If the public knew how far the government has strayed from the constitution they would be more behind him.

However, most people do not as far as i've been able to see. Statements he made at the straw poll such as "Get rid of the 16th amendment and get rid of the department of education" really turn people off who don't know as much about history as they should.

I think he would get more fans if he was known as "The republican candidate against the war" instead of "The republican candidate against the war, plus some super fringe ideas". I know that sucks and all but if we want a serious shot at winning i think this has to become the case.

[jj111]

But you have to give him credit, he never wavers or panders.

Didn't Jon Stewart on the Daily Show that "people don't really go for that"? :)

[MadEmperor]

I agree. I wish he didn't go into the abortion, fed, dept edu so heavily at a place where he is trying to swing undecided voters.

I think it'd be best to focus on the constitution, rights and foreign policy. This is where he does the best.

[Thom1776]

He's got to STOP SAYING: "I DON'T KNOW HOW!"

People don't want to hear someone say that they CAN'T do something.

WE all know what he means, but that just turns potential supporters off. They want a strong decisive leader. I've seen at least one article that twisted those words to make him sound like he's not smart enough to do some things.

He just needs to re-word that part of his message to get the point across that those things just aren't the responsibility of the president or the federal government.

[mtbaird5687]

Another thing i wish he would not say so much is 'Neo-conservative'. You and i know what that means but i feel like much of the public don't know and that word sounds kinda like a conspiracy theory. That might just be me who thinks that though.

[Kuldebar]

I disagree.

Ron Paul has to focus on where he is campaigning and unlike the other candidates, he doesn't have to be a hypocrite in order to do that.

Abortion and 2nd Amendment are BIG in Iowa.

He played to strength.

[jj111]

He's got to STOP SAYING: "I DON'T KNOW HOW!"

People don't want to hear someone say that they CAN'T do something.

WE all know what he means, but that just turns potential supporters off. They want a strong decisive leader. I've seen at least one article that twisted those words to make him sound like he's not smart enough to do some things.

He just needs to re-word that part of his message to get the point across that those things just aren't the responsibility of the president or the federal government.

Agreed!!!

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Nefertiti]

He would be better off saying saying he believes in returning responsibility for education to the states and local communities. Just saying he will get rid of the DOEd is not helpful because he doesn't explain what it will be replaced with. Also, most people are probably not so aware about what the DOEd actually does and may believe it plays a bigger role than it actually does and that it might be harmful to get rid of it.

[Nash]

For the non-believers, I think it's about the tone of his message even more than the content. His speech in Iowa was fiery from a supporters perspective and one could construe it as raving from a cynical perspective.

One of Ron Paul's biggest source of appeal is he's delivering his message in a very even handed and logical way. For this speech he went off the cuff. Lots of ranting. Lots of screaming. He was almost angry. Granted, I think the environment lends to that sort of delivery being a big stadium area with screaming fans but still, it was a firebrand speech. That's a departure from what we've seen so far in this campaign. He looked and sounded a lot more like the Ron Paul of 1988.

I don't know if that was good or bad or what the general objective consensus was but taking a step back and pulling off the blinders makes me think this was a borderline Howard Dean moment.

In short I'd hope he tone it down a little bit. Not the message. Just tone down the rhetoric. It can be alarming to people who don't fully understand what he's talking about.

Anyway I thought the content of the speech was great, and the passion was also great, but I think it was kinda overboard a bit and I hope he scales it back a bit in future appearances. The message is radical. If you're delivering a radical message you need to do it in a palatable way.

[mtbaird5687]

He would be better off saying saying he believes in returning responsibility for education to the states and local communities. Just saying he will get rid of the DOEd is not helpful because he doesn't explain what it will be replaced with.

yes yes yes this is the main reason people get turned off. Just saying you'll get rid of something makes people think that there will be a giant gap and noone will be overseeing what happens.

[Kuldebar]

You can't teach the American people the truth if you resort to the same lies that got them to where they are now.

Ron Paul DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO RUN YOUR FREAKING LIFE! No one does.

Stop trying to diminish the truth of his message.

There is enough gutter talk from the other candidates.

[BLS]

Let's face it, he's not a good speaker. Plain and simple.
He mumbles his words, he gets mixed up from time to time, but he still has a great message.

For pete's sake, look at George Bush...he can't even quote cliches properly and he's run this country for 8 years.

[DeadheadForPaul]

The problem is that Dr. Paul has been speaking to his libertarian supporters/constituents for 20+ years.

I dont think he's gonna change this late in the game unless Lou advises him to

I have hope for Governor Sanford running in 2012/2016 in the future as a more moderate small gov't voice

[ronpaulitician]

Just bring them home. Just bring them home. Just bring them home.

Rinse and repeat.

[max]

1. GET RID OF IRS BUT DRASTICALLY CUTTING FEDERAL SPENDING

2. bring the troops home


RP needs to turn this election into a referendum on the IRS and the war. If he does that he wins.


I'm afriad he is all over the place on issues that joe six pack cant grasp

[jj111]

Or he could say, "Nobody in Washington could possibly know..." instead of personalizing it.

[Kuldebar]

Seriously, some of you freedom lovers need to stop being so timid.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Seriously, some of you freedom lovers need to stop being so timid.

You apparently have never suffered the repeated defeat of multiple libertarian campaigns as I have. I know where the freedom message gets you if you remain ideologically strict. It gets your 0.7% of the vote

You have to know how to play to Joe Six Pack if you want to win

You can keep the Freedom Message by focusing on the winning issues. Every politician does it. Do you think Bush won with his TRUE neo-con message? No. He did it with a moderate neo-con message and then implemented his full neo-con agenda once in office. Do you think he ran on suspending habeas corpus? We can play the same way...in fact, you have to.

We can run on pulling out of the war, restoring honesty, and lowering taxes. Keep the message simple

It's called politics and you gotta be practical

[Nash]

You apparently have never suffered the repeated defeat of multiple libertarian campaigns as I have. I know where the freedom message gets you if you remain ideologically strict. It gets your 0.7% of the vote

You have to know how to play to Joe Six Pack if you want to win

Again I think it's more about the delivery than the message, at least when you're up on stage talking to a large crowd of people. I realize this is shallow but image is everything. He can talk about abolishing departments if he talks about clear and concise solutions at the same time.

If he goes up on stage and says "I'm gonna blow up the federal government. The End." People are gonna think he's a wing-nut.

[nullvalu]

Don't water down his message... we were all attracted to his message for a reason -- he's not just another politician kissing babies...

[jj111]

1. GET RID OF IRS BUT DRASTICALLY CUTTING FEDERAL SPENDING

2. bring the troops home


RP needs to turn this election into a referendum on the IRS and the war. If he does that he wins.


I'm afriad he is all over the place on issues that joe six pack cant grasp

True. He needs to simplify his message for the general middle of the road voters. They have no idea what the Federal Reserve really is or does.

[Kuldebar]

You apparently have never suffered the repeated defeat of multiple libertarian campaigns as I have. I know where the freedom message gets you if you remain ideologically strict. It gets your 0.7% of the vote

You have to know how to play to Joe Six Pack if you want to win

You can keep the Freedom Message by focusing on the winning issues. Every politician does it. Do you think Bush won with his TRUE neo-con message? No. He did it with a moderate neo-con message and then implemented his full neo-con agenda once in office. Do you think he ran on suspending habeas corpus?

Please STFU, I have supported two Libertarian presidential campaigns in the past and pretty much gave up on organized politics much as I did organized religion until Paul decided to jump back in. He's the last chance before we start killing each other.

Stop dragging the power of the message down.

People have to wake up. There's no room for sleepers.

We need active minds.

Inactive minds won't be of any help to us.

Freedom simply can't work with any thing less.

[jj111]

And the average IQ of Americans I think is 100....

[mtbaird5687]

Don't water down his message... we were all attracted to his message for a reason -- he's not just another politician kissing babies...


Well would you rather have him water down his message and have a shot of winning, or keep the same one and lose. I'm not trying to be a pessimist but with the way the current system is you have to try to fit in the mainstream as much as possible if you want to have a shot.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Please STFU, I have supported two Libertarian presidential campaigns in the past and pretty much gave up on organized politics much as I did organized religion until Paul decided to jump back in. He's the last chance before we start killing each other.

Stop dragging the power of the message down.

People have to wake up. There's no room for sleepers.

We need active minds.

Inactive minds won't be of any help to us.

Freedom simply can't work with any thing less.

The problem is that people agree with 95% of our message then they hear one thing like "no department of education" and they dont support Dr. Paul

Hell, Dr. Paul could probably tie Romney in support if he just said "Limited Government and out of the War". But then someone hears "No FED" and people go "OMGz! Anarchy!". Let's face it...the average voter is either uninformed, doesn't care, or is uneducated. They'll just say "Oh yeh. He's the guy who wants no public education"

[jj111]

Please STFU, I have supported two Libertarian presidential campaigns in the past and pretty much gave up on organized politics much as I did organized religion until Paul decided to jump back in. He's the last chance before we start killing each other.

Stop dragging the power of the message down.


I'm not for dragging it down. I'm for slowing it down, so that people can learn the more complex issues as they do more research on their own.



People have to wake up. There's no room for sleepers.


If a person is sleeping and the alarm clock is too annoying, they will turn the alarm clock off or throw it to break it.



We need active minds.


There is a shortage of them these days. Know where we can find some?



Inactive minds won't be of any help to us.


It is our challenge to try help them wake up in the most effective way.

[jmarinara]

No need to sugar coat anything.
Dont apologize for anything!

Right on the first point. . . . wrong on the second.

Everyone makes mistakes, when a mistake is made, the right thing to do is apologize and move on.

I agree with you in spirit though, we shouldn't apologize for our ideas, see, because our ideas aren't wrong. :cool:

[dircha]

It was good that he was passionate and energetic. I like that in his speeches but there were a few things that I think really hurt the campaign.

My advice would be to keep the more 'extreme' ideas such as getting rid of the fed and department of education and try not to bring those out in the open too much. I know we are all for big change in this country but i feel that speaking about these issues to undecided voters will push them away.

I was watching his speech with my family and they were really starting to like him until he mentioned getting rid of the department of education. This scared them off and they started to think of Paul as more fringe and extreme of a candidate.

I think that if Paul could just focus on his message of bringing the troops home and reducing the size of the government he would do better. Talking about cutting funds to something doesn't scare people as much as saying you'll remove the whole department.

Just my two cents.

Ron Paul is a candidate for the Republican nomination for President.

In my opinion if Ron Paul's views are "extreme", then Ronald Reagan was "extreme". Go back and re-read Reagan's Inaugural Address. Read it to your kids. I support what Paul is doing, which is calling for Republicans to return home to their core values unless they want another 2006.

I think it is a mistake to focus exclusively on bringing the troops home. I say this because I am very worried that Bush will have the troops out or nearly out of Iraq before the elections in order to nullify this issue and take the wind out of their sails - this applies to Paul too. They're smarter than to let the Democrats have an overwhelmingly unpopular war to campaign on a second cycle. Fool me once... etc.

The difference between Ron Paul and the other candidates is that Paul is a Republican. When asked what program he would cut, Tommy Thompson named some obscure never heard of program in the department of health. Ron Paul started naming departments.

[jj111]

Besides, Ron Paul had limited time in his Straw Poll speech. Most of his speeches at rallies are much longer.

[jmarinara]

They would learn more if the gov't would get out of the way of telling them what to do and let teachers and parents handle it.


As a homeschooling parent, I completely agree.

[PennCustom4RP]

I agree. I wish he didn't go into the abortion, fed, dept edu so heavily at a place where he is trying to swing undecided voters.

I think it'd be best to focus on the constitution, rights and foreign policy. This is where he does the best.

Yes I too think it would reach more people if he concentrated more on these talking points.
While I also agree with what has been said in above posts, issues like getting rid of the FED and the Dept of Edu, only politically minded people may understand these concepts, the average voter may not.

While I wouldn't call it pandering, but RP was playing to the Iowa religious crowd when he led in with the abortion issue. His pro-life position is his personal belief, and I do not recall him ever stating that he wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, until this speech, as he has previously stated this was not a Federal issue, but a States issue.
During the call-in at the end of coverage of this on C-Span, where at least 5 of the calls referred to RP, more than any other candidate, all positive, but one Dem female supporter of RP stated that his position this day, to overturn R v.W concerned her, she said she was 'torn' but otherwise she was in full support. We need these Dem. and Ind. undecided voters, no need to alienate them with threat of R v. W reversal. Let the States do that.
In future, RP should state his Pro-Life position at all events, but should also state that Abortion is a State issue, not a Federal one. Safe all around then.

[Hamburglar]

I like Ron Paul.

[Kuldebar]

The problem is that people agree with 95% of our message then they hear one thing like "no department of education" and they dont support Dr. Paul

Hell, Dr. Paul could probably tie Romney in support if he just said "Limited Government and out of the War"

It's too late Dead. We can't do the thinking for people. They either wake up or settle into what they think passes for freedom.

We need to gather what remains of the Remnant by speaking unabashedly of liberty.

If we mask it, disguise it, camouflage the message...deceit creeps into the message.

Wow, I must be freaked, I just thought of a biblical scripture and I ain't even a Christian anymore:


Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV)

This captures the essence of what I am saying.

There's only one way to what's right. No detours.

[DeadheadForPaul]

It's too late Dead. We can't do the thinking for people. They either wake up or settle into what they think passes for freedom.

We need gather what remains of the Remnant by speaking unabashedly of liberty.

If we mask it, disguise it, camouflage the message...deceit creeps into the message.




Well, sadly, that will get us single digits numbers. I dont want to believe it, but it is true. If Dr. Paul said "I'm a Republican who wants to TRULY lower your taxes, cut spending, institute limited government, secure the border, and get out of the War", I think he'd be tied with Romney

There are very few true liberty-lovers in this country

Look at how the socialists (New Dealers) and neo-cons have brought their programs into effect: They did it by making small steps. WE NEED TO TAKE SMALL STEPS TOWARDS LIBERTY. You can't have a perfectly free nation over night. It takes progress over years and we must be pragmatic

[robatsu]

One of Ron Paul's biggest source of appeal is he's delivering his message in a very even handed and logical way. For this speech he went off the cuff. Lots of ranting. Lots of screaming. He was almost angry.

Something that mystifies me about RP - all his interviews, off the cuff remarks, extemporaneous speeches, he is warm, engaging, witty. But frequently when he gets behind the podium, he gets an edge that does not necessarily work to best advantage.

This is one of the pitfalls for anyone delivering a conservative message, whether Goldwater or Buchanan, etc - the angry firebrand label. Avoiding that image was one of Reagan's core strengths, he could deliver this message and still be the kindly Grandpa. RP has many moments like that, and many, many of his videos reflect the ability to do that. But get him behind a podium, and all bets are off, imo.

[Richandler]

During the straw poll speech there were bits of Mike Gravel coming out in him. Almost angry is what people percieve. Unfortunately we are all angry about the governments current condition, but angry doesn't sell.

I do think we can color the debate. I don't know how to be suggestive to the campaign itself, but Pauls message almost needs a reverse approach in politics. It needs to be explained why the department of education sucks before you say you're going to get rid of it. Such needs to be applied to a lot of issues.

[jmarinara]

1. GET RID OF IRS BUT DRASTICALLY CUTTING FEDERAL SPENDING

2. bring the troops home


RP needs to turn this election into a referendum on the IRS and the war. If he does that he wins.


I'm afriad he is all over the place on issues that joe six pack cant grasp

This is a good strategy. I'm running for Assembly here in WI (Kinda like the House of Rep. for the state) My strategists and I came up with a three prong attack of
1. Ending abortion in WI
2. Significantly lowering taxes
3. Reducing government to it's constitutional boundaries (or, "No more bureaucracy, damn it!" as my manager puts it :-)

It helps me focus my message when I speak off the cuff, and makes categorizing my literature and speeches much easier than before.

I trust Paul to do what he has to do. He's won a lot of elections for congress after all, and won them against heavy odds I might add. Not to mention, candidates run for office, not campaigns. The candidate must be saying what is on his mind and what is important to him or else he's going to be worn out, frustrated and dis-engaged.

To his credit, the broad spectrum approach may just work in a race where we NEED independents. It just wouldn't be my strategy.

[Kuldebar]

Well, sadly, that will get us single digits numbers. I dont want to believe it, but it is true. If Dr. Paul said "I'm a Republican who wants to TRULY lower your taxes, cut spending, institute limited government, secure the border, and get out of the War", I think he'd be tied with Romney

I think it will gain us numbers, numbers that matter, numbers that will stay and not get siphoned off to other candidates.

We have to appeal to what remains of thinking, intellectually honest Americans.

If we try to bring in the self deceivers, we will gimp our message.

These self deceivers want to be assured, they want promises that no honest man would give.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams

[jmarinara]

True. He needs to simplify his message for the general middle of the road voters. They have no idea what the Federal Reserve really is or does.

Oh my poor under informed, not sufficiently outraged friend. (not meant to be an insult, just meant to be funny)

Please e-mail me jason@yaygod.org and I'll happily give you a primer on the FED.

[jmarinara]

pretty much gave up on organized politics much as I did organized religion


So does the fact Paul is a Christianhelp change your mind on that? Interested in what the Bible calls TRUE RELIGION, not just a moose club that meets on Sundays?

Start here (http://www.livingwaters.com/good)

[jmarinara]

The difference between Ron Paul and the other candidates is that Paul is a Republican. When asked what program he would cut, Tommy Thompson named some obscure never heard of program in the department of health. Ron Paul started naming departments.

This should be your forum signature!!!! :D

[jj111]

Oh my poor under informed, not sufficiently outraged friend. (not meant to be an insult, just meant to be funny)

Please e-mail me jason@yaygod.org and I'll happily give you a primer on the FED.

I know about the Fed. I've spent over 50 or 100 hours reading and watching videos about the Fed.

But your average uninformed voter has no clue.

[Paul4Prez]

Our job is to make sure everyone in America has heard of Ron Paul and has at least a basic understanding of what he stands for by the time the primaries roll around.

Dr. Paul's task is to decide what to say in his speeches. The speech in Ames wasn't my favorite, either, but he was targeting it to the conservative Iowa Republicans who vote in the straw poll, not to former Libertarians like me who have been registered Republicans for barely more than a month.

Some of his statements will shock people who are used to politicians spewing platitudes and being non-committal. If we understand the issues well enough, we can help our friends and family understand where he is coming from, and assuage any doubts they might have.

[Kuldebar]

Our job is to make sure everyone in America has heard of Ron Paul and has at least a basic understanding of what he stands for by the time the primaries roll around.

Dr. Paul's task is to decide what to say in his speeches. The speech in Ames wasn't my favorite, either, but he was targeting it to the conservative Iowa Republicans who vote in the straw poll, not to former Libertarians like me who have been registered Republicans for barely more than a month.

Some of his statements will shock people who are used to politicians spewing platitudes and being non-committal. If we understand the issues well enough, we can help our friends and family understand where he is coming from, and assuage any doubts they might have.

Quoted for the simple truth.

[jmarinara]

But your average uninformed voter has no clue.

Oh I'm so sorry!!! I completely misread your post. Do you want me to delete my post?

[Gee]

Ron Paul needs to spend time to explain getting rid of the Federal Reserve. If he has a good 3 or 4 minutes to spend on that topic, he can do a good job, but it's not the best winner for a short speech where he can only devote a small amount of time to it.
Heh. Austrian Business Cycle Theory is not something your average voter is going to take the time to learn. Most economists don't even seem to bother understanding it. Frankly, I think his near-sound byte approach to the Fed is, sadly, for the best.

[Kuldebar]

Oh I'm so sorry!!! I completely misread your post. Do you want me to delete my post?

No, JJ was nice enough to square the situation by his reply.

We all are on the same side. We just differ in regards to our zealous natures.

[jj111]

Oh I'm so sorry!!! I completely misread your post. Do you want me to delete my post?

No problem. I support your freedom of speech and your freedom of choice whether you want to delete your post or not. It matters not to me.

[Original_Intent]

It was good that he was passionate and energetic. I like that in his speeches but there were a few things that I think really hurt the campaign.

My advice would be to keep the more 'extreme' ideas such as getting rid of the fed and department of education and try not to bring those out in the open too much. I know we are all for big change in this country but i feel that speaking about these issues to undecided voters will push them away.

I was watching his speech with my family and they were really starting to like him until he mentioned getting rid of the department of education. This scared them off and they started to think of Paul as more fringe and extreme of a candidate.

I think that if Paul could just focus on his message of bringing the troops home and reducing the size of the government he would do better. Talking about cutting funds to something doesn't scare people as much as saying you'll remove the whole department.

Just my two cents.

Actually getting rid of the DoE is a pretty easy argument to make.

Every dollar that gets put aside for education gets nibbled at as it travels thru the bureaucracy in Washington to your local school. How much of each of those dollars actually goes to someone who is TEACHING your kid something?

A little exercise - it costs about $7,000 to educate each kid in public school each year. Take 100 kids. That's $700,000. Let's say EVERY year you buy each of those kids a NEW computer. Not top end gaming rig but a good solid computer with good educational software and you spent $1,000 each (you could do just fine for half that but let's keep it easy) So $100,000 spent.

Let's say you want reasonably small class sizes - so 5 teachers and let's say one "administrative person" for those five teachers. I would prefer one administrator per 20 teachers but again lets err on the side of too much.

Pay each of these 6 people 50K per year,t hat is a hefty raise for most teachers and is high enough to attract "top talent". price: $300K

This leaves $300,000 for physical building, books, whatever. PER YEAR. and this is not your average school as far as size - we are only talking 100 students.

Do you not think we could get a better education for our children by cutting the DoE out of the picture and giving parents more LOCAL control to boot?

I am not trying to convince you as I assume I am preaching to the choir, but this is the type of argument you need to give people when they start "freaking out" about getting rid of the DoE

[Zeeder]

I was glad to see Ron Paul be a little more forceful with the speech, but when you talk about the FED and killing departments...........it should be a longer speech. When I've told people that the Department of Education shouldn't exist, they immediately think that all Public Schools would be gone. He has to explain these comments every time if possible.

What we/he should focus better on:

1. Being the ONLY anti-war candidate. We need to convince democrats who's main voting requirement is the war, that their top tier candidates have no intention of getting out of Iraq. They have no intention of ending our insane foreign policy. Honest anti-war people, should be behind Paul.

2. Taxes- Huckabee is in second place because of the Fair Tax. Ron needs to make it clear that he would gladly support it over the current system, but when he is president the spending would be so low, we won't need it OR it could be half of the 23% Sales tax, the fair tax requires.
The fair tax is constitutional.

3. Immigration. No welfare for illegals etc...

I can't wait for the debates when Paul actually has some time. He should trounce them.

[jpa]

I believe abolishing the Dept of Education was in the Republican Platform (national policies that the all republicans agree on) until 2000 (when bushies came to power in the GOP)

"11. Because we trust our fellow Americans, rather than centralized government, we believe the people, acting through their State and local elected officials, should have control over programs like education and welfare - thereby pushing power away from official Washington and returning it to the people in their communities and states. "

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.96/#14

[PatriotOne]

It was good that he was passionate and energetic. I like that in his speeches but there were a few things that I think really hurt the campaign.

My advice would be to keep the more 'extreme' ideas such as getting rid of the fed and department of education and try not to bring those out in the open too much. I know we are all for big change in this country but i feel that speaking about these issues to undecided voters will push them away.

I was watching his speech with my family and they were really starting to like him until he mentioned getting rid of the department of education. This scared them off and they started to think of Paul as more fringe and extreme of a candidate.

I think that if Paul could just focus on his message of bringing the troops home and reducing the size of the government he would do better. Talking about cutting funds to something doesn't scare people as much as saying you'll remove the whole department.

Just my two cents.

I don't have a problem with him mentioning getting rid of government agencies, I do have a problem that he doesn't mention "why" he wants to get rid of them. It would be a good idea to clarify, for instance, that the Department of Education has substantially reduced our level of education practically to the point of a 3rd world country (a little exageration). Most people don't even know that the Department of Education has done "educating" no favors. Most people do not remember that the States hade departments of education and that we would resort back to those being the authorities. Most people just do not know that paying for the Federal DOE has done nothing but WASTE our money and has resulted in lowering our education standards. Anyways, if he is going to say these things, he needs to educate the sheeple at the same time....not assume they already know. Some do, most don't!

Not always easy to do in short amounts of time, but very important for his message to be effective.

[Bossobass]

Ron's stance of eliminating the Department of Education led me to investigate, which led to some simple facts:

1) Since the Feds took over Public Education, they've spent nearly a trillion bucks.
2) During that time, the US has fallen from #1 in the world to #17 in the world, just above Mexico, in basic educational skills.
3) Since Jr. signed into law the No Child Left Behind thingy, it's budget has grown 45% and
4) it has added some 7 million man-hours to the states just to comply with the new regulations and rules.

When Ron speaks, I see the first politician in my lifetime who speaks the truth and doesn't give a damn who likes it or hates it. This is what attracted me to him.

He's the only politician who will refer to the draft as a form of slavery.
He's the only one I believe when he says he'll get us out of Iraq, and as commander-in-chief, he will have the power to immediately do it.
Not since John Kennedy has any politician had the balls to pull the curtain on the Fed and the CIA.

I believe that RP placed higher in the straw poll. I also believe Romney placed much lower. I believe it's because no one who's really interested in America and politics buys that used car saleman's sound bite BS. Call me a tin foil hat wearer (just not to my face ;) ), but the Iowa GOP is Al Capone and I don't need a videotape and signed affidavits to convince me.

I also cut RP a bit of slack for the speech, as he had just been torn away from the love of his life for over 50 years, whom he had just learned needed to undergo immediate heart surgery.

I'm sure his emotions were running a bit higher than usual.

I tend to agree with Kuldebar. There ain't no way anyone is gonna tell RP what to say or how to say it. You ain't gonna get no neuveau, almondine, flowery speech writer tripe from him, so stop wishing it.

I tell folks, "Tune in and tell me this guy ain't the real McCoy." Those who wanna be sold vinyl siding will like Hillary Clinton and Romney.

Bosso

[LibertyEagle]

I understand what you're saying.

And I agree that his ideas may SEEM extreme to the public.
But the thing is you have to understand the GRAND scheme of his campaign.
Less government. It's ALL a mess. State Governments could run it much better than the feds. Plain and simple.

He doesn't want to make everyone home school their kids.
He just doesn't think the Fed's should be in control of it. They simply suck at just about everything they do.

I agree with you BLS, but he's going to have to find a way to complete the thought and tell people that he wants to return it back to the states and parents. In that parents should have more of a say so in how their child is educated. Remind them how much better education was before the federal government got involved. And maybe even what the Dept. of Education really does... "No Child Left Behind", "Outcome Based Education", "Goals 2000". LOL. Of course the latter would probably have to be in a separate speech.

He's also going to have to remind people why government is more desirable, closer to us, at the state and local levels, than at the federal level. Maybe it would start people remembering and thinking.

[michaelwise]

It was good that he was passionate and energetic. I like that in his speeches but there were a few things that I think really hurt the campaign.

My advice would be to keep the more 'extreme' ideas such as getting rid of the fed and department of education and try not to bring those out in the open too much. I know we are all for big change in this country but i feel that speaking about these issues to undecided voters will push them away.

I was watching his speech with my family and they were really starting to like him until he mentioned getting rid of the department of education. This scared them off and they started to think of Paul as more fringe and extreme of a candidate.

I think that if Paul could just focus on his message of bringing the troops home and reducing the size of the government he would do better. Talking about cutting funds to something doesn't scare people as much as saying you'll remove the whole department.

Just my two cents.

I think when RP makes bold statements like getting rid of the dept. of ed., he should elaborate as to the reasons why, or not even mention it.

[Revolution9]

Questions: What percentage of this year's seniors and last year's high school graduates could pass the following 8th grade test required in 1895, even if the few outdated questions were modernized? How many college students could pass it? For that matter, what percentage of high school teachers could pass it? And - - what percentage of today's schools have standards for promotion from 8th grade equal to or tougher than those required in 1895?

8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, Kansas - 1895

This is the eighth-grade final exam* from 1895 from Salina, Kansas. It was taken
from the original document on file at the Smoky Valley Genealogical Society
and Library in Salina, Kansas and reprinted by the Salina Journal.

Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of do, lie, lay and run.
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.
7-10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts. per bu, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $.20 per inch?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around which is 640 rods?
10.Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, and 1865?

Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic orthography, etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e'. Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: Bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, super.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: Card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences, Cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10.Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

Geography (Time, one hour)
1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of N.A.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fermandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10.Describe the movements of the earth. Give inclination of the earth.

The top of the test states > "EXAMINATION GRADUATION QUESTIONS OF SALINE COUNTY, KANSAS
April 13, 1895 J.W. Armstrong, County Superintendent.Examinations at Salina, New Cambria, Gypsum City, Assaria, Falun, Bavaria, and District No. 74 (in Glendale Twp.)"

According to the Smoky Valley Genealogy Society, Salina, Kansas "this test is the original eighth-grade final exam for 1895 from Salina, KS. An interesting note is the fact that the county students taking this test were allowed to take the test in the 7th grade, and if they did not pass the test at that time, they were allowed to re-take it again in the 8th grade."

[Kuldebar]

Questions: What percentage of this year's seniors and last year's high school graduates could pass the following 8th grade test required in 1895, even if the few outdated questions were modernized? How many college students could pass it? For that matter, what percentage of high school teachers could pass it? And - - what percentage of today's schools have standards for promotion from 8th grade equal to or tougher than those required in 1895?

8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, Kansas - 1895

This is the eighth-grade final exam* from 1895 from Salina, Kansas. It was taken
from the original document on file at the Smoky Valley Genealogical Society
and Library in Salina, Kansas and reprinted by the Salina Journal.

Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of do, lie, lay and run.
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.
7-10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts. per bu, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $.20 per inch?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around which is 640 rods?
10.Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, and 1865?

Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic orthography, etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e'. Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: Bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, super.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: Card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences, Cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10.Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

Geography (Time, one hour)
1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of N.A.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fermandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10.Describe the movements of the earth. Give inclination of the earth.

The top of the test states > "EXAMINATION GRADUATION QUESTIONS OF SALINE COUNTY, KANSAS
April 13, 1895 J.W. Armstrong, County Superintendent.Examinations at Salina, New Cambria, Gypsum City, Assaria, Falun, Bavaria, and District No. 74 (in Glendale Twp.)"

According to the Smoky Valley Genealogy Society, Salina, Kansas "this test is the original eighth-grade final exam for 1895 from Salina, KS. An interesting note is the fact that the county students taking this test were allowed to take the test in the 7th grade, and if they did not pass the test at that time, they were allowed to re-take it again in the 8th grade."

Now, Rev this test would hardly build anyone's self esteem. We must not make a child feel diminished by their lack of knowledge, we must bolster them by kind words and gold stars. Anything else borders on psychological abuse.

[McDermit]

May I have a gold star, please? Susie got one.. it's only fair that I get one too!

[Nathan Hale]

I think that Paul should switch his focus to domestic issues, as everyone by now is aware of his position on the war. But his two strongest domestic issues are: 1) Health care. As a lifelong practitioner of medicine, he is the leading authority in the GOP field on the issue, and his current argument is pretty well said by the candidate. 2) Monetary policy. Congressman Paul has sat on financial committees for his entire Congressional career, so he's the authority in the field on this issue as well.

[billv]

And the average IQ of Americans I think is 100....

I'm convinced it may be much lower. I hope I'm wrong.

[billv]

So does the fact Paul is a Christianhelp change your mind on that? Interested in what the Bible calls TRUE RELIGION, not just a moose club that meets on Sundays?

Start here (http://www.livingwaters.com/good)

Moose club that meets on sundays, haha, so true anymore.

[billv]

Heh. Austrian Business Cycle Theory is not something your average voter is going to take the time to learn. Most economists don't even seem to bother understanding it. Frankly, I think his near-sound byte approach to the Fed is, sadly, for the best.

How similar is the Austrian Business Cycle Theory to the Real Business Cycle Theory? Just touched upon RBC in class today.

[billv]

I think when RP makes bold statements like getting rid of the dept. of ed., he should elaborate as to the reasons why, or not even mention it.

I agree, it's good oration to explain something that your audience may not understand if you bring it up.

[Ninja Homer]

Actually getting rid of the DoE is a pretty easy argument to make.

Every dollar that gets put aside for education gets nibbled at as it travels thru the bureaucracy in Washington to your local school. How much of each of those dollars actually goes to someone who is TEACHING your kid something?

A little exercise - it costs about $7,000 to educate each kid in public school each year. Take 100 kids. That's $700,000. Let's say EVERY year you buy each of those kids a NEW computer. Not top end gaming rig but a good solid computer with good educational software and you spent $1,000 each (you could do just fine for half that but let's keep it easy) So $100,000 spent.

Let's say you want reasonably small class sizes - so 5 teachers and let's say one "administrative person" for those five teachers. I would prefer one administrator per 20 teachers but again lets err on the side of too much.

Pay each of these 6 people 50K per year,t hat is a hefty raise for most teachers and is high enough to attract "top talent". price: $300K

This leaves $300,000 for physical building, books, whatever. PER YEAR. and this is not your average school as far as size - we are only talking 100 students.

Do you not think we could get a better education for our children by cutting the DoE out of the picture and giving parents more LOCAL control to boot?

I am not trying to convince you as I assume I am preaching to the choir, but this is the type of argument you need to give people when they start "freaking out" about getting rid of the DoE

Just to give a working example... In my area, when I last checked a couple years ago, the average cost per child in public school was a little over $10,000. My son is going into 6th grade at a private Montessori school. The cost at the Montessori school is a little over $7,000.

There are 20 kids per classroom, with one teacher and one assistant teacher in each classroom. There are other specialty teachers for things like art, music, etc.

The parents are very involved in the school. There are various fundraisers to help pay for some things like expanding the school, field trips, computers in the classrooms, etc. The extra raised from the fundraisers is divvied up to help cover the tuition for students according to how much income the parents have.

In the 5th grade standardized tests, my son scored at 10th grade or higher for all subjects and in the English tests, he scored at college level. I know it probably sounds like I'm bragging about my kid, but these scores are about average for a Montessori school.

It's cheaper than the public school system, but you get a much better education. Until public schools are forced to compete with private schools, they are just going to get worse and worse.

For those unfamiliar with the Montessori system, it is basically self-paced. Provide the tools to learn, give instruction on how to use the tools, and let the kids go at it. Also, the classes typically have 3 years of kids, so for instance, my son's class has 4th through 6th graders. The older kids help the younger kids out which develops leadership skills as well as reinforces their learning. Anyway, I can't recommend it enough, and my son can't wait to get back to school.

[Electric Church]

I think he should stay the course. Ron Paul educates and gets people to reconsider some of their long held views that were hammered into them by the power elite. That's one of the main things that separates him from all the others.

[tmg19103]

Problem is we are all involved, interested and educated to politics. We make up a tiny percentage of voters.

The average voter has a hot button topic or two, does not care so much what the plan is to implement these topics of interest, just wants to hear it from the candidate AND wants to connect with the candidate on an emotional level.

Joe voter wants, say, better healthcare and to secure our borders as an example. This guy wants to hear how it will be done in a very general/generic way he can "understand" (i.e. political sound bites that seem to make sense) and he wants to like something about the candidate - say Romney with his beautiful family on the stage or the fact that Huckabee is a pastor.

That is politics 101 for the average voter.

RP has a problem on the Republican side with the war. 70% of Americans are against how it is being run, but that does not mean they want out, and a large percentage of Republicans are for the war.

RP tried at Ames, but it did not work, to say he understands the serious problem of terrorism - but the war must end. Most Republicans are brain washed into thinking the war helps us in regards to terrorism when it actually makes it worse.

RP needs some simple wording about how the war in Iraq just enhances the recuitment of suicide terrorists, needlessly costs the lives of our soldiers, all while costing a fortune that is hurting our economy at home and over-extending our troops and hurting security at home. He tried to get this all across at Ames, but he was all over the place. If he can get this to simple talking points it will sell. Throw in border security and how that will help the economy due to the entitlements illegals receive AND how it will help with terrorism.

These should be the key talking points along with small government. He should not talk too many specifics and plans on small government, but rather talk up his voting record as the most fiscally conservative member of congress who votes to spend the least amount of money. People do seem to like the concept of getting rid of the IRS, but I think they may also wonder how you can do that and RP needs a short talking/point explanation when he says that. I agree that calling for the end of the Dept. of Education just scares the average uneducated voter.

I'd wrap this all around the constitution message. Keep it simple, sweet, to the point. It will be different than any other Republican and it can make so much sense if RP does it in his quiet, fatherly, educational way and THAT is how he will get the emotional attachment. Worked for me in some of his earlier debates. It's almost as if he has lost a little of what worked so well for him before.

I agree the "I don't know how" has to go. Voters want strong leaders. The "I don't want to run your lives or religion" is great. I think "I don't want to run the economy" scares the average uneducated voter. He should rather say he will strengthen our economy by bringing the troops home to secure our borders and improve our national defense at home which will save tens of billions while also saving money by limiting the size of government - and he has a track record of voting for the least amount of spending in Congress to prove it. Stay away from eliminating all the big departments, except to perhaps say they should be scaled down and eventually eliminated if feasible either by having the states run those departments or by privatizing them and opening them up to competition. Damn he has a complex (but wonderful) message. Needs to be simplified and smoothed out.

Yes, this makes sense to those who have really studied RP, but 98% of the voters never will understand.

Hope the campaign people are reading this thread and brainstorming.

[Ninja Homer]

I think one of the biggest problems with Ron Paul's speeches is that he talks as if people understand how government works. I'd guess only 95% know how government currently works (or... ummm... doesn't work). They might know how government is supposed to work from what they learned in school, but you and I know that the government isn't running the way it's supposed to.

I think Ron Paul should stay away from the more "extreme" ideas if he doesn't have the time to explain fully what the problem is, in a way that the average person can grasp. While talking, he has to assume that the audience doesn't have a clue of what's going on in Washington.

A good way to bring up the more "extreme" ideas is to present them in a problem/solution format. Explain the problem with a real world example, and then explain exactly what he'll do to solve the problem.

For example, with "inflation tax":
"If you had $10,000 saved up last year, and the inflation rate is 10%, your $10,000 can now buy only $9,000 worth of gas. The Federal Reserve does this by printing up extra money out of thin air. They are a corrupt private business stealing wealth from the American people. I will abolish the Federal Reserve and establish stable money so that the American people can keep their wealth."

I think that same method would work for all the "extreme ideas", to get the ideas across in such a way that the average uninformed person understands.

PS- Does Ron Paul use written speeches, or does he just go by the seat of his pants? Does he have a speech writer?

[DeadheadForPaul]

TMG, I agree with basically everything you said

We all get wrapped up in the Ron Paul/politics bubble.You gotta realize that Joe and Jane American may make their decision on who to vote for in the voting booth. Just remembering "oh yeh...that guy said he wants to abolish the fed...what an anarchist" will cost us the election. Most people do not take the time to learn about such minor issues in their world.

80%+ of the American public thought that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 when the Iraq War started...

If any potential candidates are reading this, I hope they recognize this and keep their message simple in future local, states, and federal elections

If Ron just said "Lower Taxes, Secure the Borders, Strengthen defense and bring our troops home", he'd probably have a bigger lead

[BarryDonegan]

when introducing a candidate to someone who is not extremely knowledgeable of the minute details of our political process, do not show them videos that are targetted at a certain group of people.

ron paul DOMINATED at the iowa speech, because for the base that will be there in IOWA he used a speech that proved him tougher and more committed to things than the other conservatives there. you have to play to the crowd you are at. If you are trying to convince a liberal to vote for Ron Paul for an antiwar reason, obviously do not show them his speech from the Right to Life conference.

similarly, Iowa is NOTABLY anti tax, and would be aware of how bad the department of education is FOR the purpose of education itself.

for every speech ron paul has where he says something tricky like that that might trip up a well-intentioned citizen, he has 2 clips of him saying "JUST COME HOME" or "THIS ILLEGAL WAR" or something that will speak to them faster. Once they realize hes the only chance you have to have a war-free, guantanamo-free america, they will be committed enough to give his more libertarian values a chance by listening to a full, thorough explanation of them.

A speech on CSPAN at the IOWA STRAW POLL is not meant for the general public. Ordinarily people dont watch them. its just becoming true that whatever Ron Paul speaks at is becoming a big event.

[jblosser]

Man, lot of backseat speech writers. Ask yourself, who wrote the speeches that got Dr. Paul to where he is now, with 19 years of national legislative experience under his belt?

He was not speaking to "average joes", if there is such a thing. He was speaking at the GOP Ames straw poll in 100 degree weather. Most of the people there who weren't there for him already were established GOP faithful. His speech was tailored to them and it was well-tailored. The people he was after remember when the GOP was opposed to the fed departments, especially education, and are on the fence about the rest of the current candidates because they are all neocons.