Paul needs to remember that he's talking to mostly IDIOTS

[TheConstitutionLives]

To those who don't have a good general grasp of the constitution Paul is talking over their heads half the time. He needs to remember that the vast majority of Americans are completely ignorant of what the federal government is and isn't authorized by the constitution to legislate for.

Most people I come across that like Paul but "disagree" with him on issues like Abortion do not understand that Paul's personal opinion is irrelevant b/c abortion is NOT a federal issue. It would be outside his jurisdiction as president. The constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate the matter in any way whatsoever. If people want the federal government to regulate it then fine. But they need to understand that the constitution must be amended to include such things. As of right now, issues like abortion, education, etc. are all state issues. All Paul is trying to do is follow the constitution on the issue of abortion for example, by abolishing Roe vs. Wade to give it back to the states where it belongs. Again, his personal opinion on it is irrelevant if the constitution is followed appropriately.

Paul needs to do a YouTube video where he isn't just stating his opinion but is educating people on what the constitution says and what it authorizes. Most people have never realized that Congress solely has the authority to declare war. The average Joe doesn't understand that Congress bypassed their own responsibility regarding Iraq. The only reason they like him on the war issue is b/c he's anti-war and they need to understand that he was/is right about alot of other things that they aren't aware of. When they start to learn these things their support for Paul is intensified.

Paul needs to educate the public on the "general welfare" clause. People want the government to take care of them and if they're aware of that clause they will often site it as a government duty. Let's examine what the author of the General Welfare clause had to say about it.

James Madison -

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was NOT contemplated by its creators."

[billv]

I love James Madison. Great man, great President

[ChooseLiberty]

I agree. Dr. Paul needs someone that can tweak his speeches to help the general public understand what he is all about. As it is, he's "preaching to the choir".

[FreedomLover]

Reminds me of the Adlai Stevenson quote, where a person told him that he was sure to get the vote of "every thinking man in the country"

and he replied, "Thank you, but I need a majority to win"

[escapinggreatly]

For every person who really understands what Ron talks about and believes in, there are literally hundreds who don't. It's sad, really, but if he wants to have a chance, he's gonna have to figure out how to convey his message in much simpler terms.

[TheConstitutionLives]

Reminds me of the Adlai Stevenson quote, where a person told him that he was sure to get the vote of "every thinking man in the country"

and he replied, "Thank you, but I need a majority to win"


hahaha That's good.

[Harry96]

Just because people are ignorant doesn't mean they're stupid, but you've identified an important point: I agree that Dr. Paul doesn't always do a good enough job of explaining his positions thoroughly.

People tend to assume that if someone is against something, they want the government to ban it; and if someone is for something, they want the government to subsidize it -- especially when that someone is a politician.

So, as an example, Dr. Paul could do a better job explaining that, while he thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, it doesn't mean that he wants a federal ban on abortion -- even though he's personally pro life. The federal government has no rightful jurisdiction over it, and as President, he wants to turn it over to the states.

(I'm pro life, but the last place in the world I would turn to is government, because government is not the arbiter of morality and because it's incapable of banning anything anyway.)

[mrchubbs]

I think it would be great if the campaign posted a weekly series of videos on their main web site with Ron Paul discussing an issue each week in more depth than the sound bites. Maybe 5-10 minutes for each one. The focus could be on simplifying his positions on issues for the general public, helping educate them not just about how he views an issue, but about the issue as well. It's sort of a Ross Perot-ish type tactic, I guess.

They could call it something catchy... maybe "Ron Paul Revealed..." or something.

If nothing else it would give his supporters more media to use to promote his candidacy. And maybe there would be a way to get him on TV for a 30 minute "Ron Paul: Your Candidate" show. :-)

I can dream right?

[Kuldebar]

I look down my nose at the average American, I admit this.

But, really, thinking requires some effort, it's true. But out of all the candidates in both parties, Ron Paul is the most documented, self-published, on the record candidate running.

And all of this can be found free of charge via the internet in audio, video and text form.

We are building momentum, but we need to attract supporters that aren't adverse to thinking because these type of supporters stand firm.

I compare this to a near religious experience, the person has to want to be saved.

If they think things are fine and dandy...well, you realize how hard it is to counter that state of mind?

[Nickel]

I love James Madison. Great man, great President

I find Madison fascinating too, but I don't know that I agree with great President. Great legislator, so-so President.

I need to learn more about the Constitution myself. I'm going on vacation soon and am planning on taking The Heritage Guide to the Constitution with me. A weeks worth of study should help a little.

[Nefertiti]

I look down my nose at the average American, I admit this.

Well, I have a Ph.D. but I don't. Everyone in this country has one vote-no matter who they are or how smart or informed they are or whether they are liberals or conservatives or anything. I do not think it is a good idea to refer to "most Americans" as "idiots" because anyone reading that will assume that you think they are idiots and will be turned off. In this campaign, success will be measured not in how enlightened you as an individual are about the intricacies of RP's policies but how well you can communicate Ron Paul's message to everyone else to convince them to vote for him. And even if you are very good at communicating that message it will be ignored if you call the intended audience "idiots." Stop labelling people!

[fj45lvr]

you may want to wonder more thoroughly why a large majority of our schools can go about teaching classes on "government" or "US History" and yet the majority of people have never actually read the Constitution.

People in general I think are uncomfortable with what the founders believed most assuredly that it was the DUTY of the citizens to abolish government if it is tyrannical....today, when you have to get "permission" to do just about anything and everything, we most assuredly are there.....the question really is who is going to step up to their duty to stop the destruction?? Who is going to organize the overthrow? Never mind that the masses are more worried about American Idol, their sports team or the like.

Anyone think it was a mistake that the founders limited voting rights to a select group of individuals?? Maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we're in if they would of left it alone. Quite possibly a profound difference would be seen in who is making the "law".

[Kuldebar]

Well, I have a Ph.D. but I don't. Everyone in this country has one vote-no matter who they are or how smart or informed they are or whether they are liberals or conservatives or anything. I do not think it is a good idea to refer to "most Americans" as "idiots" because anyone reading that will assume that you think they are idiots and will be turned off. In this campaign, success will be measured not in how enlightened you as an individual are about the intricacies of RP's policies but how well you can communicate Ron Paul's message to everyone else to convince them to vote for him. And even if you are very good at communicating that message it will be ignored if you call the intended audience "idiots." Stop labelling people!

Well, if you are going get all "nice" about it!

But, if the idiot cap fits wear it. It's not mandatory to groom the self esteem of others on a continual basis, sometimes it's just doing them a disservice.

The average American is caught up in a rat race that he feels powerless to change. The headlines flash by with very little room for deep pondering or reflection.

The internet, the one place that offers a glimpse of the real situation, is still the bastion of professional nerds, gamers and teens.

So, at the very least, the average American is off balance with conflicting and confusing views of the true nature of his world, at worst, that American has bought into one flawed view and clings to it like a rat adrift on floating debris.

So, idiot isn't the best term, but I wasn't going to quibble. The end result is the same.

Useful idiots. Not truly stupid, but disengaged.

But, everyone of them has a brain, and most of them can read.

Any enlightenment I have ever managed to stumble upon has been via the written words in books. One book in particular, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm)" some 11 years ago started me on a path I've been on ever since.

But, each mind needs a certain spark. It can't be bottled and massed produced. There has to be on thing that shakes a mind free before it can awaken to certain revolutionary ideas.