PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul's new angry passion: is it detrimental or helpful?




takadi
09-19-2007, 11:36 AM
As everyone has noticed, Ron Paul was urged and is starting to portray a more angry aggressive side to himself during debates almost akin to his performance on the Morton Downey show. However, is this new turn really helping him out at all?

Personally, I preferred his old style of speech. He was calm, collected, informative, almost like a professor rather than an orator. I'm afraid now he comes off as too antagonistic and grating to new voters. After his confrontation with Giuliani, he logically and straightforwardly rebutted, and the facebook group exploded in membership. After his fiery rebuttal with Huckabee, not much has changed. In fact, there was just discussion about how people were a little put off by his new tone of speech.

And contrary to what most people think, I don't think this is really his personality to be pissed off. A youtube user who had the luxury to dine at the same table as Ron Paul was able to ask him about the Morton Downey Jr. show. Ron Paul replied that it wasn't really his personality to be angry like that, and that he was urged to be angry "for the show". He personally stated that he wouldn't watch it again.

What do you all think?

Mordechai Vanunu
09-19-2007, 11:39 AM
I completely agree. People want a calm and cool leader, not an angry one. This was most evident in the recent Values Voter debate.

American
09-19-2007, 11:40 AM
I only know about the FOX debate where got a little excited and rightfully so. I dont think he has changed that much. But I do think he should be very assertive as he is asking to be commander and chief.

Ron Paul Fan
09-19-2007, 11:44 AM
I think a good mix of the two is a great strategy like at the Value Voters debate. He got angry when answering one of the questions when talking about American sovereignty, NAFTA, and the Iraq War being fought for weapons that weren't there and UN resolutions. But when he was talking about the just war, he was his old calm self. And his closing remark when talking about individual liberty was very calm and collected. I liked when he was assertive at the Fox Debate because everyone was coming after him and laughing at him. Sometimes you have to be assertive to get your point across and other times you can be very calm.

KewlRonduderules
09-19-2007, 11:48 AM
As a therapist, when anger is used in combination with educated passion, it can be quite useful. People pay attention and are more likely to think about what you say. I think it is smart because the message it portrays on tv- strength, power, fiery, anger, resentment toward the neocons. His fiery angry attitude in these instances reflect the attitudes of a lot of Americans about the Iraq War, foreign policy and the curbs of our freedoms- they are angry.

But I also think he should use that in combination with diplomacy like he did with his interview with Bill O'reilly- very smart move in that instance.

I think he knows what he is doing. There are times to be fiery and there are times to be diplomatic. i think he knows when to use it to his advantage.

richard1984
09-19-2007, 11:48 AM
I only know about the FOX debate where got a little excited and rightfully so. I dont think he has changed that much. But I do think he should be very assertive as he is asking to be commander and chief.

I basically agree with that.

I haven't noticed "Ron Paul's new angry passion." He's speaking more passionately, with more energy and zest--that's true. But that's GOOD! People were concerned he was acting too old and passive.

I think you're being a little too sensitive, takadi. Dr. Paul is on a roll. He knows what he's doing. And I really don't think he's coming across as too angry (like Gravel).

Passion and anger are two different things.

nullvalu
09-19-2007, 11:49 AM
I don't see it as being angry, I see it as being assertive.. And I like it.. Most people watching a debate are going to nod off to some calm, droning speech. Most tune in to see a lively debate... I think he was one of the only people on stage who could actually capture the average person's attention for more than a second or two.

maggiebott
09-19-2007, 11:50 AM
I'll tell you what I think! Let Ron Paul react to each individual situation and stop analyzing and scruitinizing. This is so unproductive!

takadi
09-19-2007, 11:54 AM
Perhaps I'm being too sensitive, but the moment the debate with Huckabee ended, I was reading threads on how people and their friends and family were giving up their support for Ron Paul. Not to mention the numerous hit pieces that came out that describe him as basically irritating and whiney. Not that we should "take our marching orders" from the neocons, but we do have to consider the fact that we are trying to get them to vote for Ron Paul. We have no enemies in this race in terms of voters.

As a Ron Paul supporter, I believe it's my duty to question and criticize Ron Paul whenever it is deemed appropriate. Failing to do so runs the risk of us becoming the very same sheep we Ron Paul supporters tend to be so frustrated with.

Original_Intent
09-19-2007, 11:57 AM
You were reading about poeple giving up their support of Ron Paul based on his tone? Maybe they will like Mitt's hair better.

I agree all the analyzing of what everyone things Ron paul should do is non-productive. First people thought he was too passive, now he is scaring people away (supposedly). Ron needs to be himself, that's it, the sincerity comes through he should not be focused on "being" any particular way that is whtat the other candidates do and it is what sets RP apart from the crowd.

mikelovesgod
09-19-2007, 11:58 AM
If Paul was a front-runner we should be concerned, but he's not. His message needs to stand out on those issues that he is being attacked on.

CJLauderdale4
09-19-2007, 11:59 AM
I agree that his principle + anger = passion, and Ron is definitely passionate about his message.

However, as an upper manager for a Fortune 500 company, I can attest that getting people motivated behind your cause is much easier when you take a positive approach, rather than a negative one.

At the debates it appears that Ron is always the "odd man out," and intentionally so since the MSM is always trying to paint him to be an "idiot."

However, Ron needs to harness that passion, and tell America that he believes in the traditions and the spirit of Americans, and that with him as President, we can make the necessary and Constitutional changes needed in D.C.; in the Executive branch first, and then throughout the entire Federal government.

He MUST turn it around on the pundits and "laughing JulieAnnie's", and make his debate messages something the American voters can put their arms around and embrace as their own.

We've all done this here in the forum, and as a part of the REVOLUTION. But in order to get America to see the significance and be willing to join, Ron MUST combine passion with optimistic fervor.

takadi
09-19-2007, 12:01 PM
I have no problem with passion and fervor. I just have a problem with Ron being portrayed as pessimistic and, what they call him, "gadfly". And plus, is this new persona really who he is? I had no problem with the way he was before. Forcing himself to be something he isn't is not going to do him much

undergroundrr
09-19-2007, 12:02 PM
He's very experienced in stump speaking and has a good sense of the proper balance between thoughtfulness and passion.

The more assertive moments, although they might be overwhelming to a non-supporter, are the stuff that lights a fire under the rEVOLution. He's also able to almost suspend time, as in the "Prince of Peace" answer at VV. I think this range of expression serves him well.

speciallyblend
09-19-2007, 12:02 PM
your confusing anger with passion,he hasnt yelled ,he has been forceful and you want a president to be passionate and forceful. If you want a good speaker who has no passion then good luck.If he doesnt stay with his passion and firm statements then he would have my support. RON PAUL 2008 its about time he started replying to this neo-cons,if you want a calm unresponsive candidate who has no passion then maybe we need to give him valium and take away his passion and just let him end his campaign yesterday.

I'm sure people said i wish that guy paul would stop talking about the british coming,so i can sleep and go about my duties,but he didnt he stood up and warned the people,we have to fight or we will lose our freedom.I will choose the new RON PAUL and make sure americans everywhere understand the real danger america is in.If he goes around talking lightly and not urging americans to stand up,then we will have already lost the fight. It's PASSION not anger,dont confuse yourself. RON PAUL 2008

BuddyRey
09-19-2007, 12:03 PM
Make no mistake about it, RP's new passion can only HELP him, if he continues to use discretion and restraint. Him getting angry/emotional at certain times only testifies to his great convictions, and disallows people from coming to the erroneous conclusion that because he's anti-war, he must be weak or passive.

takadi
09-19-2007, 12:06 PM
Okay, personally for me and probably for the rest of Ron Paul supporters, I LOVE Ron's passion in the last debates, it certainly got me pumped up.

But let's get REAL here people, this is an election, and those debates aren't rallies. We are trying to garner in NEW votes, and our target audiences are unfortunately the neocons. So the more we put them off by alienating them and hissing at them, the less chance Ron Paul has to win. I don't see how this discussion is unproductive at all. So Ron Paul and his campaign is so perfect that there needs to be no questioning of his authority and decisions as a candidate? If someone can find me examples of how this can actually help expand his base, then I'm all open ears.

AlexAmore
09-19-2007, 12:22 PM
I like his passion. I bet you anything that if Ron Paul was always calm and civilized then average joe people would be questioning his leadership abilities and if he could fight the terrorists.

Anyways Huckabee does have something going for him when it comes to his personality. My aunt understands a lot about the Fed and other really evil things that is going on in the World. She is not very politically involved, however. So my mom told her to watch the 2nd NH debate. Well....she liked Huckabee. Now she is going to support Ron Paul because she knows the real issues, but she personally thought Huckabee won.

Ron Paul Fan
09-19-2007, 12:24 PM
It's counterproductive because we aren't going to change who he is. One of his major appeals, at least to me anyway, is that he is not the typical slick politician and speaks from the heart. Even people who totally disagree with him would agree with that. He doesn't have people in his ear telling him what to say. He's very sincere and his emotions vary with what the situation is like any normal person. As someone else already said, let Ron Paul be Ron Paul. You aren't going to change who he is and what he says and how he says it. He's a 20 year politician and has been elected 10 times into Congress so I think he knows a little more about what he's doing than a couple members of a forum who want to change the style he's been using since before a lot of us were even born.

takadi
09-19-2007, 12:28 PM
I just feel he could portray his passion much differently. He wasn't doing so bad before, why change? I personally feel he was pressured into being this angry and forceful.

barcop
09-19-2007, 12:37 PM
The only time I have ever seen Ron Paul's demenour change and become aggressive in a debate is when someone purposely misquoted him, put words in his mouth or tried to twist what he just said.

I'm sorry but if he didn't respond aggressively in those instances then everyone would say... he was soft and couldn't stand up for himself.

Sometimes... with some people you just win or lose. I'd rather see him stand up for himself like he has been. You can't let people run over you and he hasn't.

But overall he stays perferctly calm and collected in situations, when I believe most people would fly off the handle if they were being treated they way he is on a consistant basis.

drednot
09-19-2007, 12:40 PM
He should stick to his natural personality. He is not Alan Keyes.

He looked horrible in that Morton Downey clip, (of course, he demeaned himself merely by appearing on that show, top-tier candidates don't go on Jerr Springer-esque shows.)

He came out looking great by responding calmly to Giuliani's attacks, yet he made Huckabee look statesman-like.

What Ron needs to do is to let his message do the provoking, and try to lure other candidates and moderators into attacking him.

It's especially important for him to appear level-headed given that we, his supporters, have a reputation for being... not so level-headed. :D

takadi
09-19-2007, 12:42 PM
EXACTLY! It's up to US to stir the passion. Ron Paul is the vehicle for the MESSAGE. That's the most important part, not the man himself. So I think it's vital to deliver that message in the most non-threatening and friendly way possible. The other candidates will just look like power-hungry opportunists if they begin to attack Paul. That's how Paul won against Giuliani.

apropos
09-19-2007, 12:42 PM
I think a calmer demeanor would help Paul, because of the seemingly radical nature of his ideas.

ButchHowdy
09-19-2007, 12:55 PM
I saw the 4 minute speech and then I read Matthew 23.

Ron Paul gave us the most Christlike and righteous message that we may ever see from a man.

I'd still like to think that those folks were 'booing' the statistics, not Ron Paul.

zumajoe
09-19-2007, 12:56 PM
I think a calmer demeanor would help Paul, because of the seemingly radical nature of his ideas.

i couldn't agree more.

wgadget
09-19-2007, 12:59 PM
Anger? How about "righteous indignation?"

I like the fact that RP gets angry when the situation calls for it, e.g., the Fox debate. But I also love his cool sense of humor, which really endears him to me, and hope he might utilize it a little more in the coming debates.

reduen
09-19-2007, 12:59 PM
I think it made him look too much like that Gravel fellow with the Democrats, which is not a good thing at all! (Especially considering Gulliani is already trying to place him in this category.)

The problem with his performance to me is that he was not as articulate as he usually is and that is what brought me to consider him in the first place. (Former Bush supporter here. :o ) In short, he started babbling and that was disappointing to me...

Ron Paul is by far the most intelligent man in the race. His character is flawless as humanly possible. (Well close.) His passion for America and its Constitution is unquestionable and it shins through in his everyday demeanor. I do not believe that he needs any prompting on how he should act and those who are advising him on this issue should stop right now!

The things that disappointed me as a Christian and Ron Paul supporter about this debate where Ron Paul is concerned are:

1.)He started behaving a little like Gravel.
2.)He did not say that we need to have more faith in God

The things that impressed me are:

1.) He did not pander to the crowd.
2.) He said the Jesus he knows, is the Prince Of Peace.

jblosser
09-19-2007, 01:00 PM
This is humorous. Previously people criticized him for being too "mousey" and said he needed to get some fire in his belly, because "let's be realistic, this is an election, and he has to show he can be a strong leader".

takadi
09-19-2007, 01:02 PM
I personally loved the way he was before. But I am well aware of people suggesting he should be more like "Morton" Ron.

The conclusion is that he should just be himself and stop listening to those damn campaign managers who keep whispering in his ear.

Karsten
09-19-2007, 01:03 PM
I actually like the angry/passionate side of him a lot better. If he is always laid back and calm, he's not going to get any attention. And I don't believe it is hurting him at all. During the Huckabee-Paul exchange, half of the crowd was cheering for him! But back in May, when he responded cooly and calmly to Guiliani's attacks, he got hardly any applause. Even if you don't like it, I believe it's helpful and it gets attention.

Inflation
09-19-2007, 01:04 PM
Always be nice, cheerful, and funny. Let the other guy go negative and look grumpy.
Teflon Ron was the best, Paul should watch some of his old debates.

eleganz
09-19-2007, 01:05 PM
I feel feel at times (quite little actually) his aggressiveness turns me off a little bit but as a supporter I don't mind. If I was still researching candidates, I still don't care since the other choices are way below minimum standards.

paulaholic
09-19-2007, 01:05 PM
I thought he came off as soft during the first Fox debate, but his message still appealed to me. I don't think his demeanor has changed that much, but he definitely stood up for himself better during the Huckabee exchange.

He did seem a bit too angry at the VV debate, but no one watched that anyway.

max
09-19-2007, 01:08 PM
As everyone has noticed, Ron Paul was urged and is starting to portray a more angry aggressive side to himself during debates almost akin to his performance on the Morton Downey show. However, is this new turn really helping him out at all?

Personally, I preferred his old style of speech. He was calm, collected, informative, almost like a professor rather than an orator. I'm afraid now he comes off as too antagonistic and grating to new voters. After his confrontation with Giuliani, he logically and straightforwardly rebutted, and the facebook group exploded in membership. After his fiery rebuttal with Huckabee, not much has changed. In fact, there was just discussion about how people were a little put off by his new tone of speech.

And contrary to what most people think, I don't think this is really his personality to be pissed off. A youtube user who had the luxury to dine at the same table as Ron Paul was able to ask him about the Morton Downey Jr. show. Ron Paul replied that it wasn't really his personality to be angry like that, and that he was urged to be angry "for the show". He personally stated that he wouldn't watch it again.

What do you all think?

RP was at his best during the first MSNBC debate. Passionate yet calm. The soapbox style is not suited for him. He needs to review that tape and emulate his performance

takadi
09-19-2007, 01:17 PM
I actually like the angry/passionate side of him a lot better. If he is always laid back and calm, he's not going to get any attention. And I don't believe it is hurting him at all. During the Huckabee-Paul exchange, half of the crowd was cheering for him! But back in May, when he responded cooly and calmly to Guiliani's attacks, he got hardly any applause. Even if you don't like it, I believe it's helpful and it gets attention.

Not to ruin the party, but the cheering crowd during the Huckabee/Paul debate was from PAUL supporters. Though that's awesome, we need to get NEW supporters. Cheering and screaming for Ron Paul during debates and this new fervor is going to alienate new supporters. Imagine if you were an undecided voter, and you were surrounded by Giuliani supporters going nuts over everything he said. You would definitely get turned off immediately.

He got hardly any applause from the Giuliani spat? That's because the ENTIRE audience was neocon and hand picked! People thought that he was OVER and DONE. Guess what? His support base exploded almost EXPONENTIALLY.

If you guys watch the very first debate Ron Paul was in, you will watch the best example of how Ron Paul should speak. He's always been speaking like that, and he's more comfortable in that demeanor. This new personality of his isn't real.

mconder
09-19-2007, 01:21 PM
I think this is all part of Ron's appeal. He is fiery and passionate. I am sick of the way people deliver their message these days, a bunch of monotonous gobbldyguk feel good crap. I don't want Ron to speak as dispassionately as a CEO speaks to his board members. We need a Patrick Henry right now. Someone who is going to lay it all on the line and shock people with the passion and dedication. You don't hear people speak with passion anymore, and I think it's time to bring it back.

wgadget
09-19-2007, 01:21 PM
RP not real? OMG. I don't think I can handle this. Someone tell him to stop acting not real. Please.

I want an honest candidate above all else.

takadi
09-19-2007, 01:29 PM
Maybe I'm being a little pessimistic and responding post-haste when nothing really has happened yet, and perhaps I'm not being flexible enough, but I think bring this issue out for people to examine is important. Anything Ron Paul makes me excited and his last two debates were amazing, but for the sake of making our efforts count, I purposely put myself in the shoes of an undecided voter who has never heard of Ron Paul (especially a neoconservative from the Republican side) and think about how they would feel if they saw Ron like this for the first time.

Chibioz
09-19-2007, 01:39 PM
People before were saying that they wanted to see a bit more spark in him and I agreed with them. I like that Ron has got a bit more fire in him. He needs conviction to win people over, many are falling for the empty rhetoric of other candidates merely because they perceive that those candidates have conviction. We know that Ron won't compromise his principles, and when he speaks it is from the heart. I think Ron's passionate energy will win over more voters than it will turn away.

mavtek
09-19-2007, 01:40 PM
I think the campaign is just getting smarter, they were playing to the demographics, the next debate on CNN he will not be aggressive at all.

jblosser
09-19-2007, 01:42 PM
I personally loved the way he was before. But I am well aware of people suggesting he should be more like "Morton" Ron.

The conclusion is that he should just be himself and stop listening to those damn campaign managers who keep whispering in his ear.

Well for what it's worth I watched the last Fox debate with one of his sons and he didn't think his dad was being fake at all, he thought he got upset because he was ignored for 30 minutes.

As for the notion that the aggressive stance and the loud crowd turn off new voters, that debate footage has been one of the best gifts Ron has given us on the ground. It cuts right through the "I haven't heard of him, so he probably can't win" to see him completely controlling the stage and have the crowd cheer the loudest for him. We've gotten a lot of people from across the board to jump right into wanting to know his issues based on that footage alone.

wgadget
09-19-2007, 01:45 PM
Can't argue with that, jblosser.

I say let Ron Paul be himself. To know him is to love him.

reduen
09-19-2007, 01:46 PM
People! It does not matter how fired up he is if you can't understand what his message is!

It is like Gravel, I love the fact that he seems so passionate when he speaks. I would not vote for him however, because I have no clue what he is saying!!! It makes him appear looney...

Leslie Webb
09-19-2007, 01:47 PM
Who wouldn't be angry if asked "So do you take your marching orders from al Qaeda?" It deserved the impassioned response Ron gave.

A little fire in the belly can do no harm at his rallies. His recent speeches in Fort Worth and Seattle seem to have been some of his best. Give Ron and whoever he works with on these speeches some credit for trying to make them as good as possible.

I don't know how to approach the debates-- at least find some way of disarming Huckabee's folksiness. The Pottery barn stories, etc. are still about war and killing/coercing people.

ctb619
09-19-2007, 01:48 PM
People! It does not matter how fired up he is if you can't understand what his message is!

It is like Gravel, I love the fact that he seems so passionate when he speaks. I would not vote for him however, because I have no clue what he is saying!!! It makes him appear looney...

you have no clue what he saying?

wgadget
09-19-2007, 01:48 PM
Okay....maybe RP should just S-L-O-W down a little, to be a little more coherent to those who don't already know the message. Point well taken, reduen.

BillyDkid
09-19-2007, 01:49 PM
Ron is Ron and he always will be. He is fine just like he is has no need to tailor his demeanor to suit anyone's taste. The truth is, it is his honesty that clicks with people. In fact, I kind of like it when he gets feisty. He has good reason to get his hair up - he is constantly lied about and his positions are constantly misportrayed and he is targeted for derision in the debates.

PaleoForPaul
09-19-2007, 01:51 PM
He has changed his style in the debates, as the OP says, he yells more.

I think he's better off when he's calm. When he yells, he's easier to write off as a kook.

On top of that, he isn't a good yeller. Michael Savage yells well. Both Buchanan and Paul sound like whiners when they yell, rather than pissed off cavemen types(which is what you should shoot for if you're going to yell).

If you ask me, he should go back to his old style of speaking. Sure, it doesn't stand out as much, but it made him look better.

BillyDkid
09-19-2007, 01:52 PM
Okay....maybe RP should just S-L-O-W down a little, to be a little more coherent to those who don't already know the message. Point well taken, reduen.
Well, yes, sometimes he does go a little fast. But he also knows he has a lot of points to make in a very finite amount of time. If I were him, the next time I got a show of hands type of question I would just say - "A show of hands is pointless and adds nothing to the discussion and I will abstain, though I will be happy to share my position on any topic."

reduen
09-19-2007, 01:52 PM
you have no clue what he saying?


I was specifically referring to the moral values debate (when he seemed to be angry) and yes I do know what Mr. Paul was saying because I am already a huge supporter.

I have no clue what Gravel is about because after watching his debate performances, I do not even care to find out... :)

speciallyblend
09-19-2007, 01:54 PM
It's counterproductive because we aren't going to change who he is. One of his major appeals, at least to me anyway, is that he is not the typical slick politician and speaks from the heart. Even people who totally disagree with him would agree with that. He doesn't have people in his ear telling him what to say. He's very sincere and his emotions vary with what the situation is like any normal person. As someone else already said, let Ron Paul be Ron Paul. You aren't going to change who he is and what he says and how he says it. He's a 20 year politician and has been elected 10 times into Congress so I think he knows a little more about what he's doing than a couple members of a forum who want to change the style he's been using since before a lot of us were even born.

Right ON,you can kill this thread now enuff said;)

quickmike
09-19-2007, 01:56 PM
I think alot of people underestimate the anger there is in this country right now towards the government as a whole. Theyve been lied to by both parties, told one thing and gotten another. I think Ron represents this very well when he is in "pissed off mode". Just the same, he can be calm and collective when he needs to be. I think its good to show a little of both at different times. He knows what hes doing. He is much more shrewd than alot of his supporters give him credit for. He did the right thing at the Value Voters debate. If he would have just stayed calm the whole time, nobody would remember anything he said. Sometimes you have to GRAB peoples attention, otherwise you end up looking like Brownback, who never gets riled up and is never remembered for what he says.

On one hand you had that freak of nature Alan Keyes acting like Hitler up on the stage, and on the other end of the spectrum, you had John "let me tell ya this" Cox who just comes off as someone reading out of a play book. Ron strikes a good balance in my opinion. When Ron gets fired up, it just shows that he really cares about what hes saying, and doesnt come off as if hes just yelling for yellling sake.

fourameuphoria
09-19-2007, 01:59 PM
I think one of Ron Paul's greatest moments of all time was that 30 seconds when he was calm at the FOX News Debate. It was effing hilarious, how casual his tone was, when he said "Why believe them? They've been wrong on everything." Calm and collectedly, he said "Fuck you" to the Republican establishment last night.

Phenom24
09-19-2007, 02:00 PM
I think it depends on who he is talking to. When he was up there with the Fox debate - he needed to stand out. The fiery retort in regards to the Al Qaeda question was perfect. But after that I would have calmed back down and been assertive, but not too aggressive - know what I mean? At a debate like that, he needed the people watching to know "He's got a position I agree with (the war) and he's got some spunk."

But the other debate: It sounded less "Christian" if I may use the term as an adjective, to get fired up at the end of his speech about returning to gold and silver. I would have said something (considering the audience) to the effect of "My brothers and sisters, we need to return our nation to the principles upon which it was founded. If you believe that the great men that founded this nation were God-fearing men, join with me in bringing America back to her former glory."

But getting all fired up about fiat currency? Ask 10 of those people in there and maybe 1 would know what that means. They would probably say "I know someone who owned a Fiat car..." Get fired up at those passionate moments that the audience can get excited with, but not the points that make them think you're a little kooky.

Just imagine if he had slipped in something to the effect of "Ladies and gentlemen, I base EVERY single vote I make on what would the Founders do? Just like you make your life-decisions based on what would Jesus do?" And the people would have reacted to that..

Anyway, I'm rambling. He would'nt be changing his message, just putting accent on the right syllable - if you get my drift.

reduen
09-19-2007, 02:06 PM
"When Ron gets fired up, it just shows that he really cares about what hes saying, and doesnt come off as if hes just yelling for yellling sake."

Normally, I would agree with this statment. I just did not feel this way at times in the last debate.

Truthfully, Mike Huckabee did win this debate. He is actually my number two guy should Ron Paul not win. The reasons that Huckabee is not my number one guy, are that he is such an idiot concerning the war and all the research I have done concerning Dr. Paul.

Just my 2 cents...

takadi
09-19-2007, 02:12 PM
I believe Ron Paul specializes in logic and reasoning, not raw emotional oratory. To tell you the truth, he sounds like he's complaining when he's pissed off. It's just not his style. I truly believe his campaign aides pressured him into being more fiery in his debates. Wrong direction I believe.

Like some have said here, there are just some people out there who have already decided on what they want to know and what they want to learn. But do you think yelling at them will make them any better?

I do not mind his occasional bouts of passion, just as long as they don't get in the way of the message. He needs to explain himself, cite reasonings, etc. People will hear him angrily saying "We need to get rid of the departments!" without knowing why, and they'll automatically off him as a lunatic.

UCFGavin
09-19-2007, 03:00 PM
passion i've noticed, anger i haven't.

i remember when he said his fault was he didn't speak up enough.

UCFGavin
09-19-2007, 03:01 PM
Truthfully, Mike Huckabee did win this debate.

sure, if winning is pandering to hypocrites.

Blowback
09-19-2007, 03:03 PM
I think I like a mix of both. Calm, collected rational arguments with a little fire thrown in goes down smooth!

I just want Ron Paul to be Ron Paul. I'm pretty sure after a lifetime of doing this kind of stuff, he knows what he is doin better than any of us. He also has great advisers and staff. Lew Moore is the man.

chiefsmurph
09-19-2007, 04:15 PM
Couldn't agree more. Just when you think he's settling down, he comes back with a demanding conclusion that makes me yell "hell yea." Those are the statements and the attitude that really got me loving RP.

Severius
09-19-2007, 04:15 PM
I think RP's been very consistent in his tone. He's not showing anger, he's showing passion. He shows well controlled, well directed passion. His passion is contagious, and every time I hear him speak like that it thrills me. He doesn't need to change a thing, no one is as exciting speaker as Ron Paul. I don't want RP to start talking like Al Gore. If anyone is going to turn supporters off with his tone it's Alan Keyes.

reduen
09-19-2007, 04:34 PM
sure, if winning is pandering to hypocrites.


I agree for the most part but in his case, he really believe in his message to them so really it would not be considered pandering. (That does not make him right of course.)

It is his demenor that appeals to me personaly.

speciallyblend
09-19-2007, 04:38 PM
I know neither party will get my vote ,if the gop keeps mocking and ignoring Ron Paul,i can assure you they will lose me and my wifes votes and probably at least 75% of the ron paul supporters votes. The gop better listen up or get use to dealing with hillary, both parties are the same to me,so it wont hurt my feelings either way,i look at my paycheck they both screw me,our votes will go elsewhere
RON PAUL2008

Joey Wahoo
09-19-2007, 04:49 PM
My two cents worth: I thought the fiery exchange with Huckabee was a highlight of the campaign, and I wish he'd have challenged Guliani just as passionately in South Carolina. On the other hand, the nature of the Ft. Lauderdale debate called for more reasoned, less emotional, responses, imho.

Bottom line--I trust Ron Paul to just be himself.

Severius
09-19-2007, 04:51 PM
I know neither party will get my vote ,if the gop keeps mocking and ignoring Ron Paul,i can assure you they will lose me and my wifes votes and probably at least 75% of the ron paul supporters votes. The gop better listen up or get use to dealing with hillary, both parties are the same to me,so it wont hurt my feelings either way,i look at my paycheck they both screw me,our votes will go elsewhere
RON PAUL2008

Yeah, if RP doesn't get the nomination there's no way I'm voting Republican this time. I'll either vote Libertarian or not at all more than likely. Clinton might have sucked as president but he didn't abolish Habeas Corpus, or expand the right of the President to declare any American an "unlawful combatant" for whatever reason he could make up.

paulitics
09-19-2007, 04:56 PM
Detrimental. His tone was agitated, and even angry at times. The further down that road you go, the more you kill your credibility. Many recent examples exist like Mike Gravel, Howard Dean. This strategy has never worked, and never will.

The thoughtful, and well paced tone worked brilliantly with his message, and is how many of us became Paulaholics. The media had a difficult time portraying a resasoned intellect as a wacko, and blowback occured. The new Paul will be easy for the media to marginalize because it coincides with his flustered demeanor. This new direction was probably advice he received from his campaign, and I know many of you had voiced this sentiment, but it does not work well with Paul or his message in my honest opinion.

Corydoras
09-19-2007, 05:03 PM
I think it was detrimental, too.

Television is a "cool" medium where both raising one's voice and sounding detached do not play well. I agree that he hit the right tone in the MSNBC debate.

What he also needs is a good voice coach to work with him a few minutes a day, especially on pitch and enunciation.

Blowback
09-19-2007, 05:03 PM
Yeah, if RP doesn't get the nomination there's no way I'm voting Republican this time. I'll either vote Libertarian or not at all more than likely. Clinton might have sucked as president but he didn't abolish Habeas Corpus, or expand the right of the President to declare any American an "unlawful combatant" for whatever reason he could make up.

I doubt the new Clinton would restore habeas unfortunately. Two wings of the same bird.

reduen
09-19-2007, 05:06 PM
Detrimental. His tone was agitated, and even angry at times. The further down that road you go, the more you kill your credibility. Many recent examples exist like Mike Gravel, Howard Dean. This strategy has never worked, and never will.

The thoughtful, and well paced tone worked brilliantly with his message, and is how many of us became Paulaholics. The media had a difficult time portraying a resasoned intellect as a wacko, and blowback occured. The new Paul will be easy for the media to marginalize because it coincides with his flustered demeanor. This new direction was probably advice he received from his campaign, and I know many of you had voiced this sentiment, but it does not work well with Paul or his message in my honest opinion.


Very well said.. Please do not go the way of Gravel! (Please,please,please..)

LibertyEagle
09-19-2007, 05:50 PM
Well for what it's worth I watched the last Fox debate with one of his sons and he didn't think his dad was being fake at all, he thought he got upset because he was ignored for 30 minutes.

As for the notion that the aggressive stance and the loud crowd turn off new voters, that debate footage has been one of the best gifts Ron has given us on the ground. It cuts right through the "I haven't heard of him, so he probably can't win" to see him completely controlling the stage and have the crowd cheer the loudest for him. We've gotten a lot of people from across the board to jump right into wanting to know his issues based on that footage alone.

I personally LOVED what he did in that debate. I think it was his best debate since the 1st one, which I also loved. There wasn't any way Dr. Paul was faking anything. First of all, it's not his style and secondly, you could tell that what he said was not practiced. It all came from his heart. :)

LibertyEagle
09-19-2007, 05:54 PM
Yeah, if RP doesn't get the nomination there's no way I'm voting Republican this time. I'll either vote Libertarian or not at all more than likely. Clinton might have sucked as president but he didn't abolish Habeas Corpus, or expand the right of the President to declare any American an "unlawful combatant" for whatever reason he could make up.

You've got to be kidding. After the OKC bombing, Clinton tried to ram something like the Patriot Act down our throats back then. Don't you remember? Waco and Ruby Ridge also happened during his Presidency.

They're all on the SAME TEAM. All they're doing is playing relay to make us think that we're voting for something different when we throw one side out and bring the other in. Dr. Paul is the only one who isn't playing with them. That's exactly why they are doing everything in their power to keep people from knowing about him, or when they do mention him, it is to denigrate him. Dr. Paul would upset their apple cart and they are going to pull out all the stops to keep that from happening. In my opinion, Dr. Paul is the first truly honest man, who hasn't sold out, that we've had run for President since Barry Goldwater.

Richandler
09-19-2007, 05:59 PM
Well as a student of acting, I believe Ron gets his energy level up more people pay attention too him. He needs his energy to be more universally up though. One danger acting students fall into is playing one characteristic. If he put more passions into all his words like he does when he's a little made I think it would be hard to ignore him for the next few months.

BarryDonegan
09-19-2007, 06:03 PM
this is a good thing. he needs to appeal to the conservative base, most of them don't want to leave iraq because they think well look like "pussies". seriously.

thats the emotional basis.

look at the historic great orators who spoke with a tone of anger... MLK, adolph hitler...etc.

american.swan
09-19-2007, 06:17 PM
He came out looking great by responding calmly to Giuliani's attacks, yet he made Huckabee look statesman-like.

What Ron needs to do is to let his message do the provoking, and try to lure other candidates and moderators into attacking him.

It's especially important for him to appear level-headed given that we, his supporters, have a reputation for being... not so level-headed. :D

From what I have seen from youtube and streaming a few debates is his Values Voters 4 minute speech ended with a anger...a passion...for the lives of the Americans overseas. That tells me he has a passion and a real sense of responsibility as President for the blood shed by those soldiers. Unlike Bush sending "others" to die, Ron Paul showed at the end of that 4 minutes what it really means to be "commander" of the military.

I can't see how a soldier can see that 4 minute speech, the passion, the responsibility and not vote for Doctor Ron Paul.

briatx
09-19-2007, 06:20 PM
I think you guys are being a little too harsh. I was getting worked up just sitting at home watching that pony show. I don't doubt Paul was also getting a little upset that you have a group of Christians who claim to believe that what Jesus said is the word of God, and then go on to support torture, and preemptive wars.

If it were me, I'd say: Listen up you primitive screwheads! You say you believe the Bible and call yourselves Christians. This is what Christ said. This is what you continue to say, promote and support. They're in-freaking-compatible. Stop it!

Paul actually did a better job of this than me, but that is the frustration. Virtually no one there got it, which is even more frustrating.

The hypocracy must have been rank in that room. And I think that contributed to the fire.

american.swan
09-19-2007, 06:20 PM
Anyone can become angry - that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not easy. Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics

I think that about sums it up.

Proemio
09-19-2007, 07:01 PM
Read every word on this thread, and understand that all (well, most) have as motivation nothing but their love for the man and our quest for -> individual <- freedoms and all that comes with it, i.e. everyone's right to tell him what they really think, and his, to do and say whatever he feels is the right thing to do.

With that in mind, I want a discussion about wardrobe. Wardrobe is hugely important in a traditional, managed political selection process. Wrong suit and "you can't win" - just ask the Madison Avenue gurus.

What about "Training". He definitely needs training (NDA and all), to make sure, he does not deviate from the carefully crafted control mechanisms of the left/right dog and pony show.

Seriously, just let the man be himself - grumpy, cheerful, angry, calm, whatever the moment produces/requires - the real thing. Attempted play-acting would be disastrous.

He doesn't need to walk on water, the empty suits do...

takadi
09-19-2007, 08:23 PM
I'm fine as long as Ron Paul tones it down about one or two notches and as long as he isn't taking speech advice from his campaign aides. The last thing we want him to do is just be another fake

itsnobody
09-19-2007, 08:33 PM
I love his new style I want to see how it will work out next week at the debates....I think he hasn't been aggressive enough and has been taking too much damage...

Geronimo
09-19-2007, 09:22 PM
Even though Ron seemed to get a little overly excited at the V V debate, it didn't seem phony like when the other guys do it.

I DO think he needs to get rid of the bic pen, though.

speciallyblend
09-19-2007, 09:33 PM
NOO I LOVE THE PEN, HE NEEEDS A BIGGER ONE,WITH A TAZER ON THE END TO TAZER THE OTHER REPUBLICANS ,when they say something against the constitution. that would be freakin awesome:)

takadi
09-19-2007, 09:39 PM
LOL, the pen.

"NO...*points pen of death* I take my marching orders from our constitution! *retracts pen*"

ladyliberty
09-19-2007, 09:54 PM
Perhaps I'm being too sensitive, but the moment the debate with Huckabee ended, I was reading threads on how people and their friends and family were giving up their support for Ron Paul. Not to mention the numerous hit pieces that came out that describe him as basically irritating and whiney. Not that we should "take our marching orders" from the neocons, but we do have to consider the fact that we are trying to get them to vote for Ron Paul. We have no enemies in this race in terms of voters.

As a Ron Paul supporter, I believe it's my duty to question and criticize Ron Paul whenever it is deemed appropriate. Failing to do so runs the risk of us becoming the very same sheep we Ron Paul supporters tend to be so frustrated with.


I was at the values voters debates, and that was not a good crowd. None of them had done their homework, and were relying on the Mega News Media for what little information they had! I was a Ron Paul stealth delegate! The other delegates were chanting "RuPaul RuPaul" after Dr. Paul said that liberty was for everyone even homosexuals and that you can't just use the Constitution to favor one group over another (paraphrasing here). When he said Jesus was a peace maker and not a war monger, they accused him of "cherry picking" verses of scripture out of the Bible to support his statements, when nothing could be further from the truth! Ron Paul believes in "Thou Shalt not Kill" - abortion, capitol punishment, unjustified wars) and "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." He practices what he preaches - the Holy Bible is not just a book, just like the US Constitution is not just a piece of paper. I was very proud of his performance because he refused to give up his convictions to that crowd.

I caught Huckabee and Tancredo in some shame less pandering statements. They were really kissing up to the crowd, and saying stuff that I know they have said otherwise in front of other audiences.

You also were not witness to the 2 hour Evangelical pre-show - that was lame IMHO. Big bunch of hypocrites.