PDA

View Full Version : Why do people want to change Ron Paul?




Sematary
09-28-2007, 06:55 AM
I've seen a bunch of threads now on how Ron Paul should have done this or that or how people don't understand his message or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
My question is WHY do people want to change how he handles himself? Look at the explosion of support in his campaign in just a few short months. I know people are sheep but the people paying attention to these debates ARE NOT sheep. They are looking for a candidate to support and from the applause I heard, I would say he is doing an admirable job of winning them over to his side. This is who he is and he is doing WONDERFULLY! If he reduces his responses to sound bytes then he becomes one of THEM and his message of freedom and liberty is lost - FOREVER. If the campaign feels there is an issue of comportment or that his message isn't truly getting generated in those 30 seconds then they will adjust accordingly. So far, from every measure imaginable, Ron Paul has been the clear winner in every debate BECAUSE of who he is and what he is saying. WHY would you want to change that?

MsDoodahs
09-28-2007, 06:59 AM
FEAR.

It's that simple.

Some people are afraid that other people won't see what we see.

And they are right - some people won't.

I trust that Dr. Paul's mannerisms, his choice of clothing, his occassional stumbles on phrases, his voice patterns, speed of speaking, etc, etc....will NOT divert those who are actually listening for THE MESSAGE.

LibertyEagle
09-28-2007, 07:00 AM
A lot of the applause came from Ron Paul supporters who attended the debate. The question is how many he converted that weren't already supporters before the debate started.

The reality is that debates are largely sound bytes, especially in this time before the primaries. He only has a brief amount of time to get his point across. I personally do not think that is his forte and if he can consult someone who can help him figure out how to do that better, then that's only smart to do so. No one wants to change his message. We want him to be able to get it across, effectively, within the time constraints that he is given.

trispear
09-28-2007, 07:02 AM
Some people are armchair generals and some people really worked hard for Ron and wants him to be just perfect when he present himself:)

Don't mistake most of the griping for hate, we just set high standards for our man and sometimes he blows them away (Giuliani exchange, Huckabee exchange) and sometimes he could express himself a bit better.

We just want him to win, that's all:D

Noog
09-28-2007, 07:02 AM
I think if he tried to change, he would come off looking phoney. We all got behind him the way he is, we should trust others to do the same.

Sematary
09-28-2007, 07:03 AM
A lot of the applause came from Ron Paul supporters who attended the debate. The question is how many he converted that weren't already supporters before the debate started.

The reality is that debates are largely sound bytes, especially in this time before the primaries. He only has a brief amount of time to get his point across. I personally do not think that is his forte and if he can consult someone who can help him figure out how to do that better, then that's only smart to do so. No one wants to change his message. We want him to be able to get it across, effectively, within the time constraints that he is given.

Fortunately, his message cannot be reduced to soundbytes. I wouldn't want it to be but that is the campaign's call. I saw the applause, as well, and it was coming from everywhere. I saw very few people "sitting on their hands" after he spoke. The point is - Ron Paul has been doing this for a VERY long time and I think he knows what he's doing. US second guessing him is not only pointless but a waste of time.

Sematary
09-28-2007, 07:03 AM
I think if he tried to change, he would come off looking phoney. We all got behind him the way he is, we should trust others to do the same.

exactly

Sematary
09-28-2007, 07:04 AM
Some people are armchair generals and some people really worked hard for Ron and wants him to be just perfect when he present himself:)

Don't mistake most of the griping for hate, we just set high standards for our man and sometimes he blows them away (Giuliani exchange, Huckabee exchange) and sometimes he could express himself a bit better.

We just want him to win, that's all:D

I never thought there was any hate there. What I see is that people want him to change the way he does things, even though the way he does things is exactly the reason why people gravitated towards him in the first place.

LibertyEagle
09-28-2007, 07:08 AM
Hey, you're the one who started this thread, Sematary.

I realize he's been doing this for a long time and I've been supporting him for just about that long. You say that it's difficult to reduce his message down to a soundbyte. Well, yes, that's true. Maybe it would be beneficial to stop attempting to cram so much into every answer and complete the thought he started with. I don't know. I do know, that he came across much more clearly in the 1st debate. So, whether his message fits with sound bytes or not, his campaign had better damn sure figure out the best way to deal with it, because that is what we have to work with. That's all I'm saying. I want him to win, Sematary and I badly want people to understand what he's talking about. That's all.

Sematary
09-28-2007, 07:10 AM
Hey, you're the one who started this thread, Sematary.

I realize he's been doing this for a long time and I've been supporting him for just about that long. You say that it's difficult to reduce his message down to a soundbyte. Well, yes, that's true. Maybe it would be beneficial to stop attempting to cram so much into every answer and complete the thought he started with. I don't know. I do know, that he came across much more clearly in the 1st debate. So, whether his message fits with sound bytes or not, his campaign had better damn sure figure out the best way to deal with it, because that is what we have.

It could simply be that the questions asked weren't written in such a way that he could easily get his main message through loud and clear. That was the way it seemed to me, anyway. I heard alot about race and equality and blah, blah, blah - but not about policy and Ron Paul is DEFINITELY a policy guy.

stones88
09-28-2007, 07:12 AM
I think he needs to articulate himself better on some issues like the fed, foreign policy, health care, because he gives people the benefit of the doubt of knowing why there's a problem. Paul's solutions are largely unfamiliar to people so it's important that his answers are lucid. It's hard to to do in a 30 second ebate format, which is why I like the one-on-one interviews. That's when the doctor is at his best.

Stealth4
09-28-2007, 07:13 AM
Your saying Dr. Paul couldnt have said things differently to make them come across as easier to understand for a soundbyte, while keeping the message the same?

Constructive criticism is good for all of us. We all want Dr. Paul to win and we all support him. But there is no doubt in my mind he can improve his responses in debates to domestic issues.

Sematary
09-28-2007, 07:14 AM
I think he needs to articulate himself better on some issues like the fed, foreign policy, health care, because he gives people the benefit of the doubt of knowing why there's a problem. Paul's solutions are largely unfamiliar to people so it's important that his answers are lucid. It's hard to to do in a 30 second ebate format, which is why I like the one-on-one interviews. That's when the doctor is at his best.

As for Darfur, he said it plainly enough - the constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to intervene. period. WE support HIM because HE supports the CONSTITUTION. If people don't want to abide by the constitution then RP is the wrong candidate for them.

Sematary
09-28-2007, 07:17 AM
Your saying Dr. Paul couldnt have said things differently to make them come across as easier to understand for a soundbyte, while keeping the message the same?

Constructive criticism is good for all of us. We all want Dr. Paul to win and we all support him. But there is no doubt in my mind he can improve his responses in debates to domestic issues.

And I'm sure that after the debate he goes over his performance and self corrects. We have to trust that he knows what he's doing. If you look at his way of doing things over the years though, this is what you get. People respond to him, just the way he is and with the message he is spreading. I think he came across HUGE last night. The war, the war on drugs, etc... - you could see the majority of the audience responding in a positive way to that message. I saw the black moderators shaking their heads in agreement when he was talking about justice and how the war on drugs had taken that justice away.
THEY GOT IT!
The majority of the audience GOT IT!
I don't believe he is out there for style points. He has a serious message (as compared to the sound byte kings who share the stage with him) and he is doing his very best to get that message out under difficult circumstances and people GET IT.

trispear
09-28-2007, 07:19 AM
To change things up, I think Ron Paul has definite debate advantages over the other candidates.

One thing I see a lot of the candidates do when asked a question is to identify themselves personally with it by telling us of a snippet of their lives that relates to it and then go on to either answer the question (rarely a direct or relevant answer) or some tangent.

I like it better when Ron Paul, as he usually does, does not give us this stupid used car sale song and dance and just gives his stand on things.

I swear, at the last debate, Alan Keyes was really trying way too hard at NOT answering questions posed to him. And the others were also doing a good job of talking a lot and not saying much.

LibertyEagle
09-28-2007, 07:21 AM
As for Darfur, he said it plainly enough - the constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to intervene. period. WE support HIM because HE supports the CONSTITUTION. If people don't want to abide by the constitution then RP is the wrong candidate for them.

Sematary, a whole lot of people out there have not had the AHA moment that we all have. They don't get why following the Constitution is important, so just relying on that is not enough. There is a good rationale behind WHY we shouldn't intervene in Darfur and every other country. THAT is what he needs to explain, in as few words as possible. People will get it. They just need it explained, so that their own lightbulbs will go off. Since Dr. Paul only has a brief period to make these explanations (sound bytes), it is these types of things that I think someone like a very good consultant, might be useful in helping him construct.

Sematary
09-28-2007, 07:25 AM
Sematary, a whole lot of people out there have not had the AHA moment that we all have. They don't get why following the Constitution is important, so just relying on that is not enough. There is a good rationale behind WHY we shouldn't intervene in Darfur and every other country. THAT is what he needs to explain, in as few words as possible. People will get it. They just need it explained, so that their own lightbulbs will go off. Since Dr. Paul only has a brief period to make these explanations (sound bytes), it is these types of things that I think someone like a very good consultant, might be useful in helping him construct.

I think his earnestness and honesty get people to look more deeply. I think the explosion in his campaign bears that out. How many people even knew who he was before the first debate. Almost no one. Even most people here. I've been following his career for years. Have read his Texas Straight Talk for years. He is what he is and it is what he is saying (and the way he says it) that brings people to believe in him and the message of freedom and liberty. I, personally, wouldn't change a thing.

CodeMonkey
09-28-2007, 07:27 AM
As for Darfur, he said it plainly enough - the constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to intervene. period. WE support HIM because HE supports the CONSTITUTION. If people don't want to abide by the constitution then RP is the wrong candidate for them.

A key part of convincing someone is to start where they are, and then persuade them towards your position. Simply saying that we can't do it because the Constitution says so isn't good enough for most people. A short lesson on why the Constitution says what it says would go a long way. In my opinion, something like this would have been a lot more effective:

"Americans are caring people, so it is natural that many see a situation like Darfur and their first instinct is to get involved. However, there is a fine line between getting yourself involved, and forcing others to get involved. When we invoke the federal government in these situations, we are telling our soldiers - who pledged their lives to defend the United States of America - that they now must sacrifice their lives for a group of people halfway around the world that they've never heard of. We are telling our neighbors, I don't know or care what you had planned for the money you earned fair and square, but I am going to take it from you and send it to Africa.

It is noble and admirable to promote a cause you believe in, but you just can't trample on the rights of others to do it."

Sematary
09-28-2007, 07:29 AM
A key part of convincing someone is to start where they are, and then persuade them towards your position. Simply saying that we can't do it because the Constitution says so isn't good enough for most people. In my opinion, something like this would have been a lot more effective:

Americans are caring people, so it is natural that many see a situation like Darfur and their first instinct is to get involved. However, there is a fine line between getting yourself involved, and forcing others to get involved. When we invoke the federal government in these situations, we are telling our soldiers - who pledged their lives to defend the United States of America - that they now must sacrifice their lives for a group of people halfway around the world that they've never heard of. We are telling our neighbors, I don't know or care what you had planned for the money you earned fair and square, but I am going to take it from you and send it to Africa.

It is noble and admirable to promote a cause you believe in, but you just can't trample on the rights of others to do it.

Ok, you have 30 seconds to make your point and you haven't been given the questions in advance - GO!

LibertyEagle
09-28-2007, 07:30 AM
Sematary,

I have followed him for YEARS too. Because we have, we have read countless speeches and articles and have also probably heard him speak at length on more than one occasion. The reality is that most voters have not done that. I'm just saying that we have to look at it from their perspective and try to see it through their eyes. Once you fall for Paul, you fall hard. The way it stands now, people have to read quite a lot to get a good picture of what he's all about. How many are going to go to that trouble or even have the ability to do it? Are you willing to bank everything on it? Well, I'm not.

LibertyEagle
09-28-2007, 07:32 AM
Ok, you have 30 seconds to make your point and you haven't been given the questions in advance - GO!

DARFUR WAS LISTED AS A SUBJECT in the online questions we were asked BEFORE the debate. Remember? If his staff did not advise him of this, and therefore prep them, well then, that would be a problem. Bottom line, he should have been expecting it.

Sematary
09-28-2007, 07:32 AM
DARFUR WAS LISTED AS A SUBJECT in the online questions we were asked BEFORE the debate. Remember? If his staff did not advise him of this, and therefore prep them, well then, that would be a problem. Bottom line, he should have been expecting it.

Personally, I liked his response. :D

CodeMonkey
09-28-2007, 07:41 AM
Personally, I liked his response. :D

It was great for all of us liberty-loving patriots, but I doubt it did much for the guy in the audience who's never heard of Ron Paul, and hasn't read the Constitution since high school civics class, and thinks Darfur is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

JMann
09-28-2007, 07:42 AM
Because they want him to be president instead of the leader of a energetic minority.

Stealth4
09-28-2007, 07:43 AM
He Should have asked

why we should risk american lives in a country that isnt a threat to our security? Why send food and medicine if it ends up in the hands of a dictator who uses it as power?

We cannot police the world because we cant afford the lives lost and our country cant afford to pay for it.

Question_Authority
09-28-2007, 07:49 AM
There is a good rationale behind WHY we shouldn't intervene in Darfur and every other country. THAT is what he needs to explain, in as few words as possible. People will get it. They just need it explained, so that their own lightbulbs will go off. Since Dr. Paul only has a brief period to make these explanations (sound bytes), it is these types of things that I think someone like a very good consultant, might be useful in helping him construct.

I agree with this AND I think he SHOULD be softening statements like this, which can seem very foreign and harsh to most people, with a disclaimer like "While I sympathize with the plight of the people in Darfur...." Honestly, that is just tact and tact is important when discussing sensitive issues. That did not come through on that answer last night and he could have lost a lot of votes just because of the answer he gave IMO.

DrNoZone
09-28-2007, 08:05 AM
I don't want him to change his message either, I just want him to perfect it a little more and gear it more to the audience he's speaking to. Sometimes at the debates I feel like he's shifting into the stump speech mode, where he's trying to rally the troops (like at the supporter rally's all across the country). I think it would be better if he pretended as if he had no supporters in the audience when he's at these debates. Then he wouldn't be as much ra! ra! and would answer more clearly and succinctly.

But that said, I think he's the man and he does so well! It's really only a small issue I have with how some of these debates go.

Original_Intent
09-28-2007, 08:26 AM
Basically I see two positions in this thread. The sematary position (heh that sounds bad!) and the LibertyEagle position (almost as bad!)

Although I agree with some of LE's points, I have to predominantly agree with Sematary. I, too have followed RP for many years, having been a subscriber to his Freedom Report newsletter for a long time.

The reason I mostly agree with Sematary is this: You simply cannot cram what for many of us is years worth of studying into a 30 second answer. The fact that Congressman Paul tries is often what I think causes the stumbles. I think that what attracts people to Paul is the fact that he will go into a room and give answers that he knows may not resonate with that crowd. That is something that is very rare in politics, and I think the other candidates are trying to jump on that bandwagon - I have heard a couple at least say things like Brownback's "This is going to be a crowd pleaser..." Even then, with others it comes across as very calculated and careful. Ron Paul is not calculated he just makes his case as clearly as he can and respects you to weigh your choices and choose.

LE, I 100% hear what you are saying and I somewhat do agree. I am sure Congressman paul himself agrees. We all feel the frustration that he cannot cram that 3 hour lecture that needs to be said into a 30 second answer. And I don't think that constructive criticism is bad either. But I think we need to be careful not be over critical or ask the impossible just because of the importance of what we are doing and we all know this may be our last best chance for freedom. I am sure no one is more aware of that or feels the pressure from that mroe than Dr. Paul.

Regards and love to you both,

Kevin

Sematary
09-28-2007, 08:35 AM
He Should have asked

why we should risk american lives in a country that isnt a threat to our security? Why send food and medicine if it ends up in the hands of a dictator who uses it as power?

We cannot police the world because we cant afford the lives lost and our country cant afford to pay for it.

"Believe me, we're getting involved in a civil war"
"Even when you send food, it ends up in the hands of the military"
"We should direct our attention only to national security"

I think that is what you were looking for?

LibertyEagle
09-28-2007, 08:37 AM
He Should have asked

why we should risk american lives in a country that isnt a threat to our security? Why send food and medicine if it ends up in the hands of a dictator who uses it as power?

We cannot police the world because we cant afford the lives lost and our country cant afford to pay for it.

This is much better and it wouldn't require years of study, nor a 3 hour lecture, to understand it either.