Ron Paul 2012 - Against All Odds - Analysis and Concerns

[AuH20]

Well, it's clear that the Fox Debate Panel made every attempt to project Ron as an outsider once again, while focusing overly on less important national security hypotheticals. It was clear from the start, that would not give the good doctor a forum to project his conservative credentials, whether that be his staunch congressional record of protecting the unborn or his strident distaste of the progressive tax code. With all this said, Ron has to improve his performance for this very reason. He has very little margin for error so he must be clear, concise and businesslike. The last attribute is why Cain performed so well to the average South Carolinian, even if they know very little about him beforehand. Also, Ron has to tie his superior philosophy into the working details the average voter can better understand. He needs to start looking at his son's debates, who has an incredible grasp of statistics and policy intricacies.

[Michael Landon]

Fox didn't ask any questions of RP that were his strong points. They can't avoid the economy and monetary policies forever, eventually RP will get one asked of him and he'll knock it out of the park.

- ML

[nate895]

And he must go after the conservative base, not appease the libertarian crowd. The libertarians are already his most dogged defenders. He needs to get the small government conservatives in his camp in order to actually win the election. He isn't going to convert enough people to libertarianism to win. The thing is that he did that on the foreign policy questions, but he didn't on the so-con questions, and that is a much stronger issue for him than foreign policy. He can easily get so-cons in his camp if he just went at it from a different direction.

[AuH20]

Fox didn't ask any questions of RP that were his strong points. They can't avoid the economy and monetary policies forever, eventually RP will get one asked of him and he'll knock it out of the park.

- ML

Well, right off the bat they intentionally create this image that he's some kind of libertarian freak while intentionally obscuring his conservative credentials. They know the first impression rule and specifically create an illusory divide between him and the primary voter before they can even listen to him at length.

[Legend1104]

Fox didn't ask any questions of RP that were his strong points. They can't avoid the economy and monetary policies forever, eventually RP will get one asked of him and he'll knock it out of the park.

- ML

Amen to this. The whole time I was thinking, "Man why won't they ask him any economic questions?" They just kept asking him foreign policy and bad stuff.

[nate895]

Well, right off the bat they intentionally create this image that he's some kind of libertarian freak while intentionally obscuring his conservative credentials.

That is what I'm getting at. Ron Paul is the best candidate from a small government conservative point-of-view. He needs to emphasize that, not that he's the most libertarian candidate. Everyone already knows that.

[sailingaway]

And he must go after the conservative base, not appease the libertarian crowd. The libertarians are already his most dogged defenders. He needs to get the small government conservatives in his camp in order to actually win the election. He isn't going to convert enough people to libertarianism to win. The thing is that he did that on the foreign policy questions, but he didn't on the so-con questions, and that is a much stronger issue for him than foreign policy. He can easily get so-cons in his camp if he just went at it from a different direction.

this

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

The last attribute is why Cain performed so well to the average South Carolinian, even if they know very little about him beforehand.Assuming the greater viewing audience (not just the Luntz bots) were impressed with Cain, it will be because he's not an establishment candidate/"Washington insider" but he's still in line with their philosophy. There is a strong "throw-the-bums-out" attitude out there, but they still want someone who will rattle off typical GOP speak, and Cain fits the bill.

He's also black, so that probably figures into their "beat Obama" scheming, nullifying the liberal race card.

[AuH20]

That is what I'm getting at. Ron Paul is the best candidate from a small government conservative point-of-view. He needs to emphasize that, not that he's the most libertarian candidate. Everyone already knows that.

It's really ridiculous. The conservative gatekeepers have made the republican electorate aware of the 15% where Ron Paul disagrees with them as OPPOSED to the other 85% where he is potentially their greatest champion. The exaggerated policy minutia is always resurrected every debate. Drugs, Torture and the Role of the U.S. Military. Rinse and Repeat. I'm fatigued over the same Rovian tactics.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

I'm worried they are going to try building Cain up into a "darkhorse/underdog" candidate. It was sure strange how he got two or three times as many questions as Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, coming from a place with zero name recognition.

[nate895]

It's really ridiculous. The conservative gatekeepers have made the republican electorate aware of the 15% where Ron Paul disagrees with them as OPPOSED to the other 85% where he is potentially their greatest champion. The exaggerated policy minutia is always resurrected every debate. Drugs, Torture and the Role of the U.S. Military. Rinse and Repeat. I'm fatigued over the same Rovian tactics.

It's not even that Ron Paul disagree with them as a matter of policy, really. It's just that he uses libertarian reasoning in many cases to support his position. If he used small government conservative rhetoric (Constitution, state vs. federal power, rule of law [what that phrase actually means], etc.), then the individual issues where he might disagree them as individuals on become non-issues because of his overall slant.

[ForLibertyFight]

Ron needs a coach to polish up his message

[tmg19103]

I'm worried they are going to try building Cain up into a "darkhorse/underdog" candidate. It was sure strange how he got two or three times as many questions as Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, coming from a place with zero name recognition.

Agreed. Fox wants to make Cain the up and coming underdog/darkhorse to steal that thunder from RP, knowing that Cain has no chance but RP does.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It's not even that Ron Paul disagree with them as a matter of policy, really. It's just that he uses libertarian reasoning in many cases to support his position. If he used small government conservative rhetoric (Constitution, state vs. federal power, rule of law [what that phrase actually means], etc.), then the individual issues where he might disagree them as individuals on become non-issues because of his overall slant.

Ron is a natural rights Thomist. He isn't going to deviate from that strident libertarian philosophy. You are arguing for a Federalist rhetoric, which he did use tonight on occasion. Honestly, conservatives are always contradicting themselves, and Ron never panders. If you do not like the Natural Rights Thomist Ron Paul, then that is ok, but one thing you know...he isn't going to change his rhetoric to pander (well I take that back....immigration is his achilles heel and you all ready know my and his 88 position).

[Johnnymac]

i think ron did a good job for what he got but like you said the questions just were not what people really wanted to hear Cain got the talking point questions

[nate895]

Ron is a natural rights Thomist. He isn't going to deviate from that strident libertarian philosophy. You are arguing for a Federalist rhetoric, which he did use tonight on occasion. Honestly, conservatives are always contradicting themselves, and Ron never panders. If you do not like the Natural Rights Thomist Ron Paul, then that is ok, but one thing you know...he isn't going to change his rhetoric to pander (well I take that back....immigration is his achilles heel and you all ready know my and his 88 position).

No, no, I don't think you got what I was saying entirely. Yes, Paul needs to incorporate federalist rhetoric, but not eliminate the natural rights aspect. However, with the natural rights aspect, he needs to emphasize the rule of law aspect of natural rights. I'm not saying Ron Paul should totally change his rhetoric to the point of not sounding like Ron Paul; I'm saying that he just needs to place the emphasis on a different area. Conservatives will go for Paul if goes at the drug issue (and other so-con issues) from the standpoint of "rule-of-law." It's just impossible to believe in cracking down on drugs and government by the rule of law at the same time. You have to seriously believe in the police state in order to effectively ban drugs, and I think a few conservatives are coming around on that.

[specsaregood]

Putting on the armchair campaign coordinator cap: I'd really like to see him spend some of that cash on 1 or 2 minute infomercials focusing on economic issues. He should be able to get somethign good put in 2 minutes. Run them at every single "cheap" timeslot on foxnews and other tv stations.

I know a lot of old people are up at 5am or so, when ad time should be relatively inexpensive.

[AuH20]

Putting on the armchair campaign coordinator cap: I'd really like to see him spend some of that cash on 1 or 2 minute infomercials focusing on economic issues. He should be able to get somethign good put in 2 minutes. Run them at every single "cheap" timeslot on foxnews and other tv stations.

I know a lot of old people are up at 5am or so, when ad time should be relatively inexpensive.

Luntz's focus group went ga ga over Rand's senatorial ads. These type of ads are big winners. People want to hear detailed solutions instead of trying to explain a complex concept like liberty every 5 seconds.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVorVi8gCJM



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PUExyi25Oo

[specsaregood]

Luntz's focus group went ga ga over Rand's senatorial ads. These type of ads are big winners. People want to hear detailed solutions instead of trying to explain a complex concept like liberty every 5 seconds.


Very similar to what I want to see ASAP. Let's fill up all the inexpensive time slots to start. Especially in early primary states.

I just hope the campaign jumps on it NOW, he has a lead in cash, lets spend it to make more of it.

[Xenophage]

I do not want Ron Paul to stop speaking about principles and essential philosophy in order to try and get elected. His power and his positive impact on the future would be greatly diminished. The fact is, we need more libertarians before we can achieve a libertarian political revolution. We've grown a lot, but we're still such a minority.

When over 50% of the American populace thinks like we do, then there will be a complete overhaul of government. That day might not be as far off as you think, because we face serious disaster in this country. Ron Paul and others like him need to keep speaking fundamental philosophy, so that when people start suffering and looking for answers, we're there.

[nate895]

I do not want Ron Paul to stop speaking about principles and essential philosophy in order to try and get elected. His power and his positive impact on the future would be greatly diminished. The fact is, we need more libertarians before we can achieve a libertarian political revolution. We've grown a lot, but we're still such a minority.

When over 50% of the American populace thinks like we do, then there will be a complete overhaul of government. That day might not be as far off as you think, because we face serious disaster in this country. Ron Paul and others like him need to keep speaking fundamental philosophy, so that when people start suffering and looking for answers, we're there.

But is that what Ron Paul is really going for? Is he really some kind of revolutionary libertarian? I don't think so. As Austrian Econ Disciple pointed out, he's a Natural Rights Thomist. That falls within what might be called a broadly "libertarian" camp, but is not a revolutionary libertarianism. In fact, a Natural Rights Thomist is just about the opposite of a revolutionary.

If Ron Paul is running to convert more people to his particular brand of libertarianism, then this race is simply a waste of time. The fact is that you're never going to get over the 50% threshold, no revolutionary group ever has. Revolutionaries have always, and will always, need to resort to violence or subversion of some variety (which has happened in our country since the founding) in order to convert the populace. If you really want to achieve your revolution, you're going to have use violence or subversion as well, which means playing to the electorate's ears.

[belian78]

Like I said in another thread, the debates and slanted media reporting were never our biggest supporter generators, we ourselves were. It was our hard work, speaking face to face with others that really broke through to the general citizenry.

Yes, we need the avaroths to make the stunning vids that he created for sure, and we need the debates to make those clips, but not everyone can be an avaroth. We really need to get the message out that this time we need serious boots on the ground and coordination between the grassroots.

Sign waving and leaving slimjims on cars wont do it, we need to engage our neighborhoods face to face with information that is tailored to our specific regions. We need to set up our own grassroots campaign hq's. I've set up an email addy and phone number for people to call if they have questions or want to get involved.

The point is, don't let the media and the debate moderators frame perception. Go out and ensure that the perception that is needed is making it to your neighbours on a face to face basis.

[YumYum]

Ron does not have to do anything different than he has always done. He won't use semantics and play mind games to get elected. He appeals to decent Americans who are worried about this country. We cannot help it if America is in short supply of such people. He is Ron Paul, and I wouldn't want him to be anybody else.