Ron Paul PowerPoint Wins Hearts at Republican Club (Something we Should Duplicate)

[Sentinelrv]

I found this article (http://www.dailypaul.com/166275/ron-paul-powerpoint-stuns-republican-club)posted over at the Daily Paul. This is something we should all be organizing in each of our own towns. Bring people in where we control the message and then hook them. I would suggest an optional viewing of For Liberty after each presentation in order to get them pumped up.


I am posting this here on the Daily Paul per the express request of an individual within the Iowa Ron Paul campaign.

The two youtube links below take you to a presentation given to a large Republican club in the greater Cleveland area. The purpose of the presentation was to 'present' Ron Paul for the club's consideration to support in the 2012 Republican primary. The response received was amazing.

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnjFMTv5jb0&feature=player_embedded

http://youtu.be/TnjFMTv5jb0

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR1FWiEU3zA&feature=player_embedded

http://youtu.be/JR1FWiEU3zA

Anyone who wants the .ppt file can download it here:

http://www.meetup.com/RonPaul2012Cleveland/files/

Please feel free to share the video of the presentation and/or PowerPoint file with any and all.

For Liberty,

Matt Brakey

[Suzu]

This was a fine presentation. My only criticism would be that there is no such thing as a "Letter of Marquee" (unless you mean one of the letters on a marquee); rather, it's "Letter of Marque" - pronounced "mark". It's a British spelling, like "cheque" for "check", you do not say "chequee".

[LibertyEagle]

Fantastic idea.

[Thargok]

I think it is pretty clear that this is a stacked house, but he does talk about the candidate well. I don't know if I would always expect such a response but it doesn't hurt.

[sailingaway]

I think it is pretty clear that this is a stacked house, but he does talk about the candidate well. I don't know if I would always expect such a response but it doesn't hurt.


I don't think it was a stacked house. That is why i9t was circulated. And no, in some areas you won't get this response. However, I think we need to come up with a better answer for what if Israel is attacked. Ideally, we should find out from Ron. I know Rand thinks we have to live up to existing treaties or change them (actually, now that I think about it, I never heard him personally say that, but media reported it. Whether they got it right, I don't know.) The thing is, Ron has a wholistic philosophy about this and probably has an answer and I don't know what it is. I think the answer I'd give is that I don't actually know, but I do know that with Israel having something like 400 nuclear weapons, and no one in the region similarly armed, Dr. Paul thinks it isn't likely to happen, and that Israel would be more than equipped against its enemies, so long as we quit foreign aid which gives twice as much to her enemies as to her. But it is an area where feelings are high and I wouldn't want to give the wrong answer. I think that one guy's point is good, if Congress declares war, as it should, Ron would go, and we shouldn't be going to war otherwise unless we are in imminent danger.

[wgadget]

Ron has said, too, that if he were to send our troops to war, we would fight it to WIN it. No nation-building.

P.S. GREAT video...I used to live in the Cuyahoga Valley and this warms my little heart. : )

[KingRobbStark]

I got the same reception when speaking about Ron Paul with strangers. I think the message is catching on.

[wgadget]

I was very impressed with the cheering over his stance regarding the UNITED NATIONS. That and the FEDERAL RESERVE seem to be issues that can work for us.

BTW, IS he the only candidate with military service? Did anyone find out the answer to that?

[sailingaway]

I was very impressed with the cheering over his stance regarding the UNITED NATIONS. That and the FEDERAL RESERVE seem to be issues that can work for us.

BTW, IS he the only candidate with military service? Did anyone find out the answer to that?

I read that at one point, but it will depend on the ultimate field, of course.

[wgadget]

Well, we know Sarah and Mitt are not veterans...

[rockandrollsouls]

I thought this was an awful presentation.

Who at these meetings has the capacity or attention span to listen to lectures about Austrian economics or considering Ron a Libertarian or Republican?

The presenter fails to hammer home Ron as a tried and true republican. "Nation Building," "Policing the world," etc are all the typical buzzwords that turn off the attention of typical republicans.

Also, blatantly stating the elimination of the IRS is a bit drastic. It could be tailored for the mainstream by stating he would lower taxes with the hope to eventually phase out the income tax. Why would this guy even mention the racist letters? They've been addressed. And the foreign policy as a criticism? No, he should have stated he is strong on foreign policy, explained why and how.

This could have been worded so much better...the guy consistently distances himself by saying "Ron," and "You Conservatives."

These presentations should be portraying Ron as the best republican for the job.
With each point, he should have also included something about how Ron was RIGHT, and also points about how he's similar to Reagan.

Basically;
Traditional Republican Values are THIS. Example of traditional, great republicans. Rattle off how Ron fits that mold.

This presentation was so wishy washy. It left me with the impression of Well I don't know if you'd call him a Republican, but I think Ron is a good dude and I ask pretty-please that you'll consider him minus these small issues He's not being put forth as a republican leader.

How did everyone think this was a good presentation...:confused:

[rockandrollsouls]

The guy that made the point about Ron getting chants from the young population like it was the 60s is a HUGE talking point and one we need to state about Ron being electable. That story gave me chills; it was vivid and it made it seem like "Hey, this guy is a shoe-in."

That's what we NEED.

[ItsTime]

Awesome idea. It is great idea for people who are clean cut and well dressed. Unlike myself :D

[LibertyEagle]

I thought this was an awful presentation.

Who at these meetings has the capacity or attention span to listen to lectures about Austrian economics or considering Ron a Libertarian or Republican?

The presenter fails to hammer home Ron as a tried and true republican. "Nation Building," "Policing the world," etc are all the typical buzzwords that turn off the attention of typical republicans.

Also, blatantly stating the elimination of the IRS is a bit drastic. It could be tailored for the mainstream by stating he would lower taxes with the hope to eventually phase out the income tax. Why would this guy even mention the racist letters? They've been addressed. And the foreign policy as a criticism? No, he should have stated he is strong on foreign policy, explained why and how.

This could have been worded so much better...the guy consistently distances himself by saying "Ron," and "You Conservatives."

These presentations should be portraying Ron as the best republican for the job.
With each point, he should have also included something about how Ron was RIGHT, and also points about how he's similar to Reagan.

Basically;
Traditional Republican Values are THIS. Example of traditional, great republicans. Rattle off how Ron fits that mold.

This presentation was so wishy washy. It left me with the impression of Well I don't know if you'd call him a Republican, but I think Ron is a good dude and I ask pretty-please that you'll consider him minus these small issues He's not being put forth as a republican leader.

How did everyone think this was a good presentation...:confused:

I agree with everything you said. Though I do give him props for getting up and doing it.

[jmdrake]

Well I guarantee you that he won over more Ron Paul supporters with his presentation then you have here complaining about it. ;)

We tried the "Let's not talk about Ron Paul's actual positions and hope these people find out when the Google Ron Paul" strategy back in 2008. Did it work? Is Ron Paul president?

Sure this presentation might turn off some republicans, but guess what? We don't need all GOP primary voters to win! We just need a plurality. And right now the GOP voters are split 50/50 on whether or not to stay in Afghanistan.

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?345-Gallup-poll-shows-opportunity-for-ANTI-WAR-REPUBLICANS!


I thought this was an awful presentation.

Who at these meetings has the capacity or attention span to listen to lectures about Austrian economics or considering Ron a Libertarian or Republican?

The presenter fails to hammer home Ron as a tried and true republican. "Nation Building," "Policing the world," etc are all the typical buzzwords that turn off the attention of typical republicans.

Also, blatantly stating the elimination of the IRS is a bit drastic. It could be tailored for the mainstream by stating he would lower taxes with the hope to eventually phase out the income tax. Why would this guy even mention the racist letters? They've been addressed. And the foreign policy as a criticism? No, he should have stated he is strong on foreign policy, explained why and how.

This could have been worded so much better...the guy consistently distances himself by saying "Ron," and "You Conservatives."

These presentations should be portraying Ron as the best republican for the job.
With each point, he should have also included something about how Ron was RIGHT, and also points about how he's similar to Reagan.

Basically;
Traditional Republican Values are THIS. Example of traditional, great republicans. Rattle off how Ron fits that mold.

This presentation was so wishy washy. It left me with the impression of Well I don't know if you'd call him a Republican, but I think Ron is a good dude and I ask pretty-please that you'll consider him minus these small issues He's not being put forth as a republican leader.

How did everyone think this was a good presentation...:confused:

[jmdrake]

I agree with everything you said. Though I do give him props for getting up and doing it.

The problem with r&rs analysis is that it assumes that if you hide "bad facts" they won't come back to bite you. They will. They always do. The only way to deal with "bad facts" is to address them up front as the presenter did and explain them away. Ron Paul is a non interventionist. Most republicans know that by now. You might as well explain to them up front why RP's stance is the correct one, especially considering that nearly 50 percent of Republicans and a solid majority of independents now agree with it at least with regards to Afghanistan. Let's say if someone who doesn't know Ron Paul's foreign policy stance comes and hears his economic positions, agrees with them, and later excitedly calls into his favorite talk radio show promoting Paul? He's likely to hear "Yeah Ron Paul is great on economics. But did you hear that he didn't think we should have got Bin Laden?" That person is just going to feel duped and is likely to turn against Paul. Instead, give them a reason up front to support, or at least not be turned off by, Ron Paul's foreign policy.

[Paulatized]

I thought this was an awful presentation.

Who at these meetings has the capacity or attention span to listen to lectures about Austrian economics or considering Ron a Libertarian or Republican?

The presenter fails to hammer home Ron as a tried and true republican. "Nation Building," "Policing the world," etc are all the typical buzzwords that turn off the attention of typical republicans.

Also, blatantly stating the elimination of the IRS is a bit drastic. It could be tailored for the mainstream by stating he would lower taxes with the hope to eventually phase out the income tax. Why would this guy even mention the racist letters? They've been addressed. And the foreign policy as a criticism? No, he should have stated he is strong on foreign policy, explained why and how.

This could have been worded so much better...the guy consistently distances himself by saying "Ron," and "You Conservatives."

These presentations should be portraying Ron as the best republican for the job.
With each point, he should have also included something about how Ron was RIGHT, and also points about how he's similar to Reagan.

Basically;
Traditional Republican Values are THIS. Example of traditional, great republicans. Rattle off how Ron fits that mold.

This presentation was so wishy washy. It left me with the impression of Well I don't know if you'd call him a Republican, but I think Ron is a good dude and I ask pretty-please that you'll consider him minus these small issues He's not being put forth as a republican leader.

How did everyone think this was a good presentation...:confused:


Ok then, we'll use the one you made. Post and we'll critique. :)
I thought it was pretty good. Bet it got people to thinking and started dialogue on RP's positions.

[Thomas]

I think we can make a better powerpoint, but this is a good idea. A lot better than sign waving and lurking the forum :p

[Jeremy]

I don't know about that last slide.

[rockandrollsouls]

I've offered a number of solutions, suggestions, and proven techniques. Whether the campaign takes notice and uses them is entirely on them.

Whether it's ways to convert other republicans, getting large conversions instead of fighting with stubborn liberals (which seems to be the popular theme here,) drawing parallels between Ron and Reagan, putting out affordable TV "Buzz" pieces, or simply making him look the part, all I've said is based on things that work and that other candidates have used with great success.

You know we have a huge problem when Ron's a veteran, a doctor, has a nearly spotless voting record and has been overwhelmingly right since the 80s and we still can't win. That's not media bias; that's not having the people on staff to help him win. Hell, could anyone envision a more perfect republican torchbearer? Get someone that can market it. The president is a brand, whether you like it or not.

You guys think pointing out the obvious areas for improvement is negativity. This is the reason we will continue to be pushed around; we settle. Why not just say "Ron should be saying what he's been saying the way he's been saying it since the 80s." That's what you're getting at by stating we'd be "dishonest" or "liars" by leaving out or tailoring certain aspects of his platform for a specific audience. Well guess what? It hasn't been workin'!

If, somehow, we get the endorsement of this Republican Club it will be a miracle.


Yea, I give the guy credit for going up there and doing it but the guy calling out from the audience made Ron sound more compelling to me. And guess what? None of what he said was distorted and I was compelled to believe "Hey, whoever this guy is sounds like he can get a lot of support and win this!

I want to do this and do it right. I want to win. You can keep harping from your computer that Ron shouldn't change a thing and he'd be dishonest if he did. Then you can ask yourself why we lost the primary. Continuous lecturing isn't going to change a thing. This is a game; learn to play it.


Ok then, we'll use the one you made. Post and we'll critique. :)
I thought it was pretty good. Bet it got people to thinking and started dialogue on RP's positions.

[rockandrollsouls]

Exactly...why even include it. I felt like this presentation did more to point out all Ron's possible sticking points with the establishment and try to make it "okay" with them then to market him as the best republican candidate for president.


I don't know about that last slide.

[moonshineplease]

Again there is another instance of what seems like a blatant AIPAC plant in the audience. Of course it is probably just another mark of the barrel, misguided republican voter that has been continuously bathed in neoconservative ideology on US support of Israel.
I thought his response was pretty good- given the circumstances- though refining and packaging this issue to be presented to mainstream republican audiences is going to be a priority when it comes to selling Ron Paul's platform on foreign policy-specifically foreign aid to Israel. No doubt the question will come up again soon.

While it is true that Dr. Paul has always been very clear on entangling alliances and aid to Israel(though the woman seemed to just zone out when he responded to her question...), it would be interesting to see the reaction of the audience if he said something like: " My own perception of Ron Paul's position on U.S.-Israeli relations is that the U.S. should not be bending over backwards every time Israeli lobbies and interest groups (namely Likud) need some sort of geopolitical heavy lifting done in the region that solely benefits Israeli interests without any long-term benefit to our own nation..." I think this is a more detailed/concise way of bluntly stating NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY..).

When that lady insinuates that Israel is OUR ally and WE are obligated to unconditionally support their policy perspectives and provide for the national defense of another country ...It places an incredible burden on the US Taxpayer, and is theoretically no different than using their money to prop up corrupt dictatorships throughout the Arab World (the Mubarak investment for example). If people want to give money to Israeli interests and support/or have sympathies toward those points of view, they would be free to do so voluntarily.

Furthermore, at this point, we could reiterate on Micheal Scheuer and the blowback generated by these unsustainable policy perspectives...Scheuer who has experience in the region and headed the CIA Bin Laden Unit for ten/fifteen years would agree with me that our unconditional support for Israel interests even compromises our national security. His work describes this in detail. This is also discussed in the 9/11 Commission Report. (expand if necessary..)

Americans may think they have an obligation to defend Israeli interests because of the beliefs perpetuated by the media, but they wont take kindly to being treated like puppets once these beliefs (myths regarding US aid/responsibility to Israel) are exposed. Again this is all about getting mainline republicans to see eye to eye with Dr. Paul on foreign policy and packaging the responses to these types of questions accordingly.

Rand (and lately Ron) always had a pretty good response to these types of rigged questions by keeping it short and simple; saying, "I would never criticize Israel for defending herself/conducting policy in a manner they see fit for "their" country..) When these AIPAC types demand more 'precise' answers and start getting all preachy with the cliche talking points, we should have specific responses ready.

Any additional thoughts??

[parocks]

Agree. Ron II. The true conservative. Robert Taft said x Goldwater said y Reagan said z. These are the Traditional Conservative Republican values and this is what I believe.


I thought this was an awful presentation.

Who at these meetings has the capacity or attention span to listen to lectures about Austrian economics or considering Ron a Libertarian or Republican?

The presenter fails to hammer home Ron as a tried and true republican. "Nation Building," "Policing the world," etc are all the typical buzzwords that turn off the attention of typical republicans.

Also, blatantly stating the elimination of the IRS is a bit drastic. It could be tailored for the mainstream by stating he would lower taxes with the hope to eventually phase out the income tax. Why would this guy even mention the racist letters? They've been addressed. And the foreign policy as a criticism? No, he should have stated he is strong on foreign policy, explained why and how.

This could have been worded so much better...the guy consistently distances himself by saying "Ron," and "You Conservatives."

These presentations should be portraying Ron as the best republican for the job.
With each point, he should have also included something about how Ron was RIGHT, and also points about how he's similar to Reagan.

Basically;
Traditional Republican Values are THIS. Example of traditional, great republicans. Rattle off how Ron fits that mold.

This presentation was so wishy washy. It left me with the impression of Well I don't know if you'd call him a Republican, but I think Ron is a good dude and I ask pretty-please that you'll consider him minus these small issues He's not being put forth as a republican leader.

How did everyone think this was a good presentation...:confused:

[KurtBoyer25L]

I thought this was an awful presentation.

Who at these meetings has the capacity or attention span to listen to lectures about Austrian economics or considering Ron a Libertarian or Republican?

The presenter fails to hammer home Ron as a tried and true republican. "Nation Building," "Policing the world," etc are all the typical buzzwords that turn off the attention of typical republicans.

Also, blatantly stating the elimination of the IRS is a bit drastic. It could be tailored for the mainstream by stating he would lower taxes with the hope to eventually phase out the income tax. Why would this guy even mention the racist letters? They've been addressed. And the foreign policy as a criticism? No, he should have stated he is strong on foreign policy, explained why and how.

This could have been worded so much better...the guy consistently distances himself by saying "Ron," and "You Conservatives."

These presentations should be portraying Ron as the best republican for the job.
With each point, he should have also included something about how Ron was RIGHT, and also points about how he's similar to Reagan.

Basically;
Traditional Republican Values are THIS. Example of traditional, great republicans. Rattle off how Ron fits that mold.

This presentation was so wishy washy. It left me with the impression of Well I don't know if you'd call him a Republican, but I think Ron is a good dude and I ask pretty-please that you'll consider him minus these small issues He's not being put forth as a republican leader.

How did everyone think this was a good presentation...:confused:

Well, it sounds like you should sashay your sweet ass on into some GOP meetings & do a better one.

The bottom line is he got formerly neutral people whooping & cheering for Ron. Sure, we can take this idea & adjust it, expand it, present it differently, but try giving some credit & gratitude.

[Working Poor]

I thought the video was a very good example to use as a model which I need all the help I can get.

[Sweman]

I have one concern with the non-interventionist foreign policy. I think it is the right way and all, but it is also a path of uncertainty.

One example is the womans question about Israel. She is worried and I myself can think of a number of geopolitical questions about what will happen when the U.S. military withdraws from the world.

Who can answer what will happen with the power vacuum created by the non interventionist foreign policy? I don't think Ron Paul or anyone can know that. This is a question that all the safety junkies will want to know the answer to. The neocons will say that chaos is the result. What do we say? I mean, the Vietnam example don't say much because that is not a big power player in the world. What will China and Russia do? Or Israel, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea?

[rockandrollsouls]

How in the hell do you know they were neutral, and how many people do you think were in the room? What makes you think they didn't whoop and cheer just as hard for Santorum's or Romney's presentation?

A couple of people hooting and hollering doesn't mean a damned thing. Didn't you learn that from the last election cycle? Oh, wait, you weren't even here the last election cycle.

My points are valid and proven. There's a reason people actually pay mind to who Reagan's wife endorses :rolleyes: I suggest we begin making the connection.

If I had the in-roads to the campaign, or if I lived anywhere close to Iowa I would gladly do it. I wish they'd start taking some help.

Seriously, how does one represent a man for the republican nominee and have the capacity to bring a debate whether he's even a republican or not to the forefront? That was a good 1/4 of the presentation!


Well, it sounds like you should sashay your sweet ass on into some GOP meetings & do a better one.

[wgadget]

I would like to say that I REALLY appreciated the narrator's calm, laid-back, matter-of-fact, open approach to narrating. He was kinda "I'll give you the facts, and you do what you want with them."

I think we as a group have a tendency to be fanatic (not without good reason, of course), which tends to turn some people off.