AJ Antimony
06-15-2011, 03:08 AM
Let me first say that I really enjoyed Ron's answers and I thought he did pretty darn good.
What annoys me, especially after watching some MSM "analysis," is that there is no freaking reason Ron can't make some minor changes which could turn his answers from 'pretty darn good' to 'mind-blowingly good.'
Looking over the many MSM responses to the debate, it seems the following can be concluded regarding the MSM and typical voters:
1. The MSM wanted to see some blood. They didn't want to see all the candidates getting along. For example, many were oh so disappointed that Pawlenty didn't attack Romney over Romneycare.
2. Nobody significantly stood out. I love how ironic this is. Everyone sounded like Ron Paul! They all talked about stuff like low taxes and low spending, no Obamacare, and no troops in Libya. Wow.
3. Nobody mentioned the Tea Party. In other words, could a political novice watching the debate tell which of the 7 candidates represents the Tea Party? In my opinion, I don't think so.
4. People like clarity. Ron Paul stood out in one way, he spoke too fast and jumbled words.
5. Ron Paul still isn't seen as a serious candidate.
6. Ron Paul comes off "negatively" to too many people. In other words, you get the feeling that a significant number of voters, rather than saying "oh wow look at Ron Paul, so grandfatherly, wise, and endearing," say "oh great here's crazy uncle Ron Paul about to rant about something"
7. Everyone is attacking Obama rather than proposing solutions.
8. Nobody talked about the Constitution.
With these conclusions, I would coach Dr. Paul to do the following:
1. Attack.
The media wants to see some action and not get bored to death. Obviously you'd want to attack appropriately, so if you're asked a question about Obamacare, make sure to mention Romneycare signed by Mandate Mitt. Make it clear Romney signed a smaller version of Obamacare. Make it clear he supported the individual mandate as governor of Massachusetts. Also, when appropriate talk about Cap and Tim Pawlenty. These are the media-picked GOP candidates so attack their liberal records. This doesn't have to be in-depth and harsh. Just as Ron Paul clarified "I'm the commander and chief..." he could say something like "I didn't sign a health mandate as governor..." So, you don't need an entire response to attack. A strong one-liner at the end of the response will suffice.
2. If all the candidates are moving more in your direction, then you don't stand out as much anymore. Viewers didn't see 6 fiscal moderates and 1 fiscal conservative. They saw 7 fiscal conservatives. The similarity of the candidates can be seen especially regarding Bachmann. To someone who doesn't know the candidates, how is Ron Paul any different than Bachmann? The Federal Res..omething? If everyone on the stage is a perceived fiscal conservative, the only good card in your hand is proof that you actually have the record to SHOW that you are a fiscal conservative. In a debate, where you get 30 seconds to answer, spend less time on how bubbles are formed and more time on your incredible record. Your record is completely useless if you don't tell voters about it. Candidates like Bachmann and Romney would sell their souls for your fiscal record. Rub it in their faces.
3. Talk about the Tea Party. Was I the only one who didn't really hear any mention or praise of the Tea Party in the debate? This goes along with the last point. If no other candidate is coming out and adamantly claiming to be THE Tea Party candidate, and knowing that the Tea Party clearly wins elections, then I'd mention my strong relationship with the Tea Party if I were Ron Paul. I'd rub it in that I helped create the successful voting block that was able to make a certain son go from eye surgeon to US Senator. Also, along the last point, Ron Paul can claim some credit as a Tea Party founder. If you had Tea Party rallies in 2007, before they were popular, then let the voters know! Again, Romney would LOVE to be a father, godfather, or whatever of the Tea Party. The biggest Tea Party challenge will be with Bachmann, who somehow thinks she is the Tea Party God. Explain how she created her Tea Party Caucus AFTER the Tea Parties became cool and that you Tea Partied YEARS BEFORE they were cool. Bachmann isn't the Tea Party candidate. You are. Act like it!
4. Speak like a presidential candidate. Can anyone name the last US President who simply talked like Ron Paul in a debate? Not me. Obama, W, Clinton, HW, Reagan... all of them talked slower and clearer than Ron Paul. People like 'great communicators,' so there is NO reason Dr. Paul can't work on his delivery. ESPECIALLY since this doesn't require compromising on the issues at all. Practice. Practice. Practice. Prepare a go-to answer for any topic. Don't feel forced to explain the entire Austrian theory in 30 seconds. Save the long answers for when you have 1-2 minutes to answer. For 30 second responses, have ready short and sweet answers. This is just so ridiculous to ignore, and for a number of reasons. When you talk fast and jumble words you come off as NOT SERIOUS because you couldn't take the time to be clear to voters. Voters know these debates are critical to winning the nomination so you bet they're going to be turned off if you appear to suggest that the debates aren't worth your time to prepare. Another way to see the importance of this point: No other candidate misspoke like Dr. Paul. There's a good reason for that. I'm not suggesting Dr. Paul needs to take off 3 weeks to prepare for each debate. Hell, I think he doesn't need more than 15 minutes to prepare for a debate. All I'm really suggesting is to be logical. Is talking fast and jumbling words a good thing? No? Then work on it before the debate.
5. Show that you are a serious candidate. Step 1: Find out WHY people don't view you as a serious candidate in the first place. Do they not know you're doing a great job raising money? Do they not know of your big endorsements and campaign staffers? Do they not think you're putting in the time necessary to become President? Make it clear during the debate that you're a real candidate. To do this, just drop in every now and then examples of how you are a real candidate. For example: "...I know I'm on the right side of the issue of health care because a couple weeks ago our campaign was able to raise over $1 mil on a single day attacking the health mandate, specifically the one passed in Massachusetts..." Or: "I think I understand New Hampshire voters better than the other candidates because I've visited voters here in NH more than any other candidate..."
6. This is similar to #4. Start with the facts: You are the old guy. You do and will talk about issues people have never heard of or considered. Thus, odds are, you WILL come off to a significant number of people as the cranky old conspiracy guy. Therefore you must shape answers to be as un-cranky as possible. You must take advantage of being the old grandfather. The old grandfather is supposed to be wise, experienced, confident, logical, and VERY moral. You need to make the other candidates wish they were you. This means no fast talking, no word jumbling, and no ranting about a topic (for example the Fed) for every economy question. Some examples of how to appear as the kick ass grandfather: "... I have X grandchildren and X great-grandchildren. I'm so concerned about our debt... there is no way I can let this debt ruin their lives. For my family, I cannot fail. For all our families, I cannot fail. We need to get our fiscal house in order immediately!" Also, stories are always good. Maybe you have an example where you can say "I was gardening with some of my grandkids the other day, and the youngest asked me 'Grandpa, why is the debt so important?'" Let me be clear, I'm NOT saying to make stuff up. I'm just saying these are examples of how to take advantage of the grandfather image.
7. Make some simple yet powerful policy proposals. The other candidates did not have ANY policy ideas. All they said was that Obama sucks and to cut taxes and spending. Think up of some thought provoking ideas and suggest them. Think about the 'suspend the income tax for 3 years' and 'nothing but a 10% income tax for no benefits' ideas except better. You don't need to sit down and propose your own budget, but when the other candidates offer no specific ideas, you MUST show the audience that you have conservative and constitutional ideas. Get people thinking. Another example: a constitutional amendment that says for every year there is a budget deficit, Congress, the President, and their staffs don't get paid.
8. "Constitution" is the Tea Party key word. It was RARELY used during the debate, even by Dr. Paul. Try to incorporate it into every answer. If you say it enough, people might associate you as 'the constitution guy.' In 2012, I think that might be a good thing. Dr. Paul had the chance regarding Libya to say how unconstitutional it is. He didn't. Every candidate said, using Mr. Mackey's voice from South Park, "Don't support Obamacare. Obamacare's bad. Don't support the mandate. The mandate's bad." Nobody came out and explained WHY it's bad, especially constitutionally. Incorporate the Constitution in your answers and you'll be golden.
So to summarize what I'd coach Dr. Paul to do for future debates:
-Attack
-Stand out
-Be the Tea Party candidate
-Speak calmer, slower, and clearer
-Make it clear to doubters that you are a dead serious candidate
-Do your best at being the wise grandfather
-Propose your own thought-provoking solutions
-Indicate in your responses that you are the champion of the Constitution.
Do these things and you can win hearts and voters without compromising on your issues and principles at all.
Let me clarify the assumptions I'm working with here to hopefully prevent some angry responses:
-Ron Paul wants to win.
-Ron Paul's debate responses now need to cater to typical GOP voters and not his hardcore supporters.
-Again, as a Ron Paul supporter, I thought he did great. But non-supporters, the people he needs to win, may have thought otherwise.
-The MSM highly influences typical voters and thus Dr. Paul needs to work on impressing the MSM.
-Ron Paul is capable of impressing the MSM without changing his message
-These minor coaching suggestions can actually work and win votes.
-I know Ron Paul won't do some of these suggestions, and that's fine. There are some very good arguments in favor of an educational campaign over a competitive campaign. The purpose of this post isn't to dis Ron Paul. The purpose of this post is simply to point out some minor changes that I think can do wonderful things all without compromising on any issues or principles.
Thoughts?
What annoys me, especially after watching some MSM "analysis," is that there is no freaking reason Ron can't make some minor changes which could turn his answers from 'pretty darn good' to 'mind-blowingly good.'
Looking over the many MSM responses to the debate, it seems the following can be concluded regarding the MSM and typical voters:
1. The MSM wanted to see some blood. They didn't want to see all the candidates getting along. For example, many were oh so disappointed that Pawlenty didn't attack Romney over Romneycare.
2. Nobody significantly stood out. I love how ironic this is. Everyone sounded like Ron Paul! They all talked about stuff like low taxes and low spending, no Obamacare, and no troops in Libya. Wow.
3. Nobody mentioned the Tea Party. In other words, could a political novice watching the debate tell which of the 7 candidates represents the Tea Party? In my opinion, I don't think so.
4. People like clarity. Ron Paul stood out in one way, he spoke too fast and jumbled words.
5. Ron Paul still isn't seen as a serious candidate.
6. Ron Paul comes off "negatively" to too many people. In other words, you get the feeling that a significant number of voters, rather than saying "oh wow look at Ron Paul, so grandfatherly, wise, and endearing," say "oh great here's crazy uncle Ron Paul about to rant about something"
7. Everyone is attacking Obama rather than proposing solutions.
8. Nobody talked about the Constitution.
With these conclusions, I would coach Dr. Paul to do the following:
1. Attack.
The media wants to see some action and not get bored to death. Obviously you'd want to attack appropriately, so if you're asked a question about Obamacare, make sure to mention Romneycare signed by Mandate Mitt. Make it clear Romney signed a smaller version of Obamacare. Make it clear he supported the individual mandate as governor of Massachusetts. Also, when appropriate talk about Cap and Tim Pawlenty. These are the media-picked GOP candidates so attack their liberal records. This doesn't have to be in-depth and harsh. Just as Ron Paul clarified "I'm the commander and chief..." he could say something like "I didn't sign a health mandate as governor..." So, you don't need an entire response to attack. A strong one-liner at the end of the response will suffice.
2. If all the candidates are moving more in your direction, then you don't stand out as much anymore. Viewers didn't see 6 fiscal moderates and 1 fiscal conservative. They saw 7 fiscal conservatives. The similarity of the candidates can be seen especially regarding Bachmann. To someone who doesn't know the candidates, how is Ron Paul any different than Bachmann? The Federal Res..omething? If everyone on the stage is a perceived fiscal conservative, the only good card in your hand is proof that you actually have the record to SHOW that you are a fiscal conservative. In a debate, where you get 30 seconds to answer, spend less time on how bubbles are formed and more time on your incredible record. Your record is completely useless if you don't tell voters about it. Candidates like Bachmann and Romney would sell their souls for your fiscal record. Rub it in their faces.
3. Talk about the Tea Party. Was I the only one who didn't really hear any mention or praise of the Tea Party in the debate? This goes along with the last point. If no other candidate is coming out and adamantly claiming to be THE Tea Party candidate, and knowing that the Tea Party clearly wins elections, then I'd mention my strong relationship with the Tea Party if I were Ron Paul. I'd rub it in that I helped create the successful voting block that was able to make a certain son go from eye surgeon to US Senator. Also, along the last point, Ron Paul can claim some credit as a Tea Party founder. If you had Tea Party rallies in 2007, before they were popular, then let the voters know! Again, Romney would LOVE to be a father, godfather, or whatever of the Tea Party. The biggest Tea Party challenge will be with Bachmann, who somehow thinks she is the Tea Party God. Explain how she created her Tea Party Caucus AFTER the Tea Parties became cool and that you Tea Partied YEARS BEFORE they were cool. Bachmann isn't the Tea Party candidate. You are. Act like it!
4. Speak like a presidential candidate. Can anyone name the last US President who simply talked like Ron Paul in a debate? Not me. Obama, W, Clinton, HW, Reagan... all of them talked slower and clearer than Ron Paul. People like 'great communicators,' so there is NO reason Dr. Paul can't work on his delivery. ESPECIALLY since this doesn't require compromising on the issues at all. Practice. Practice. Practice. Prepare a go-to answer for any topic. Don't feel forced to explain the entire Austrian theory in 30 seconds. Save the long answers for when you have 1-2 minutes to answer. For 30 second responses, have ready short and sweet answers. This is just so ridiculous to ignore, and for a number of reasons. When you talk fast and jumble words you come off as NOT SERIOUS because you couldn't take the time to be clear to voters. Voters know these debates are critical to winning the nomination so you bet they're going to be turned off if you appear to suggest that the debates aren't worth your time to prepare. Another way to see the importance of this point: No other candidate misspoke like Dr. Paul. There's a good reason for that. I'm not suggesting Dr. Paul needs to take off 3 weeks to prepare for each debate. Hell, I think he doesn't need more than 15 minutes to prepare for a debate. All I'm really suggesting is to be logical. Is talking fast and jumbling words a good thing? No? Then work on it before the debate.
5. Show that you are a serious candidate. Step 1: Find out WHY people don't view you as a serious candidate in the first place. Do they not know you're doing a great job raising money? Do they not know of your big endorsements and campaign staffers? Do they not think you're putting in the time necessary to become President? Make it clear during the debate that you're a real candidate. To do this, just drop in every now and then examples of how you are a real candidate. For example: "...I know I'm on the right side of the issue of health care because a couple weeks ago our campaign was able to raise over $1 mil on a single day attacking the health mandate, specifically the one passed in Massachusetts..." Or: "I think I understand New Hampshire voters better than the other candidates because I've visited voters here in NH more than any other candidate..."
6. This is similar to #4. Start with the facts: You are the old guy. You do and will talk about issues people have never heard of or considered. Thus, odds are, you WILL come off to a significant number of people as the cranky old conspiracy guy. Therefore you must shape answers to be as un-cranky as possible. You must take advantage of being the old grandfather. The old grandfather is supposed to be wise, experienced, confident, logical, and VERY moral. You need to make the other candidates wish they were you. This means no fast talking, no word jumbling, and no ranting about a topic (for example the Fed) for every economy question. Some examples of how to appear as the kick ass grandfather: "... I have X grandchildren and X great-grandchildren. I'm so concerned about our debt... there is no way I can let this debt ruin their lives. For my family, I cannot fail. For all our families, I cannot fail. We need to get our fiscal house in order immediately!" Also, stories are always good. Maybe you have an example where you can say "I was gardening with some of my grandkids the other day, and the youngest asked me 'Grandpa, why is the debt so important?'" Let me be clear, I'm NOT saying to make stuff up. I'm just saying these are examples of how to take advantage of the grandfather image.
7. Make some simple yet powerful policy proposals. The other candidates did not have ANY policy ideas. All they said was that Obama sucks and to cut taxes and spending. Think up of some thought provoking ideas and suggest them. Think about the 'suspend the income tax for 3 years' and 'nothing but a 10% income tax for no benefits' ideas except better. You don't need to sit down and propose your own budget, but when the other candidates offer no specific ideas, you MUST show the audience that you have conservative and constitutional ideas. Get people thinking. Another example: a constitutional amendment that says for every year there is a budget deficit, Congress, the President, and their staffs don't get paid.
8. "Constitution" is the Tea Party key word. It was RARELY used during the debate, even by Dr. Paul. Try to incorporate it into every answer. If you say it enough, people might associate you as 'the constitution guy.' In 2012, I think that might be a good thing. Dr. Paul had the chance regarding Libya to say how unconstitutional it is. He didn't. Every candidate said, using Mr. Mackey's voice from South Park, "Don't support Obamacare. Obamacare's bad. Don't support the mandate. The mandate's bad." Nobody came out and explained WHY it's bad, especially constitutionally. Incorporate the Constitution in your answers and you'll be golden.
So to summarize what I'd coach Dr. Paul to do for future debates:
-Attack
-Stand out
-Be the Tea Party candidate
-Speak calmer, slower, and clearer
-Make it clear to doubters that you are a dead serious candidate
-Do your best at being the wise grandfather
-Propose your own thought-provoking solutions
-Indicate in your responses that you are the champion of the Constitution.
Do these things and you can win hearts and voters without compromising on your issues and principles at all.
Let me clarify the assumptions I'm working with here to hopefully prevent some angry responses:
-Ron Paul wants to win.
-Ron Paul's debate responses now need to cater to typical GOP voters and not his hardcore supporters.
-Again, as a Ron Paul supporter, I thought he did great. But non-supporters, the people he needs to win, may have thought otherwise.
-The MSM highly influences typical voters and thus Dr. Paul needs to work on impressing the MSM.
-Ron Paul is capable of impressing the MSM without changing his message
-These minor coaching suggestions can actually work and win votes.
-I know Ron Paul won't do some of these suggestions, and that's fine. There are some very good arguments in favor of an educational campaign over a competitive campaign. The purpose of this post isn't to dis Ron Paul. The purpose of this post is simply to point out some minor changes that I think can do wonderful things all without compromising on any issues or principles.
Thoughts?