PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul losing his articulacy?




BRG253
08-12-2011, 07:22 AM
I hate to say it but I don't think Ron Paul has been doing very well in these things so far. He talks about "liberty" in an abstract way that means nothing to a person who isn't already acquainted with his ideas. In 2007, it was like the place would shake every time he opened his mouth, but he's not saying anything hard-hitting this time. I'm just not feeling the energy that he had four years ago. Anyone agree?

Original_Intent
08-12-2011, 07:27 AM
I thought he did well in the debates. I did get a little frustrated with him on Stossel afterwards - he made his initial point and then kind of meandered off into a long ramble. I know he likes to explain and educate, but I think he really connects better when he keeps his answers short and to the point. I do think he was a bit worn out by the time he got on Stossel, too.

KCIndy
08-12-2011, 07:44 AM
I'll admit there's one thing Ron Paul can't do well: parsing answers down to slick, standardized political platitudes that fit the twenty second attention span of the average American voter.

Personally, I think this is to his credit.

Unfortunately, it DOES make it difficult for him to snare the vote of the typical couch potato.

johnrocks
08-12-2011, 07:52 AM
I love RP but he's not the one who energizes me, his message energizes me.

A person is going to accept freedom,free markets,non intervention, etc. or they aren't,imho.

Porky Pig could say what he says and energize me whereas Aristotle could be on that stage talking like Newt,Bachmann or the others and lose me at the first mention of Iran or Federal marriage laws.

acptulsa
08-12-2011, 09:01 AM
Gee, I thought we were running 'sound bites for Ron Paul' threads here four years ago trying to get him to use shorter, sharper answers. And I thought he was in fact getting better with Doug Wead on the team.

I also have to applaud him for not 'Doing the Dubya' and inventing words that don't exist and don't mean anything. How's that for 'articulacy'?

Jace
08-12-2011, 09:13 AM
..

Jandrsn21
08-12-2011, 09:17 AM
I think he just has stage fright! I see tv clips and he always aticulates his points very well, even if the interviewer hits him with a screwball. Also seeing clips of his rallies and campaign stops he always talks clear and concise.

Elwar
08-12-2011, 09:23 AM
Hearing it for the first time is usually more powerful than hearing him say it for the 50th time.

But we are not his audience. Those that heard his message for the first time are feeling the same way you did in 2007.

dannno
08-12-2011, 09:29 AM
I just watched the Ron vs. Pawlenty clip about Iran. Ron was awesome.

Ya not sure why the OP feels the way they do.

PineGroveDave
08-12-2011, 09:33 AM
I just watched the Ron vs. Pawlenty clip about Iran. Ron was awesome.

wasn't that Santorum?

ord33
08-12-2011, 09:40 AM
I love RP but he's not the one who energizes me, his message energizes me.

A person is going to accept freedom,free markets,non intervention, etc. or they aren't,imho.

Porky Pig could say what he says and energize me whereas Aristotle could be on that stage talking like Newt,Bachmann or the others and lose me at the first mention of Iran or Federal marriage laws.

I agree somewhat, but you have to admit that Dr. Paul is the rare politician that has integrity and principles. To be honest, I was more connected to him at first through his integrity and principles (from a slim jim). I had to come around on his foreign policy and a few other views. I think it is a pretty rare circumstance to find someone with his principles in public office. Perhaps liberty candidates are more likely to be honest though, I don't know?!

smtwngrl
08-12-2011, 12:08 PM
I hate to say it but I don't think Ron Paul has been doing very well in these things so far. He talks about "liberty" in an abstract way that means nothing to a person who isn't already acquainted with his ideas. In 2007, it was like the place would shake every time he opened his mouth, but he's not saying anything hard-hitting this time. I'm just not feeling the energy that he had four years ago. Anyone agree?

Yes, there is a difference from 4 years ago.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no one like Ron Paul. It's not just his message, it is his consistency, his integrity, and his knowledge about economics, history, and the constitution. He is the one we need.

Yet, four years ago, every word was perfect. He could be asked a question, and there were no superfluous words, no rambling. That has changed some. I attribute it to the difference in his age.

Chowder
08-12-2011, 05:09 PM
I don't think it's his age, he's just really excited and he keeps thinking I got to win this! I got to win this! He's not in education mode anymore. He's fighting to win.

libertybrewcity
08-12-2011, 05:12 PM
watch Ron Paul in the debates again. I thought he was amazing.

anaconda
08-12-2011, 05:22 PM
He stammers over his words more than he did in 2007 but it's not a deal breaker. Wead should coach him to slow down so that he gets that half split second longer to think before talking. Ron's brain is armed with zillions of solid off the cuff talking points. He just needs to slow down. He's 76 for gosh sakes.

hard@work
08-12-2011, 05:38 PM
The dude has always stuttered. Make it endearing to yourself and others.

economics102
08-12-2011, 06:15 PM
First of all Ron has had some great moments in the recent debates. The line about heroin. The "I'm the commander in chief, I tell the generals what to do"...I think if you were to boil Ron Paul down the distinction in part is that, in the debates, he's very bold and eloquent on foreign policy, and often very jumbled on economics. I can only speak for myself but, being a former liberal Democrat, in 2007 I was, if I'm recalling correctly, initially drawn to Paul's debate answers on foreign policy, and then I watched things like the Google interview, where he had time to flush out his economic arguments in detail, and one issue at a time Ron convinced me that he's basically right on everything. :)

Certainly age plays a role. But I think there's more at play here.

Ron definitely appears more nervous at the the debates this time around than last time. But I think there's good reason for that -- he had nothing to lose last time. Last time he had no serious expectation of winning. This time, he knows it could really happen, and he's surrounded by a team of people who are there because they believe he can win. I know most of us here feel strongly that the fate of the United States hinges on Dr. Paul's election, and I'm sure Dr. Paul views it similarly. So I can't even begin to imagine the kind of pressure he feels this time around -- this is truly a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders now. I can't imagine what it's like to be Ron Paul, the man that millions of people have placed their faith in to carry out this unique mission to save the country.

Also as others said we're so far removed from how a regular voter perceives him that we're forlorn. Ron Paul appealed to us with intellectual arguments. Having already accepted those arguments and heard Ron repeat them on hundreds of TV interviews and debates, we have nothing to judge him now on but style and in comparison to previous articulations.

Canderson
08-12-2011, 06:20 PM
we've only had two debates and everyones saying "wheres Pauls great lines?", well he didnt have one every debate in 07 and 08, remember there were TONS of debates and he was able to make a few great lines, hell get one next month, dont worry.

Tinnuhana
08-12-2011, 07:01 PM
If people just have seen the distilled debate lines on YouTube, out of some context, they wouldn't know that he did some rambling back then, too.

economics102
08-12-2011, 07:01 PM
we've only had two debates and everyones saying "wheres Pauls great lines?", well he didnt have one every debate in 07 and 08, remember there were TONS of debates and he was able to make a few great lines, hell get one next month, dont worry.

Also, he's HAD some great lines already. I think the atmosphere is just different this time, because the focus in 2008 was on foreign policy, and there was some incredible drama to seeing 10 puppets effuse support for militarism and one guy stand against it. And this was in succession to a president of their own party, so the backdrop was "we've gotta CONTINUE Bush's warmongering!" This time the attention is mainly on the economy, an issue where it's more difficult to stand out because he's being flanked by others who sound similar, and they're also being overshadowed by a common enemy (Obama) who they all rhetorically contrast against.

Also as I said earlier, I think Ron Paul, especially in debate mode, is 1000x more impresive when talking about foreign policy than about the economy, so the fact that foreign policy is a distant second in focus to the economy this time around doesn't play in Ron's favor.

I think a great line for Ron Paul to use would be to say "I keep hearing that any of the candidates on stage would be better than Obama, but I doubt that's really true. Was BUSH any better than Obama? Are the policies PRACTICED by any of these candidates who have legislative experience any better than Obama's? All I see around me is status quo and more status quo, and yet more status quo in the White House."

Theocrat
08-12-2011, 07:14 PM
I hate to say it but I don't think Ron Paul has been doing very well in these things so far. He talks about "liberty" in an abstract way that means nothing to a person who isn't already acquainted with his ideas. In 2007, it was like the place would shake every time he opened his mouth, but he's not saying anything hard-hitting this time. I'm just not feeling the energy that he had four years ago. Anyone agree?

You know, as I was watching the debate, I didn't like Ron using the words "militarism" and "corporatism." Even though his supporters understand those terms, I don't think the general public really does. I see it as another reason why Ron needs to "water down" his answers, unfortunately.

economics102
08-12-2011, 07:18 PM
You know, as I was watching the debate, I didn't like Ron using the words "militarism" and "corporatism." Even though his supporters understand those terms, I don't think the general public really does. I see it as another reason why Ron needs to "water down" his answers, unfortunately.

I think militarism is OK but corporatism maybe not.

I also agree with Tom Woods' comment about how terms like "business cycle" are lost on 99.9999% of Americans.

acptulsa
08-12-2011, 07:20 PM
Oh, I think he's doing fine with his economic talk. Especially when he says things like, 'Who else on this stage predicted this mess?' And obviously Faux does too, or they would actually ask him questions on the subject in a debate.

Agorism
08-12-2011, 07:29 PM
Paul wakes up early in the morning like 6 AM.

When making rounds all day, voting, flying around, I can see why he could lose his edge when he is still doing interviews at 10 and 11 at night, but from what I saw he still did well in the debates. idk about Stossel show though as I didn't see it.

AJ187
08-12-2011, 07:29 PM
I think militarism is OK but corporatism maybe not.

I also agree with Tom Woods' comment about how terms like "business cycle" are lost on 99.9999% of Americans.


Who knows, it might compel them to look it up. You know how many people watch tv with a laptop in the same room?

Theocrat
08-12-2011, 07:32 PM
I think militarism is OK but corporatism maybe not.

I also agree with Tom Woods' comment about how terms like "business cycle" are lost on 99.9999% of Americans.

Thank you for mentioning "business cycle" because that was another term Ron used which I thought he lost most of the audience on. Now, if the debate was on FOX Business News, then Ron might have a better audience to receive those points.

economics102
08-12-2011, 08:26 PM
Who knows, it might compel them to look it up. You know how many people watch tv with a laptop in the same room?

I agree with you on some things, but not on terms like "business cycle" because it sounds so generic that people won't even realize he's talking about something specific and technical.

AJ187
08-12-2011, 08:45 PM
I agree with you on some things, but not on terms like "business cycle" because it sounds so generic that people won't even realize he's talking about something specific and technical.

I agree, that term needs to be better explained.

bolidew
08-12-2011, 09:15 PM
He looked at notes once during closing remarks......

It's hard to become a POTUS, so yeah he still needs to do better.

bpitas
08-12-2011, 09:22 PM
Three things I noticed:

1) He uses the contraction "but" in too many places when he gets tired. I'm talking about in places where maybe he could use the conjunction "and" or "so", or something less negative than "but". (Conjunction junction, what's your function?) This is something a good speech coach should be able to help him fix, although as someone else above said - if he just slowed down a bit I think it would be fine. Listen to his answers during the debate - it's almost like he strings thoughts together using the word "but" to fill the dead space, but after a while it gets very noticable.

2) Unfortunately I agree that he has to water things down a bit. Everyone on this forum is very familiar with his positions, so when he rambles a bit we know what he was going to say anyway, even if he leaves a few key words out of the sentence. But if you're new to Dr. Paul's talking points, it's probably pretty hard to follow sometimes - especially when he's on stage in a debate with a hard limit on how long he has to get his point out. He brings up much more complex topics than the other candidates, and sorta breezes over the details that might help someone understand what he's talking about if they don't already have the background. For example, he says "sound currency" and "the fed just prints money" all the time, but I'll bet 3/4s of the people in the audience have absolutely no idea what that means. So, he should slow things down. As an example, there was one portion of the debate where Newt had some answer about what he did to pass legislation through a democratic congress. I noticed that Newt spoke surprisingly (almost uncomfortably) slowly and was VERY articulate. It was almost like he wanted to give the audience time to digest what he was saying one word one at a time instead of one sentence at a time. I thought it actually worked for him, because the uncomfortable slowness had me riveted like a train wreck - I couldn't not listen. Then again I was also very surprised that he didn't get one single clap in the audience, so maybe it was just me. :-)

3) The times that Dr. Paul really moves and energizes ME is when he smiles and looks positive HIMSELF. He's definitely getting on in the years, and one thing I noticed especially in this debate is that he looks... I don't know... maybe ANGRY alot of the time he's on stage. I have to admit I kinda think of him as "the Grandfather who's going to save the country" (and I'm 41, so not some young kid!) and let's face it - he'd win over more people if he didn't look so crotchety sometimes. Of course I can't blame him - it must be REALLY frustrating to stay up all day, then get on stage and listen to all the other idiot politicians parrot back the same talking points that Ron had in 2008 and everyone said were crazy. The really painful part is that when used-car-salesmen Romney makes the same points as Ron Paul, it sounds smoother alot of the time, and if you don't know that it's something Dr. Paul was saying 20 years ago, you'd think Mittens actually came up with it himself...

falconplayer11
08-13-2011, 09:57 PM
Are you guys kidding!?! Yeah, Ron isn't the best speaker. But compared to 2008, what we saw at the debate on Thursday was a miracle. He was FAR more articulate in this debate than any other previous one in the simple fact that he spoke in complete sentences and finished his thoughts before moving on to the next. Yes, there is some work to do. But he has only gotten better. And I think we all have one Doug Wead to thank for that.

Offer suggestions on how he can improve. But recognize that huge progress has been made.

trey4sports
08-13-2011, 10:00 PM
I thought he did a tremendous job at the caucus. He slowed things down and was very deliberate

ForLibertyFight
08-15-2011, 06:10 AM
I love Ron Paul but to be completely honest, he is not the most articulate speaker.

I believe he needs a debate coach. (Tom Woods)

Erentheca
08-15-2011, 06:33 AM
I think Dr. Paul has definitely maintained his articulacy, but it's in delivery that people sometimes get distracted. I understand he is trying to encapsulate and explain a great many ideas, and if this was an hour long, one on one conversation, his gentle explanatory style would definitely be more appreciated by the general public. In my analysis, the problem any debater faces in delivery is two fold:

1) Compressing information into the time slot allotted.
2) Make sure your points are clear and understood.

Now I have been watching a lot of clips with Nigel Farage recently, and if anyone is unfamiliar with him, he is the Leader of the UK Independence party, and an outspoken opponent of the monetary and anti-democratic policies of the EU as a member of the European Parliament. He is also a self-described Libertarian.

I mention Nigel Farage because he is also a statesman who tries to explain and educate when he speaks. His delivery method is fast, but compressed into bursts, with brief and regular pauses. This gives the listener a moment to process the information, while still assimilating a lot of information. Often, of course, he is quoted in regards to speeches he has already prepared, so the real trick is to incorporate this quick delivery style into an active debate where numerous questions and rebuttals can make this difficult.

It's definitely a challenge, as Ron Paul is one of the few who actually tries to educate with his answers, and he must know right now he has so much riding on him, so I can't blame him for expressing, at least indirectly, the effect of that pressure.

BillBraske
08-19-2011, 09:32 AM
we've only had two debates and everyones saying "wheres Pauls great lines?", well he didnt have one every debate in 07 and 08, remember there were TONS of debates and he was able to make a few great lines, hell get one next month, dont worry.

I think he's had some great lines.

Most recently, I loved his line to Santorum, "I'm sure you voted for that war, too". All while both were on split screen and it very clearly showed Santorum proudly acknowledging his vote on Iraq. It was a perfect contrast of war v. peace candidates. Peace resonates with everyday Americans and we happen to be the only camp actively promoting peace.

I agree when put on the spot on stage he has looked a bit freightened. Once that wears off and the truth injects itself into the arguments everything is absolutely fine.

kylejack
08-19-2011, 09:36 AM
He's best when he's confronted. We need more confrontations.

Erentheca
08-20-2011, 03:14 AM
He's best when he's confronted. We need more confrontations.

True that. Ron Paul is never a guy anyone wants to try and back into a corner. I especially savor those moments when one of the other candidates actually get fired up and passionate against him, and Ron Paul just smiles, and takes the poor guy back to foreign policy 101.

Feeding the Abscess
08-20-2011, 09:31 AM
Are you guys kidding!?! Yeah, Ron isn't the best speaker. But compared to 2008, what we saw at the debate on Thursday was a miracle. He was FAR more articulate in this debate than any other previous one in the simple fact that he spoke in complete sentences and finished his thoughts before moving on to the next. Yes, there is some work to do. But he has only gotten better. And I think we all have one Doug Wead to thank for that.

Offer suggestions on how he can improve. But recognize that huge progress has been made.

Wead isn't prepping Ron for debate. He said so himself.

wanda
08-30-2011, 07:00 PM
well said.

bb_dg
08-30-2011, 07:06 PM
I think that when the candidates are able to argue with each other (we got a taste of it with Paul vs Santorum), that's when Ron Paul shines. I think it will be happening upcoming debates.

TheSecretBillionaire
08-30-2011, 07:44 PM
I think that when the candidates are able to argue with each other (we got a taste of it with Paul vs Santorum), that's when Ron Paul shines.

Ron shines in the debates when its an actual debate... 1 on 1 on a specific topic.

When the questions are very open ended it seems as though he tries to stuff too much information into each answer.
Supporters can follow his answers because we are used to his manner of speech and his allusions very specific historical facts, but it is too difficult for the average American to follow. They are like "lol wut?"

Jingles
08-30-2011, 08:17 PM
I think its better that he uses terms that people don't always understand or know 100 percent completely. Everyone else gives basic talking point answers, but he gives answers of substance. Regardless if people understand what he is saying they will know that he knows what the hell he is talking about. That's why they try to play it off as "he is a kook" because he is so damn intelligent. I don't know anyone that wants to vote for someone that seems unintelligent or unsure.

Bruno
08-30-2011, 08:28 PM
Watch his summer picnic speech in Des Moines and you will know that he isn't.

civusamericanus
08-30-2011, 08:46 PM
Ron Paul is not a soundbite, his answers require thought, not some rah rah cheerleader.

http://salon.glenrose.net/images/cheerleaderperry.png

Tim Calhoun
09-03-2011, 04:34 PM
Eventually senility will creep up on Ron Paul, but he's fine for now.

He has always had the problem of talking in run-on sentences.

libertybrewcity
09-03-2011, 06:02 PM
There are like 40 debates, and I think it's almost a proven fact that the average American's political memory is about 3 minutes of less (compared to nearly 3 lifetimes for NFL games and celebrity weddings and births). So, I think we are fine if Ron has a one or two mess-ups.

Griffith
10-09-2011, 10:26 PM
I hate to say it but I agree. I think his age has dampened his mental acuity just a bit. But I have no doubt that he should press on.

Sola_Fide
10-09-2011, 10:29 PM
I hate to say it but I agree. I think his age has dampened his mental acuity just a bit. But I have no doubt that he should press on.

Ron is stepping up his game. Watch the Values Voters Speech. It was powerful and near perfect.

osan
10-18-2011, 10:18 PM
I hate to say it but I don't think Ron Paul has been doing very well in these things so far. He talks about "liberty" in an abstract way that means nothing to a person who isn't already acquainted with his ideas. In 2007, it was like the place would shake every time he opened his mouth, but he's not saying anything hard-hitting this time. I'm just not feeling the energy that he had four years ago. Anyone agree?

Ron just isn't slick.

He is solid. He is solid in his positions and opinions and facts. He is solid in his integrity. He is solid in his actions. He is solid in his trustworthiness.

He just is not slick.

Know why? It takes a lot of practice to be slick like Romney. Lots of hours in front of the mirror. I think Ron has had far better, more important, and worthier things to do. Leave slick to Romney and his ilk. If, given everything this nation has gone through since the Clinton era and culminating with the neocons and Obama socio-fascists, the people still fall for slick in '12, I will have to conclude that we are likely lost beyond return and nothing that comes thereafter is going to make too much difference. But otherwise, if we as a nation have bought enough of a clue through all these political lessons of the past 20 years, slick isn't going to cut the mustard anymore. All we can do is our best. That is all Ron can do. His lack of slick says everything good about the man.

Do not concern yourself with style nearly so much as substance. RP has the substance in great abundance. He is doing great.

PierzStyx
10-19-2011, 12:06 AM
wasn't that Santorum?

Frothy was about Gitmo. When Frothy called them terrorists Paul educated him about what in means to be innocent until PROVEN guilty by a COURT OF LAW and a JURY OF YOUR PEERS. That moment, I thought, was gorgeous.

NTindall
10-20-2011, 09:33 AM
Agree 100%, johnrocks. I was disheartened by this recent debate and it reinforced why I haven't watched the others, because it becomes about the INDIVIDUAL, not the ideas. And Ron Paul is all about the IDEAS. They are greater and more persevering than any mortal man.

CaptainAmerica
10-20-2011, 09:37 AM
His only problem is that he NEEDS TO USE PROPER NOUNS when speaking about "empires" and about specific historical figures and events and nations. PROPER NOUNS! when he mentioned "an empire that fought in afghanistan and collapsed" HE SHOULD HAVE SAID "THE SOVIET UNION"......but he didnt!

ctiger2
10-20-2011, 10:10 AM
In 2007, it was like the place would shake every time he opened his mouth, but he's not saying anything hard-hitting this time.

So, you've just discovered what it's like when everyone on stage steals Ron's positions? Of course the thunder will be diminished.

centure7
10-20-2011, 10:21 AM
Ron Paul was clearly too nervous during his previous debate. I'm not sure why but he was more nervous than usual and his speaking was jumbled up a couple times as a result. You'd think he'd become more comfortable over time. What may be happening now is that people are actually paying big attention to him now more than before, and Ron Paul realized that and became nervous.

When he starts stumbling on his words he just needs to slow down and state something plainly, simply, and slowly. He gets worked up in nervous excitement on occasion and will become nearly incoherent. When he isn't too nervous on the other hand, he answers questions spectacularly. There were times in the debate where he did not appear nervous and those answers were totally solid.

I'm sure that nervousness will subside as he gets used to being in the center of the spotlight, compared to before when they put them on the edge of the stage vs. now when we are basically attempting to force the media to give him his fair time.

freeforall
10-20-2011, 10:39 AM
I'll admit there's one thing Ron Paul can't do well: parsing answers down to slick, standardized political platitudes that fit the twenty second attention span of the average American voter.

Personally, I think this is to his credit.

Unfortunately, it DOES make it difficult for him to snare the vote of the typical couch potato.

I think it is up to us to help others see why this is such an endearing quality. For me, I feel that he is trustworthy because he speaks what is on his mind rather than listening for cues to give prepared answers. I have no doubts as to how he will make decisions as a president.