Winning is NOTHING if we start Compromising/Weakening the Message

[Chainspell]

Lately from the reactions I've been reading, people seem to be critical of Ron Paul's answers on the debates. Some reactions have been:

"he should tone down his foreign policy"
"I lost 2 votes because of what Ron Paul said..."
"he should say the government's foreign policy is okay"
"he needs to do better and prepare for the debates" <-- whoever said this f**k you by the way

Ron Paul would be ashamed of you all.

Granted we all want to win, but are we just in this to win it, or do we want REAL CHANGE? People in America are starting to wake up, and this is because of Ron Paul. It's because he tells the truth, he doesn't back down and he doesn't care if it's hard to swallow. He knows he needs to say it and so he does. He has been doing this ALONE for so long... Who the fuck are we to tell him that he needs to do better?? and that he needs to dumb down what he's saying??

I want REAL CHANGE because we all know even if we win this and the American people haven't changed then what's the point?

[Carole]

^
This :)

[angelatc]

I could give a rat's ass about "The Message." This isn't a freaking cult, it's a political movement. The only change I want is to win instead of losing.

Paul's been doing an educational campaign for how many years now? And we still have gained absolutely no ground as far as foreign policy goes. Spending is astronomical. The Fed isn't being audited.

[LibertyEagle]

I could give a rat's ass about "The Message." This isn't a freaking cult, it's a political movement. The inly change I want is to win instead of losing.

I agree.

We are in this to win it, or so we were told. He can further work to educate the American public with his bully pulpit, AFTER he has won.

By the way, Chainspell, I haven't seen anyone wanting him to change his message. What I have seen are people wanting him to convey it coherently, so that likely voting Republicans understand his positions.

[zHorns]

I could give a rat's ass about "The Message." This isn't a freaking cult, it's a political movement. The inly change I want is to win instead of losing.

^ This :)

[Sola_Fide]

I float between both of these viewpoints....sometimes even on the same day.

[PaulConventionWV]

Lately from the reactions I've been reading, people seem to be critical of Ron Paul's answers on the debates. Some reactions have been:

"he should tone down his foreign policy"
"I lost 2 votes because of what Ron Paul said..."
"he should say the government's foreign policy is okay"
"he needs to do better and prepare for the debates" <-- whoever said this f**k you by the way

Ron Paul would be ashamed of you all.

Granted we all want to win, but are we just in this to win it, or do we want REAL CHANGE? People in America are starting to wake up, and this is because of Ron Paul. It's because he tells the truth, he doesn't back down and he doesn't care if it's hard to swallow. He knows he needs to say it and so he does. He has been doing this ALONE for so long... Who the fuck are we to tell him that he needs to do better?? and that he needs to dumb down what he's saying??

I want REAL CHANGE because we all know even if we win this and the American people haven't changed then what's the point?

Why would he say any of those things about foreign policy when the majority of Americans already agree with him on it?

[LibertyEsq]

He needs to do better and dumb down what he's saying.

You know what pisses me off? People who would give up an Obama v. Paul general election just to have Paul say exactly what they want him to say on foreign policy exactly how they want him to say it rather than try to win the primary

by the way, "The point" is that Ron would have both the power of veto and be the Commander in Chief of armed forces. So that's something.

[acptulsa]

I had a teacher years ago--of algebra, of all things--who criticized Carter for taking a poll every five minutes and basing his policies on those. He made the point that this is a republic, not a democracy, and we hire politicians to handle stuff for us for a reason.

Now after decades and decades of politicians promising this and delivering that, from Reagan's libertarianism that never quite happened to Obama's peace that still hasn't happened, I'm all about getting some people in Washington who are what they say they are. It would be a very nice change. But, yes, nothing good is actually going to happen until we win. And once we do, we no longer have to tell people what's right about our philosophy. They'll be able to live it.

So, I occupy a middle ground. I don't know what the happiest medium between forthrightness and just enough to get elected so we can do some real good is. I think Ron Paul is searching for this too. The problem with having yourself a revolution is you have to stray from the beaten path and onto uncharted ground.

But I feel strongly that we aren't selling anyone a bill of goods with nothing behind it. And so long as this is true, then we're the most refreshing new, cool breeze to blow into American politics in a very long time, and this will count for something in November.

[Brett85]

So not quoting directly from Osama Bin Laden would be "weakening the message?" How about if he just quoted from somebody like Michael Scheuer instead?

[erowe1]

Ron Paul would be ashamed of you all.

That's not true. Ron Paul is very familiar with the need to compromise in politics.

That said, I agree that it would be utterly counterproductive if he changed his foreign policy position just for GOP primary votes.

[Brett85]

That's not true. Ron Paul is very familiar with the need to compromise in politics.

That said, I agree that it would be utterly counterproductive if he changed his foreign policy position just for GOP primary votes.

He shouldn't change his foreign policy position. He should just explain it differently. During most of the debate he was focusing on the costs of our intervention overseas, and he received all cheers and no boos from the audience. On the last question, he gave an answer that came across as sounding "anti American," and that's why he was receiving boos. There's no need for Ron to even talk about the "blowback" issue when it's so easy to convince GOP primary voters that we need to bring our troops home in order to save money and shore up our defenses here at home.

[sabu140]

I want to take back America and win. There is no way around the fact that we must win more support. Look at Rand Paul they are almost exactly the same. You can use words that people will respond better to rather then turn them off while saying the same thing.

Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear

http://www.amazon.com/Words-That-Work-What-People/dp/1401302599/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1316007022&sr=8-2

[Chainspell]

I could give a rat's ass about "The Message." This isn't a freaking cult, it's a political movement. The only change I want is to win instead of losing.

Paul's been doing an educational campaign for how many years now? And we still have gained absolutely no ground as far as foreign policy goes. Spending is astronomical. The Fed isn't being audited.
That's the thing. You do it the way you want it. Let him do it the way he wants to. Is that fair?

[mtmedlin]

So let us uphold the true Libertarian Vision...let us be pure in all that we say and do...let us be the perfect beacon of the founders vision.... and sit at Denny's just like the rest of the Lbertarian party and get nothing done!
Ive been in this movement since the mid 80s, when I was only a child. I fought for the perfect message...now I fight for some change. Even is Ron Paul is elected he will NEVER get all of his message done. There are still three branches of government and he will only control one. So why not focus on what he CAN do and stop with the perfect message.
Ron Paul can audit the fed...he cannot get us back to the Gold standard without Congress.
He Should say, "that the troops can better guard Americas border, airports and sea ports from Home without risking harm to them" instead of "We walked in, well just walk out".

His message could and should be better. Politics is a game of seconds and RP talks in length. He must work on debate prep and get his message into more of a soundbite. It doesnt mean he believes in less or that were giving up on the movement but damnit I want change and if I can get 25% of Ron Paul NOW, then I will take it over getting 100% of Ron Paul NEVER.

[erowe1]

Paul's been doing an educational campaign for how many years now? And we still have gained absolutely no ground as far as foreign policy goes. Spending is astronomical. The Fed isn't being audited.

I only learned about him 4 years ago. I'm pretty sure that's true of most of us here. A lot of people who now strongly support him didn't notice him at all then. His educating has gained a lot of ground in a short amount of time. His views on foreign policy and the Fed are far more widely accepted in conservative circles than they were just 5 years ago, and that has a lot to do with his educational campaign. Part of why he's been so effective in educating is because he isn't shy about saying things he knows people consider outrageous. When all is said and done, Ron Paul's impact on American politics will be greater because of these kinds of statements than it will have been without them.

Will it mean that he'll turn off too many people to be able to win? Maybe. As it is, his chances of becoming president aren't great. But if he just blended in with the crowd, his chances of winning would be zero. He only has the support he has because he's a radical.

[Chainspell]

That's the thing. You do it the way you want it. Let him do it the way he wants to. Is that fair?
Oh if anyone wants to respond:

"well I'm not the one running for president"

bravo! Thats the point I was trying to make.

[mtmedlin]

That's the thing. You do it the way you want it. Let him do it the way he wants to. Is that fair?

No, it isnt. Ron Paul has a duty to do all he can to WIN. He isnt running with his money, he is running with ours. When every analyst is saying that he needs to change up his message in order for it to be more easily understood and palatable, then thats what he should do.

I am done being "right" and not heard. Ron Paul needs to do what is necessary to win and if he can do that without compromising his core beliefs, then he needs to do it.

[erowe1]

He shouldn't change his foreign policy position. He should just explain it differently. During most of the debate he was focusing on the costs of our intervention overseas, and he received all cheers and no boos from the audience. On the last question, he gave an answer that came across as sounding "anti American," and that's why he was receiving boos. There's no need for Ron to even talk about the "blowback" issue when it's so easy to convince GOP primary voters that we need to bring our troops home in order to save money and shore up our defenses here at home.

I can agree with certain minor tweaks in the rhetoric. But talking about blowback is a nonnegotiable. We need to get people to understand blowback. And doing that means moving it out of the realm of the taboo and into the realm of acceptable political discourse. Every time Ron Paul mentions it and gets booed and doesn't back down, he takes another step in that direction.

[acptulsa]

That's the thing. You do it the way you want it. Let him do it the way he wants to. Is that fair?

What's fair about politics?

I don't think Ron Paul quite sees it the way you do. Yeah, he's working his ass off, but he also knows that we're working at this and spending money we don't have in a crappy economy. And we all want the same thing--a return to a government of the people, by the people and for the people. He'll take feedback so long as he can figure out how to use it within the confines of his skill set. He's been on this earth long enough to know he is what he is.

He's also not doing things the exact same way. He does learn, and the old dog is learning new tricks. I think he produced more sound bites (not that the MSM is replaying them) and got more laughs from the audience in the last debate than in the whole 2008 campaign. So, I reject the notion that he's just focused on education and that's that.

We just can't lie down on him. When he tells the truth, well, that's why we're here--because he tells the truth habitually--and we'll just have to spin it. He's doing better, we're doing better, and the average voter, believe it or not, is doing a better job of paying attention than ever beofore, too. Between us we just might save this country. It's worth a try.

Got something better to do?

[mtmedlin]

I can agree with certain minor tweaks in the rhetoric. But talking about blowback is a nonnegotiable. We need to get people to understand blowback. And doing that means moving it out of the realm of the taboo and into the realm of acceptable political discourse. Every time Ron Paul mentions it and gets booed and doesn't back down, he takes another step in that direction.

I agree but again it is how he words it. Instead of making the statements about blowback, lead with the CIAs own words. If he says "The CIA has a term called Blowback...in the 911 report it mentions the reasons that the terrorists hate the US is..."
This makes his points for him without him sounding like a nutcase. It doesnt change at all what he believes but the wording and source give it credibility.

Thats my frustration. Ive worked in politics part time for a dozen years and I know how to word things better...yet its not being done. I sit and explain what RP says to people and they switch from saying hes insane to "I can agree with that". Its the nuances of RPs message that are pissing me off...Jesse should know better!

[Michigan11]

Ron should tweak a few things in his delivery and presentation, but overall, I'm very impressed with how the campaign is running. There is strategy going on here, that we only see by looking back. Take some time and look back, and see how much this movement has grown in very solid support, that will not be going away anytime in the near future. This movement is building for victory, no doubt about it.

[JoshS]

am i the only one not understanding why quoting osama bin laden is a bad thing?

[evadmurd]

No one here is asking Ron to 'change' or 'weaken' his message. We are all here because of that message. But that being said, EVERY campaign has to make adjustments in order to make progress as the race evolves, or they are lost. Ron and his handlers, if there are any, NEED to step it up and make some adjustments as to HOW they say the message without changing the message. I think a great example of this is how Ron attempted to explain the difference between and strong defense and strong military the other night. It was a different way of saying the same thing he has always said. That shows that they are at least trying to gather some newbies to the fold.

Winning IS everything, as nothing will change without it. Perhaps the political rhetoric will spin differently, but who the hell cares about that. Unless we win it won't matter what the message is at all. Is the campaign really in this to win? I'm not convinced of that yet. Ron himself has said that he is more in this to change the paradigm rather than to be president. There is a lot of time left to gradually adjust to the field without appearing that we are desperate (which we are not).

[LibertyEagle]

I think a great example of this is how Ron attempted to explain the difference between and strong defense and strong military the other night.
Uh, I don't think that is what he said at all.

If we aren't engaged in militarism all around the world, then we won't need to spend as much money on the military. But, that doesn't equate to having anything but a very strong military for the defense of our own country.

[erowe1]

No one here is asking Ron to 'change' or 'weaken' his message. We are all here because of that message. But that being said, EVERY campaign has to make adjustments in order to make progress as the race evolves, or they are lost. Ron and his handlers, if there are any, NEED to step it up and make some adjustments as to HOW they say the message without changing the message. I think a great example of this is how Ron attempted to explain the difference between and strong defense and strong military the other night. It was a different way of saying the same thing he has always said. That shows that they are at least trying to gather some newbies to the fold.

Winning IS everything, as nothing will change without it. Perhaps the political rhetoric will spin differently, but who the hell cares about that. Unless we win it won't matter what the message is at all. Is the campaign really in this to win? I'm not convinced of that yet. Ron himself has said that he is more in this to change the paradigm rather than to be president. There is a lot of time left to gradually adjust to the field without appearing that we are desperate (which we are not).

I haven't verified it, but according to another poster, Ron Paul's "likes" on Facebook went up more after this last debate than any other candidate.

What is it that makes you think he's doing something that will make him lose? Is it because somebody on TV told you you're supposed to think that?

I'm all for winning. But it has to be the policy platform that wins, not just the name "Ron Paul."

[freeforall]

I just referred a couple to this forum. I suggested they ignore some of the overly enthusiastic posters and focus on posters that are helping to educate newbies. I guess I would ask those of you who are bothered by this to simply put more energy into this as well. I can ask questions when I have them, but I've probably learned more from just reading current threads.

[sabu140]

am i the only one not understanding why quoting osama bin laden is a bad thing?

No, you are correct. People care about what's in it for them. The message needs to be about how people will benefit. This is how we gain support.

[Chainspell]

I haven't verified it, but according to another poster, Ron Paul's "likes" on Facebook went up more after this last debate than any other candidate.

What is it that makes you think he's doing something that will make him lose? Is it because somebody on TV told you you're supposed to think that?

I'm all for winning. But it has to be the policy platform that wins, not just the name "Ron Paul."
THIS thank you!

[sabu140]

I haven't verified it, but according to another poster, Ron Paul's "likes" on Facebook went up more after this last debate than any other candidate.

What is it that makes you think he's doing something that will make him lose? Is it because somebody on TV told you you're supposed to think that?

I'm all for winning. But it has to be the policy platform that wins, not just the name "Ron Paul."

Republican voters matter in a republican primary. Facebook doesn't reflect republican voters or voters period.

[acptulsa]

'Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.'--Yogi Berra

Well, no. Reagan won by promising all this same stuff, but delivered none of it. In the end, I don't think any of us expects Ron Paul to do the same. So, I don't think he has a particular need to push people completely out of their comfort zone. Not completely. As LE said, if we can get him in we get him the 'bully pulpit', and this is good.

Maybe the man finds himself on stage with a bunch of people who are busy usurping his positions, and feels he needs to stand out from the crowd. Well, I wish he wouldn't feel that way, because his record sure stands out from that crowd's records, and I for one don't intend to stop reminding people of this fact.

[RonPaul101.com]

I could give a rat's ass about "The Message." This isn't a freaking cult, it's a political movement. The only change I want is to win instead of losing.

Paul's been doing an educational campaign for how many years now? And we still have gained absolutely no ground as far as foreign policy goes. Spending is astronomical. The Fed isn't being audited.

I not only agree but would even take it a step further in that I would rather have Ron Paul do WHATEVER he feels will best help him win. I don't worry about the message being lost; he's been consistant long enough for me to trust him 100%. That said, I want him to do what it takes to win. Ideas and concepts alone won't save a soldiers life, and it won't bring strength to our economy. Without results, without implementation of those ideas, we'll be left with almost no measurable impact.

I am at odds with many 'supporters of liberty' on this area, because my goal, my focus 100% is getting Ron Paul elected President. I am not donating to his campaign because I simply want him to speak more about liberty, I want him to GOVERN more about liberty. I was at a debate watching meetup and a local newspaper reporter was there as well and the reporter asked, "If the odds are the Ron Paul won't win (not saying he can't win), why then do you all still support him?" and folks answered 'its not just about an election or one man, its about the idea of liberty. I'm more interested in the constitution being upheld then Ron Paul winning." (as if the two could possibly be mutual exclusive. It made me rather angry and my replies were that, "This is a results oriented system, and I get that, Ron Paul gets it too or he wouldn;t be running ads about Perry as Al Gore's biggest fan. Is that ad a message on the constitution, no, its the message on Ron Paul would make the best President <period>.

[gb13]

No one is saying for him to change the message. We only want him to refine it so that people can understand it. For instance, rather than quoting Bin Laden, quote the Pentagon, the CIA, the 9/11 Comission... all of whom agree with Paul's position. It's a lot harder for naysayers to brush off -and become angered by- those sources than by Bin Laden.

People agree with Ron Paul. He just needs to remind them of that, and hammer on the other candidates for being imposters. What he doesn't need to be doing is quoting Bin Laden -perhaps the most hated man in the world- to make a point. Especially when he could be quoting a dozen other sources which would better support his argument.

[evadmurd]

...Ron Paul's "likes" on Facebook went up more after this last debate than any other candidate.

Really? /sarcasm
That's fantastic, but who cares about 'FB likes'? It may be a great motivator and a great way to push the message in a different way, but we need VOTERS. Haven't we proved to the world already that our support is deep and committed and yet we can't get that support to show up at a voting booth? Why is that? Because depth does NOT translate to width. Casting our nets wider to attract the undecided voter is MANDATORY. No one will vote for Ron Paul if they are undecided going into a voting booth. His message (albeit the proper one) is too scary. It is a shift from the abysmal norm we have come to accept. They have to be sold on it--committed to it--beforehand. Or it will be too easy to acquiesce and vote for the 'same as always'.

[erowe1]

Really? /sarcasm
That's fantastic, but who cares about 'FB likes'? It may be a great motivator and a great way to push the message in a different way, but we need VOTERS. Haven't we proved to the world already that our support is deep and committed and yet we can't get that support to show up at a voting booth? Why is that? Because depth does NOT translate to width. Casting our nets wider to attract the undecided voter is MANDATORY. No one will vote for Ron Paul if they are undecided going into a voting booth. His message (albeit the proper one) is too scary. It is a shift from the abysmal norm we have come to accept. They have to be sold on it--committed to it--beforehand. Or it will be too easy to acquiesce and vote for the 'same as always'.

I asked you, "What is it that makes you think he's doing something that will make him lose?"

Do you have an answer to that? Because if you just made it up, then I'll go with the evidence of the Facebook likes over that.

[RonPaulFever]

Politics is about winning. That's it. I would rather see Ron dial back some of his more controversial messages and get some real traction instead of using this campaign to spread a message like he did last time. You have to appeal to more than your core audience if you want to get anywhere.

[sabu140]

I not only agree but would even take it a step further in that I would rather have Ron Paul do WHATEVER he feels will best help him win. I don't worry about the message being lost; he's been consistant long enough for me to trust him 100%. That said, I want him to do what it takes to win. Ideas and concepts alone won't save a soldiers life, and it won't bring strength to our economy. Without results, without implementation of those ideas, we'll be left with almost no measurable impact.

I am at odds with many 'supporters of liberty' on this area, because my goal, my focus 100% is getting Ron Paul elected President. I am not donating to his campaign because I simply want him to speak more about liberty, I want him to GOVERN more about liberty. I was at a debate watching meetup and a local newspaper reporter was there as well and the reporter asked, "If the odds are the Ron Paul won't win (not saying he can't win), why then do you all still support him?" and folks answered 'its not just about an election or one man, its about the idea of liberty. I'm more interested in the constitution being upheld then Ron Paul winning." (as if the two could possibly be mutual exclusive. It made me rather angry and my replies were that, "This is a results oriented system, and I get that, Ron Paul gets it too or he wouldn;t be running ads about Perry as Al Gore's biggest fan. Is that ad a message on the constitution, no, its the message on Ron Paul would make the best President <period>.

I agree we need to win.

[Fredom101]

Lately from the reactions I've been reading, people seem to be critical of Ron Paul's answers on the debates. Some reactions have been:

"he should tone down his foreign policy"
"I lost 2 votes because of what Ron Paul said..."
"he should say the government's foreign policy is okay"
"he needs to do better and prepare for the debates" <-- whoever said this f**k you by the way

Ron Paul would be ashamed of you all.

Granted we all want to win, but are we just in this to win it, or do we want REAL CHANGE? People in America are starting to wake up, and this is because of Ron Paul. It's because he tells the truth, he doesn't back down and he doesn't care if it's hard to swallow. He knows he needs to say it and so he does. He has been doing this ALONE for so long... Who the fuck are we to tell him that he needs to do better?? and that he needs to dumb down what he's saying??

I want REAL CHANGE because we all know even if we win this and the American people haven't changed then what's the point?

+1000000

This is exactly right. The ENTIRE point is to be consistent with the message. Watering it down is nonsense, because then we're just neocon lite.

[Tarzan]

Others have already said this... I will say it as well:

The issue is not about changing or weakening "the message"... it is about changing the presentation of the message.
Unless Ron Paul and the campaign can present the message in a way that is received by voters and garners their support and votes... we lose.
If he cannot do that, its game over for this campaign and for this country.

Its all about the presentation... and putting "the message" in a palatable, easy to understand form.
If not... we lose... again.



and, this ain't a cult for me... no purple Nike's... no drinking koolaide... we have a major problem that needs to be fixed... and fixed now!

[dusman]

I think we tend to over criticize his delivery. If this country isn't forced to think about these things, then this isn't a campaign to win - controversy is good when it's supported by the facts. Let Ron Paul speak nothing but the unadulterated truth and let the general populace go through it's stages of apprehension.

His form of brutal honesty is my favorite form of wisdom.

Ron Paul needs to rock the establishment mentality. He needs to say the things that aren't being said, so that he can lay the pathway for all of us. The truth should never be hindered because of fear from the naysayers, because it is the heart of the true believers. We are very strong and if you'll notice, Ron Paul has done nothing in his political career besides trying to remind us of that.

I won't accept the notion that Ron Paul winning the presidency as being of most importance. His highest achievement will always be us, ladies and gentlemen. We have the potential, the resources and determination to change the course of history. If we can do what we've done for just this one man, imagine what we can do with 10,000 patriots who are inspired by his philosophy? This is the ultimate prize and I think its the only task Ron Paul cares about accomplishing.

In the end, will it not be Ron Paul who is the winner in the eyes of history? That totally rests on us. We are the 6th man in a 1-man dogfight. When we stand as one next to him in spirit, it will be us who chooses if he wins or not.

Let it spark debate and let the pieces fall where they shall! Ron Paul will win this election if we want him to.

However, win or lose.. we must keep our bond and our fight.

[Fredom101]

I contend that changing the message IS losing. We're not trying to create a cult of personality here. If RP suddenly started saying yes, Iran is a threat and we should take action, he may win over a few neocons but then he's not much different from Perry/Romney, and many people will vote for those guys because they look good in a suit or something.

Look, RP is polling as high as 14% BECAUSE of the message. Sure, it takes time for people to come around to it. But if we try to adapt the message to the audience, we've lost.

Even if he stays right where he is and let's say gets 10% of the vote across the board in the primaries, this is a huge victory. A lot of supporters here don't seem to understand that even with 10% RP has effectively forced the hand of the GOP. If they give us cookie cutter candidates we will stay home on election day or vote 3rd party and the democrats win.

THIS is a victory in itself.

[Matthew5]

As someone who works in public relations, I can tell you that it is imperative that you change the presentation based on your audience. You're not losing the message or being unfaithful, you're simply tailoring the message to fit their individual background.

When I walk into a room full of millionaire, college educated people...I talk about my organization's educational system and recent data and polls in the area. When I talk to teenagers about our program, I leave out all the details about testing scores and polls because it doesn't resonate with them. Instead, I focus on personal stories and our summer program.

I never changed the message, just which areas I highlighted. This is important in politics as well, you've got to do your homework and know what crowd you're talking to. It's no compromise, it's strategy.

[erowe1]

As someone who works in public relations, I can tell you that it is imperative that you change the presentation based on your audience. You're not losing the message or being unfaithful, you're simply tailoring the message to fit their individual background.

When I walk into a room full of millionaire, college educated people...I talk about my organization's educational system and recent data and polls in the area. When I talk to teenagers about our program, I leave out all the details about testing scores and polls because it doesn't resonate with them. Instead, I focus on personal stories and our summer program.

I never changed the message, just which areas I highlighted. This is important in politics as well, you've got to do your homework and know what crowd you're talking to. It's no compromise, it's strategy.

One of the secrets about capitalizing on political debates is realizing that the real audience that matters is the nationwide one, not the handful of people booing in the auditorium.

[Chainspell]

Others have already said this... I will say it as well:

The issue is not about changing or weakening "the message"... it is about changing the presentation of the message.
Unless Ron Paul and the campaign can present the message in a way that is received by voters and garners their support and votes... we lose.
If he cannot do that, its game over for this campaign and for this country.

Its all about the presentation... and putting "the message" in a palatable, easy to understand form.
If not... we lose... again.



and, this ain't a cult for me... no purple Nike's... no drinking koolaide... we have a major problem that needs to be fixed... and fixed now!
Lol okay we can all agree on this.

But this is Ron Paul we're talking about. Can we just respect the man for what he is. If you can't do that then go run for president and do it the way you want to do it.

[acptulsa]

In the end, will it not be Ron Paul who is the winner in the eyes of history? That totally rests on us. We are the 6th man in a 1-man dogfight. When we stand as one next to him in spirit, it will be us who chooses if he wins or not.

Let it spark debate and let the pieces fall where they shall! Ron Paul will win this election if we want him to.

When Reagan was perfecting his teflon, Paul was stiffening his spine. Reagan crafted the perfect message, Paul learned how to stand by it.

If we're better at marketing than Ron Paul, well, then let us market Ron Paul. Whether or not he's the best at selling himself, he's well worth selling.

Reagan was a good enough salesman to convince people he was a statesman. Paul is an honest and principled enough statesman to make me want to be his salesman. It is what it is.

[Chainspell]

When Reagan was perfecting his teflon, Paul was stiffening his spine. Reagan crafted the perfect message, Paul learned how to stand by it.

If we're better at marketing than Ron Paul, well, then let us market Ron Paul. Whether or not he's the best at selling himself, he's well worth selling.

Reagan was a good enough salesman to convince people he was a statesman. Paul is an honest and principled enough statesman to make me want to be his salesman. It is what it is.
Amen amen IT'S UP TO US to do that part

[Matthew5]

One of the secrets about capitalizing on political debates is realizing that the real audience that matters is the nationwide one, not the handful of people booing in the auditorium.

True, but that can be negative publicity the next day as it has turned out to be. A simple tweak and he could have the audience cheering and it would have been positive publicity the next day.

I'm just saying from a PR standpoint, it seemed like a gaffe from an undecided voter standpoint. But I hope I'm proven wrong! :)

[evadmurd]

Uh, I don't think that is what he said at all.

If we aren't engaged in militarism all around the world, then we won't need to spend as much money on the military. But, that doesn't equate to having anything but a very strong military for the defense of our own country.

Much better stated.

[erowe1]

True, but that can be negative publicity the next day as it has turned out to be. A simple tweak and he could have the audience cheering and it would have been positive publicity the next day.

I'm just saying from a PR standpoint, it seemed like a gaffe from an undecided voter standpoint. But I hope I'm proven wrong! :)

I don't think it's all that easy to tell what the effect of the publicity is, especially as more and more people see incidents like this pile up. For a lot of people, seeing someone stick to his guns and keep his cool when he's surrounded by people mocking and booking him, makes them see something presidential in that person.

[acptulsa]

I'm just saying from a PR standpoint, it seemed like a gaffe from an undecided voter standpoint. But I hope I'm proven wrong! :)

Well, there's one thing to be said for a merely human, imperfect candidate. When you go out and put your own superior spin on it, a lot of people are liable to be paying attention!

[dusman]

When Reagan was perfecting his teflon, Paul was stiffening his spine. Reagan crafted the perfect message, Paul learned how to stand by it.

If we're better at marketing than Ron Paul, well, then let us market Ron Paul. Whether or not he's the best at selling himself, he's well worth selling.

Reagan was a good enough salesman to convince people he was a statesman. Paul is an honest and principled enough statesman to make me want to be his salesman. It is what it is.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Great post. +rep

[AuH20]

No one here is telling him to abandon non-inteventionism but drop the incendiary McGovernite language, because it drives people away instead of bringing them into the flock. It's rather simple to understand. You have parents who's kids died in these conflicts and Paul comes off insulting and insensitive, which isn't his intention obviously. Ron will never break into top tier status if he continues on this futile path.

[evadmurd]

I asked you, "What is it that makes you think he's doing something that will make him lose?"

Do you have an answer to that? Because if you just made it up, then I'll go with the evidence of the Facebook likes over that.

Gads, man! Who the hell ever said he was doing something to make him lose? Where? Who? Not doing the things that can make you win is vastly different than doing things that "will make you lose." You go ahead and cling to your FB friends and I'll concentrate on getting voters into the booth on election day--and so should the campaign.

[AuH20]

So let us uphold the true Libertarian Vision...let us be pure in all that we say and do...let us be the perfect beacon of the founders vision.... and sit at Denny's just like the rest of the Lbertarian party and get nothing done!
Ive been in this movement since the mid 80s, when I was only a child. I fought for the perfect message...now I fight for some change. Even is Ron Paul is elected he will NEVER get all of his message done. There are still three branches of government and he will only control one. So why not focus on what he CAN do and stop with the perfect message.
Ron Paul can audit the fed...he cannot get us back to the Gold standard without Congress.
He Should say, "that the troops can better guard Americas border, airports and sea ports from Home without risking harm to them" instead of "We walked in, well just walk out".

His message could and should be better. Politics is a game of seconds and RP talks in length. He must work on debate prep and get his message into more of a soundbite. It doesnt mean he believes in less or that were giving up on the movement but damnit I want change and if I can get 25% of Ron Paul NOW, then I will take it over getting 100% of Ron Paul NEVER.

Plus Rep. Insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results.

[erowe1]

Not doing the things that can make you win is vastly different than doing things that "will make you lose."

I don't see any difference between those two things.

Do you have an answer to my question? Or is your opinion about all this just something you made up?

[evadmurd]

I don't see any difference between those two things.

Do you have an answer to my question? Or is your opinion about all this just something you made up?

Example: If I am running a marathon just to run a marathon, I am not trying to make myself lose--if I not only complete the race but win also, that is fantastic. However if I train, eat right, etc., I am taking steps that can help make me win.

Formulating an opinion is, by definition, making it up. And, in my opinion, the Ron Paul campaign needs to do the things that can help make them win. Have you formulated a different opinion? I'd say so, but that is yours to 'make up' as you desire.

[Birdlady]

Sorry Chainspell but I have to disagree with you big time. Telling a poster to go "f%ck off" isn't really helping either.

We aren't asking Ron Paul to compromise on his beliefs. If you somehow read that, then you are mistaken and have taken things out of context. We are just asking for him to take some time to prepare before debates, try to get in some one liners, refrain from going "conspiratorial" and to possibly think about being more aware of his posture and such when he's on stage. I really don't think that we are asking too much.

If I were to sing for a group, I would be practicing beforehand even if I knew the song and everything. It is good to practice because you never know what nerves can do to you while on stage.This is NO different for RP. Even though he is a great speaker in congress, that is much different than debating live on national TV. I think he needs to admit that he could be coached some on this area and it is not admitting defeat or compromising himself at all. Practicing is a good thing.

I was here in 2007 and a small group of us were all saying the same things and we got screamed at with the exact same lines 4 years ago. "Ron Paul knows bests" "Don't question the campaign" "Just let them do it, they know what they are doing" "What experience do you have with running for president" etc etc. Everyone (even those questioning things) finally went along with it because we figured at least was he getting the message out. Well this time around, I am SICK and tired of hearing that excuse. I want to win.

I am noticing more posters are finally agreeing that his message needs fine tuned, but we still have a group of people who have this concept you are not allowed to question the campaign or anything RP says or does. Well that's a dangerous concept to hold. Have some of you not learned your lesson from the past? This is not a cult. I am not here to blindly lead someone even if that someone is Ron Paul. I keep my mind open even if I support the message around me and in fact it is even MORE important to keep an open mind during those times. To close off your mind from any suggestions or criticism is why this country is in this position in the first place.

I don't see what would be soo wrong for RP to try out the things we have suggested. /shrug

[erowe1]

Example: If I am running a marathon just to run a marathon, I am not trying to make myself lose--if I not only complete the race but win also, that is fantastic. However if I train, eat right, etc., I am taking steps that can help make me win.

Formulating an opinion is, by definition, making it up. And, in my opinion, the Ron Paul campaign needs to do the things that can help make them win. Have you formulated a different opinion? I'd say so, but that is yours to 'make up' as you desire.

In a campaign for president, not winning = losing, and not doing any given thing = doing something else.

Formulating an opinion is not making it up if you have evidence. I had some evidence that you mocked. And you apparently have none at all.

As far as I can tell, Ron Paul is doing a good job of doing the things he needs to do to make him win (as opposed to the only other possibility of doing things to make him lose). The evidence for this is the steady growth of his support. The only evidence I've seen of any kind of the effect of the last debate on his support suggests that it had a positive effect. If you don't like that evidence, then feel free to share your evidence that I'm wrong about that.

[Todd]

By the way, Chainspell, I haven't seen anyone wanting him to change his message. What I have seen are people wanting him to convey it coherently, so that likely voting Republicans understand his positions.

Exactly. No one wants him to change his message. Just hone it to precision. A debate today consists of taking a complicated issue and summarizing your point into a soundbite that a fifth grader can understand in under one minute. Paul can and has done this before.

[Todd]

Uh, I don't think that is what he said at all.

If we aren't engaged in militarism all around the world, then we won't need to spend as much money on the military. But, that doesn't equate to having anything but a very strong military for the defense of our own country.

You don't know how many people I try to convince on that point still think it is imprudent to relinquish our hold on overseas bases because they believe that to defend America in the current geopolitical stiutation, we must have a forward presence. It's one of the toughest obstacles to convince someone who understand military strategy or who has bought this belief from all the Neocconservatives propoganda. My father in law still thinks I'm crazy for suggesting we cut any military spending before we cut welfare.

[wide awake]

Interesting discussion and a lot of interesting points on both sides. I tend to fall on the side of keep doing what he is doing. It seems (somebody can correct me if I am wrong) that his support has come close to doubling what it was at this stage of the primary season compared to the 08 campaign.

I know that if his message was not delivered with the intellectual honesty that he uses, then I would most likely not have looked into supporting him this early (i.e. ensuring I could vote in the Republican primary, donating the money I have in the last month, budgeting money to donate during the upcoming money bombs, having discussions with my family and friends about him, reaching out to become involved in Meetup groups). So I think there is some cost benefit analysis that has to be done on how changing his presentation would impact his early support.

When I consider some of the GOP base and hear their reactions to things such as how many executions a governor had during his tenure, whether a man should be left to die in the street, I tend to think that those that would cheer such things do so out of the basest of human emotion... fear, revenge, spite... and am not so sure there is a way that he could package topics like his Foreign Policy to appeal to that mindset.


My professor of American Political Thought once said when I was an undergrad; "Learning is not fun. Learning is hard work; Having knowledge is fun". I tend to think that these people are not interested in learning and would much rather vicariously experience validation of their existing viewpoints through the "red meat" that some of the other candidates excel in producing.

[erowe1]

It seems (somebody can correct me if I am wrong) that his support has come close to doubling what it was at this stage of the primary season compared to the 08 campaign.

Somebody posted comparison polls from 2007 and 2011 just the other day, and it was a lot more than doubling. It was more like a 5-fold increase or more.

[evadmurd]

In a campaign for president, not winning = losing, and not doing any given thing = doing something else.
No it isn't the same thing, but who am I to dissuade.


Formulating an opinion is not making it up if you have evidence.
Stating fact and stating opinion are two different things. If you don't know the difference, then you have fallen for the same deception that has given the MSM such power over the minds of the people. News reporting=fact ; Myriad of talking heads=opinion. Even though their opinion is based on the facts that they accept as real (if not, they are just lying), their conclusion is still just their opinion. They have 'made it up (formulated)' based on the facts as they see them.


I had some evidence that you mocked.
Evidence of what? Increasing FB likes that you even said you didn't verify? The only evidence you've stated thus far is in your last post about a steady growth of support, of which I don't disagree with. I stated evidence that we don't show up at the polls. You have other evidence that we have? Did I miss a primary or caucus that we have ever won that I missed? The question is not the gradual growth (in some polls) that we have, but will that growth continue? There is no evidence (facts) for what will happen in the future, thus the need for OPINION. It is my opinion, that unless the campaign begins to actively add and adjust how they are pursing that growth, it will not continue--or will not equate to winning any election.

You need to quit arguing with those that are on the same side. 'nuff said.

[JamesButabi]

Somebody posted comparison polls from 2007 and 2011 just the other day, and it was a lot more than doubling. It was more like a 5-fold increase or more.

Its more like the difference between 1% and 10%. Its not even close. Ron is top tier whether they admit it or not. The hard work and the foundation is paying off big time. We just need to keep at it.

Back on OP topic: I don't think you need to sacficice principle whatsoever. However you do need to "dumb down" certain topics so a national audience can understand you without doing hours of research.

[AuH20]

Somebody posted comparison polls from 2007 and 2011 just the other day, and it was a lot more than doubling. It was more like a 5-fold increase or more.

But it's largely the favorable environment as opposed to being this charismatic figure. The Fed is nationally vilified. The government is broke. Both parties are on their respective deathbeds. Like I said, Ron's numbers should be substantially higher.

[erowe1]

No it isn't the same thing, but who am I to dissuade.


Stating fact and stating opinion are two different things. If you don't know the difference, then you have fallen for the same deception that has given the MSM such power over the minds of the people. News reporting=fact ; Myriad of talking heads=opinion. Even though their opinion is based on the facts that they accept as real (if not, they are just lying), their conclusion is still just their opinion. They have 'made it up (formulated)' based on the facts as they see them.


Evidence of what? Increasing FB likes that you even said you didn't verify? The only evidence you've stated thus far is in your last post about a steady growth of support, of which I don't disagree with. I stated evidence that we don't show up at the polls. You have other evidence that we have? Did I miss a primary or caucus that we have ever won that I missed? The question is not the gradual growth (in some polls) that we have, but will that growth continue? There is no evidence (facts) for what will happen in the future, thus the need for OPINION. It is my opinion, that unless the campaign begins to actively add and adjust how they are pursing that growth, it will not continue--or will not equate to winning any election.

You need to quit arguing with those that are on the same side. 'nuff said.

So, what you're saying is you don't have any basis for what you said.

And if the debates hurt him so bad, why do you suppose his Facebook likes went up after both of them?

And poll numbers after the second debate haven't come out yet. But he improved in the polls after the first one, where a bunch of people thought he hurt himself.

You want to act like the only factual data we have is irrelevant, and we're just supposed to accept your opinion backed up by nothing at all instead.

[evadmurd]

You want to act like the only factual data we have is irrelevant, and we're just supposed to accept your opinion backed up by nothing at all instead.

Whatever....

[LawnWake]

Hardly anyone wants to change the message. People want to improve the presentation. Give him a nice expensive suit and shoes, groom him a little, get some great one liners that DO convey his message (as I and a lot of others keep saying, INVOLVE TOM WOODS) and work on his body language and people won't even know who Perry or Romney are.

He IS all over the place. That's fine, I am too, the dude seems to have a lot of thoughts on his mind and wants to cram them all into one sentence, I'm the same way and yes, it's not THE END OF IT ALL, no one's suggesting that, but we could up the increase in support by 10%+ if he prepares for debates a little.

[Romulus]

Lately from the reactions I've been reading, people seem to be critical of Ron Paul's answers on the debates. Some reactions have been:

"he should tone down his foreign policy"
"I lost 2 votes because of what Ron Paul said..."
"he should say the government's foreign policy is okay"
"he needs to do better and prepare for the debates" <-- whoever said this f**k you by the way

Ron Paul would be ashamed of you all.

Granted we all want to win, but are we just in this to win it, or do we want REAL CHANGE? People in America are starting to wake up, and this is because of Ron Paul. It's because he tells the truth, he doesn't back down and he doesn't care if it's hard to swallow. He knows he needs to say it and so he does. He has been doing this ALONE for so long... Who the fuck are we to tell him that he needs to do better?? and that he needs to dumb down what he's saying??

I want REAL CHANGE because we all know even if we win this and the American people haven't changed then what's the point?

A big + rep for you!

[aravoth]

I could give a rat's ass about "The Message." This isn't a freaking cult, it's a political movement. The only change I want is to win instead of losing.

Paul's been doing an educational campaign for how many years now? And we still have gained absolutely no ground as far as foreign policy goes. Spending is astronomical. The Fed isn't being audited.


I agree.

We are in this to win it, or so we were told. He can further work to educate the American public with his bully pulpit, AFTER he has won.

By the way, Chainspell, I haven't seen anyone wanting him to change his message. What I have seen are people wanting him to convey it coherently, so that likely voting Republicans understand his positions.

Ahh sanity... so good to hear your voice....

[CrissyNY]

I float between both of these viewpoints....sometimes even on the same day.

Haha, me too!

[brandon]

So not quoting directly from Osama Bin Laden would be "weakening the message?"

Would you be happy if he prefaced it by quoting Sun-Tzu?

[Voluntary Man]

Sad fact is that most people are weak-minded morons. I don't believe that will ever change. Mass opinions can be altered and general intelligence levels elevated, but the bell curve's proportions will remain (+/-) the same. We can accept and profit from reality, or we can ignore and continue to be frustrated by reality.

THE REALITY OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS

Voters are generally divided into 3 categories:

1) pro

2) con

3) undecided

As much as possible, pro voters should be organized into campaign workers. Whenever possible, con voters should be treated as friendly opposition, which helps to prevent soft opposition from developing into hard opposition. Undecided voters (a fluid body) are where we concentrate our efforts.

Pro voters should avoid contact with con voters, but should attack their candidate or cause, as much as possible, to keep them on the defensive, and to frustrate cons' recruiting efforts. Attacks are designed to neutralize soft opposition or to convert them to the undecided category, where they can be recruited.

Undecided voters should be the subject of friendly contact and education efforts. As the undecided are converted to the pro category the opposition within their sphere of influence is softened, and many cons may become undecided.

As undecideds become pros, they should be given campaign work to do, to stiffen their resolve. As cons become undecideds, they need to become the subject of friendly contact and education efforts. The process continues in this fluid manner.

How does a pro identify an undecided? Ask, "have you decided who/what you're voting for?" If the answer is "no," you've identified a potential recruit. If the answer is "yes," you've identified an ally or opponent. Find out which, then either organize or ignore (be friendly), as circumstance dictates.

The more undecideds you convert to pros, the more cons become undecides. This is the law of margins. Always recruit from the margins, and you will never run out of recruits.

Save your red meat for the converted, and only attack the opposition candidate/cause/campaign, not the opposition voters.

That's how campaigns are won.

Having said all that, messages must be crafted and customized. Avoid being dishonest. Avoid it like the plague. But, craft your message for maximum impact/persuasion, and customize your message to your audience. Never depend on the native intelligence of your audience to sift through the facts. And, never depend on the native goodness of your audience to do the right thing. Always be crafting, and always be customizing. Those are your ABC's of campaigning. Ignore this at the peril of your candidate or cause.

The masses must be hand-held and spoon-fed, but never lied to. There is only benefit that comes from crafting and customizing the message ... if we want to WIN. And, I do want to win!



Lately from the reactions I've been reading, people seem to be critical of Ron Paul's answers on the debates. Some reactions have been:

"he should tone down his foreign policy"
"I lost 2 votes because of what Ron Paul said..."
"he should say the government's foreign policy is okay"
"he needs to do better and prepare for the debates" <-- whoever said this f**k you by the way

Ron Paul would be ashamed of you all.

Granted we all want to win, but are we just in this to win it, or do we want REAL CHANGE? People in America are starting to wake up, and this is because of Ron Paul. It's because he tells the truth, he doesn't back down and he doesn't care if it's hard to swallow. He knows he needs to say it and so he does. He has been doing this ALONE for so long... Who the fuck are we to tell him that he needs to do better?? and that he needs to dumb down what he's saying??

I want REAL CHANGE because we all know even if we win this and the American people haven't changed then what's the point? be frustrated by reality.

THE REALITY OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS

Voters are generally divided into 3 categories:

1) pro

2) con

3) undecided

As much as possible, pro voters should be organized into campaign workers. Whenever possible, con voters should be treated as friendly opposition, which helps to prevent soft opposition from developing into hard opposition. Undecided voters (a fluid body) are where we concentrate our efforts.

Pro voters should avoid contact with con voters, but should attack their candidate or cause, as much as possible, to keep them on the defensive, and to frustrate cons' recruiting efforts. Attacks are designed to neutralize soft opposition or to convert them to the undecided category, where they can be recruited.

Undecided voters should be the subject of friendly contact and education efforts. As the undecided are converted to the pro category the opposition within their sphere of influence is softened, and many cons may become undecided.

As undecideds become pros, they should be given campaign work to do, to stiffen their resolve. As cons become undecideds, they need to become the subject of friendly contact and education efforts. The process continues in this fluid manner.

How does a pro identify an undecided? Ask, "have you decided who/what you're voting for?" If the answer is "no," you've identified a potential recruit. If the answer is "yes," you've identified an ally or opponent. Find out which, then either organize or ignore (be friendly), as circumstance dictates.

The more undecideds you convert to pros, the more cons become undecides. This is the law of margins. Always recruit from the margins, and you will never run out of recruits.

Save your red meat for the converted, and only attack the opposition candidate/cause/campaign, not the opposition voters.

That's how campaigns are won.

Having said all that, messages must be crafted and customized. Avoid being dishonest. Avoid it like the plague. But, craft your message for maximum impact/persuasion, and customize your message to your audience. Never depend on the native intelligence of your audience to sift through the facts. And, never depend on the native goodness of your audience to do the right thing. Always be crafting, and always be customizing. Those are your ABC's of campaigning. Ignore this at the peril of your candidate or cause.

The masses must be hand-held and spoon-fed, but never lied to. There is only benefit that comes from crafting and customizing the message ... if we want to WIN. And, I do want to win!



Lately from the reactions I've been reading, people seem to be critical of Ron Paul's answers on the debates. Some reactions have been:

"he should tone down his foreign policy"
"I lost 2 votes because of what Ron Paul said..."
"he should say the government's foreign policy is okay"
"he needs to do better and prepare for the debates" <-- whoever said this f**k you by the way

Ron Paul would be ashamed of you all.

Granted we all want to win, but are we just in this to win it, or do we want REAL CHANGE? People in America are starting to wake up, and this is because of Ron Paul. It's because he tells the truth, he doesn't back down and he doesn't care if it's hard to swallow. He knows he needs to say it and so he does. He has been doing this ALONE for so long... Who the fuck are we to tell him that he needs to do better?? and that he needs to dumb down what he's saying??

I want REAL CHANGE because we all know even if we win this and the American people haven't changed then what's the point?