Where are Paul's advisers?

[Back In Black]

Paul's getting wrecked on foreign policy tonight. These are all old questions. Are Paul's advisers, or anyone for that matter letting him know he needs to strengthen his answers? It just seems that if they know these questions are coming, why not have clear answers prepared? Even with the audience being as fucked up as they are, I believe they would have booed less had Paul responded clearly with strong and condensed answers.

They need to fix this FAST!

[Sublyminal]

Paul's getting wrecked on foreign policy tonight. These are all old questions. Are Paul's advisers, or anyone for that matter letting him know he needs to strengthen his answers? It just seems that if they know these questions are coming, why not have clear answers prepared? Even with the audience being as fucked up as they are, I believe they would have booed less had Paul responded clearly with strong and condensed answers.

They need to fix this FAST!


No, 60% of SC is full of warmongers, it wouldn't have mattered what Ron Paul said to them.

[davidhperry]

Not the best answer, but Ron didn't shoot his foot off or anything. The good thing is, maybe this debate will cause him to listen to advice. :)

[SlowSki]

While I agree he could "tweak" his foreign policy answer for conservative voters, I was wondering if he listened to anyone regarding his answer on the drug war. He said we need to address the drug war, but never said to legalize drugs, which I thought was interesting.

[Back In Black]

Not the best answer, but Ron didn't shoot his foot off or anything. The good thing is, maybe this debate will cause him to listen to advice. :)

How long can it take? The one thing turning voters off from Paul is his foreign policy. It's common sense to get a handle on that shit already.

[The Free Hornet]

How long can it take? The one thing turning voters off from Paul is his foreign policy. It's common sense to get a handle on that shit already.

America is like an irrational child and has been since 9-11. It may be that the temper tantrum has to subside. Rational arguments have no impact on kids in the midst of a tantrum. More than half of America has done their crying and is ready to move on while thinking rationally (non-interventionism, a golden-rule foreign policy). Hopefully the tantrum for the rest ends in time.

[RaptorNtc]

I'm very disappointed in this performance. Some of these questions have been asked before and Ron Paul had a hard time answering these questions without stuttering or skipping words. His advisers seriously need to prepare him for the next debate by answering the questions in a clear and concise manner.

[Edward]

No, 60% of SC is full of warmongers, it wouldn't have mattered what Ron Paul said to them.

No, Ron had a sub-par evening. He was off his game tonight.

[Paul4Prez]

Ron's answers were great, and he defended them well. Here are his advisers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

[Back In Black]

I'm all for blaming war-mongering neocons, but Paul did not defend his case well.

Why is it members of Paul's team can defend his foreign policy better than he can?

[CaptainAmerica]

he needs to say "Obama sent soldiers into Pakistan a nuclear armed nation,and by doing so he jeopardized peace and could have started nuclear warfare by committing an act of war inside of a nation we have not declared war on.

[lucent]

Do you expect his advisers to stack the audience with supporters?

[Back In Black]

Do you expect his advisers to stack the audience with supporters?

Stop blaming the audience. Were they a bunch of rowdy pricks? Yes, but they didn't put words into his mouth. He had the opportunity to explain his policies.

[coffeewithchess]

No, 60% of SC is full of warmongers, it wouldn't have mattered what Ron Paul said to them.

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. There are very simple things RP could say, that wouldn't change his message, that would make him appear a lot stronger.


Not the best answer, but Ron didn't shoot his foot off or anything. The good thing is, maybe this debate will cause him to listen to advice. :)

Don't hold your breath. Millions spent on ads, and apparently none on a debate coach (or staff) that talk with him/rehearse as they travel around. If they do, there are some serious issues going on...

[RaptorNtc]

I love Ron Paul as much as anybody but his delivery is flawed and it's an issue that needs to be addressed.

[Student Of Paulism]

It's so pathetic listening to Newt say what he did about Andrew Jackson. It didnt even make any fucking sense. Uhh, THE BRITISH WERE HERE!!! HELLO? THEY WERE ALREADY OCCUPYING US. What does that have to do with us being over in some other country and violating their sovereignty and bullying them around to get our way in some 'staged' attack that took 10 years? Pfff..

Anyway, Yea, this was definitely not a good night for Ron, got booed badly, but hey, at least Romney did too on NDAA....misery loves company --works for me and doesnt sting as much :-/


I love Ron Paul as much as anybody but his delivery is flawed and it's an issue that needs to be addressed.

Yea, its too bad. If he spoke like Rand, he would be owning all of them. Honestly, i dont think i ever heard Rand stammer or botch a single question.

[rbohlig]

Unfortunately, Ron didn't do a good job on the very biased question. He has to consider the audience he is talking to and craft his message to them. This does not mean change his policies, but instead of talking about Pakistan's sovereignty he should mention the head of the CIA Bin Laden unit endorsed him, I love the guy but he did not help his cause tonight. Needs a better one on Thursday for sure!

[tennman]

Please Dr. Paul, call me and let's smooth out these answers!

[musicmax]

Do you expect his advisers to stack the audience with supporters?

This is like blaming the refs when your quarterback throws 3 interceptions.

[ConCap]

Paul's getting wrecked on foreign policy tonight. These are all old questions. Are Paul's advisers, or anyone for that matter letting him know he needs to strengthen his answers? It just seems that if they know these questions are coming, why not have clear answers prepared? Even with the audience being as fucked up as they are, I believe they would have booed less had Paul responded clearly with strong and condensed answers.

They need to fix this FAST!

His foreign policy is not that far off.
90% of it is good.
To change something now, will only make him look like a flip-flopper and do more damage than good.

[Badger for Paul]

Unfortunately I have to agree that tonight's performance was bad. Looks like those days in Texas weren't spent on debate prep. I doubt he lost supporters, but doubt he gained any either with this debate. It's frustrating to see these missed opportunities.

[Shellshock1918]

If you're looking for a "tweak" to Ron Paul's foreign policy answers here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine


The Weinberger doctrine:

The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

[JimInNY]

He said we need to address the drug war, but never said to legalize drugs, which I thought was interesting.

His brain was going faster than his mouth (I suffer from that sometimes) and he forgot to say it. :)

[RaptorNtc]

We're not saying he should change his views. We're saying his delivery needs to get better. If I were watching this objectively, his answer would not have convinced me.

[Back In Black]

I just don't get how he can explain his economic policy so clearly but not his foreign policy. It makes no sense to me.

[coffeewithchess]

I just don't get how he can explain his economic policy so clearly but not his foreign policy. It makes no sense to me.

Yea, especially if you read his book A Foreign Policy of Freedom, with speeches/writings from the 80s and 90s. The book is a great source, and shows how consistent he has been, as well as a multitude of YouTube videos...but a debate coach to simply help target the message at the audience would help greatly (unless they are a terrible debate coach/don't understand the neocon mindset).

[Back In Black]

Presentation almost always wins over actual substance. Newt can sell the country a shit sandwich if he's strong enough with the sales pitch.

[socal]

The whole concept of a war on terror makes no sense since terror is just a tactic. It'd be like saying WWII was a war against mechanized troops, infantry, etc. But there are certain things that RP can't bring up because the public is so brainwashed with anti-Muslim hysteria. This conflict between what is true and what RP can discuss could be what's causing his message to get muddled.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Presentation almost always wins over actual substance. Newt can sell the country a shit sandwich if he's strong enough with the sales pitch.Ain't that the truth... the old saying, "it's not what you say, but how you say it" so rings true, especially with the zombized public of today.

[jemuf]

Paul's getting wrecked on foreign policy tonight. These are all old questions. Are Paul's advisers, or anyone for that matter letting him know he needs to strengthen his answers? It just seems that if they know these questions are coming, why not have clear answers prepared? Even with the audience being as fucked up as they are, I believe they would have booed less had Paul responded clearly with strong and condensed answers.

They need to fix this FAST!

I agree 100%. Rick Perry made himself a non-factor with bad debate performances. Everybody gets ONE!

Whatever the reasons (hostile crowd, moderators, podium position, etc) for the bad performance he has to do better for the remainder of the campaign because there are too many undecideds.

Politico made his debate performance a story. I'm surprised the rest of the media establishment and Fox "News" didn't.

[Back In Black]

Surprisingly, Fox's coverage has been pretty fair from what I've seen. Most of the Paul clips they played were the ones that got applause. But commentators have pointed out the loose ended responses that Paul delivered. He needs to stop giving them this kind of ammo.

[eugenekop]

I think his delivery was great. For him it is crucial that others understand the "blowback" principle. He cares a lot less about practical issues here such as no money for wars. He wants people to understand how flawed is their understanding of the "other side".

[Antwan15]

Please Dr. Paul, call me and let's smooth out these answers!

Dont take this the wrong way.....but GET OVER YOURSELF....who do you think you are!

I am all for giving constructive critism guys, but please keep in mind we are talking about Dr. Ron Paul...this guy has forgoten more about foriegn policy than you, or any of the republican candidates will ever know. Yes, he could have fashioned a better response, but ill take a slip up on delivery with an virtouse message, over a perfectly executed war mongering answer based on pandering and propaganda. Just my two cents...

Its not just you tennman, I am just trying to make a point.

NOBP!!!

[Back In Black]

A slip-up delivery won't help him win the nomination. He can't assume people know what it is he's talking about the way we do. His answers need to be clear and detailed, even dumbed down if need be so people get it. I'm not talking about changing the message, just the delivery.

[Matthanuf06]

The whole concept of a war on terror makes no sense since terror is just a tactic. It'd be like saying WWII was a war against mechanized troops, infantry, etc. But there are certain things that RP can't bring up because the public is so brainwashed with anti-Muslim hysteria. This conflict between what is true and what RP can discuss could be what's causing his message to get muddled.

Okay, call it a war on terrorists. Honestly you have to have your head in the sand to realize that we aren't in a "war" (however you wish to define it) with these extremists. We are without a doubt fighting a distinct group of people. Now how to fight them, how to do it constitutionally, how to win, and understanding what caused this war (blowback) should all be valid discussion points. But the fact that there is a group out there that really wants to kill Americans should not be up for debate, it is fact. Now also thinking if we just implemented a non-interventionalist fp that this group will suddenly become peaceful towards us is a bit pie in the sky as well, but it is possible.

Either way, the American public doesn't think Ron Paul will sufficiently defend the country.

[BKom]

I'm all for blaming war-mongering neocons, but Paul did not defend his case well.

Why is it members of Paul's team can defend his foreign policy better than he can?

Because Ron's major fault is that he won't take direction. There are people in this campaign who could help him refine his answers on defense, but he stubbornly refuses to let them. And he's always been this way. Everyone has flaws. Sadly, this is one of Ron's.

[doctorfunk]

Because Ron's major fault is that he won't take direction. There are people in this campaign who could help him refine his answers on defense, but he stubbornly refuses to let them. And he's always been this way. Everyone has flaws. Sadly, this is one of Ron's.

What I and many others see is that it may be a big enough flaw to cost him the nomination. He really needs to focus his message without changing anything about his stance. It's like he's not even trying to win. It's disheartening to watch great opportunities slip away when he doesn't get that many on a national stage to begin with.

[BKom]

What I and many others see is that it may be a big enough flaw to cost him the nomination. He really needs to focus his message without changing anything about his stance. It's like he's not even trying to win. It's disheartening to watch great opportunities slip away when he doesn't get that many on a national stage to begin with.

It is disheartening. I've supported Ron in three elections now for president. It's time for Ron to take some direction and show that he supports me.

[Captain Shays]

I still think that what could bring it all home for Dr Paul is him outlining what he WILL do to keep us safe from whatever threatmight come down the line. A Constitutional foreign policy includes war as well as peace. I for one want a mighty badass war machine that can wipe ANY enemy off the face of the earth if necessary. So does every other American.....I think. We want a badass as our president. Maybe a badass statesman, negotiator, peace maker, diplomate but still a badass no other country dares mess with.

[Back In Black]

I still think that what could bring it all home for Dr Paul is him outlining what he WILL do to keep us safe from whatever threatmight come down the line. A Constitutional foreign policy includes war as well as peace. I for one want a mighty badass war machine that can wipe ANY enemy off the face of the earth if necessary. So does every other American.....I think. We want a badass as our president. Maybe a badass statesman, negotiator, peace maker, diplomate but still a badass no other country dares mess with.

Absolutely. And I don't think that's too much to ask for. We need someone who is respected and even feared to some extent. You don't have to be a war monger to be strong militarily. Unfortunately, Paul doesn't have that badass personality.

[eugenekop]

I still think that what could bring it all home for Dr Paul is him outlining what he WILL do to keep us safe from whatever threatmight come down the line. A Constitutional foreign policy includes war as well as peace. I for one want a mighty badass war machine that can wipe ANY enemy off the face of the earth if necessary. So does every other American.....I think. We want a badass as our president. Maybe a badass statesman, negotiator, peace maker, diplomate but still a badass no other country dares mess with.

How is that different from "wiping Israel from the map" comment? It sounds like you have no problem with civilians getting killed.

[BKom]

People want to see that their president will be strong in the face of a real threat. It's a great character trait to see the world through your opponents' eyes. It's also very useful as it humanizes a perceived enemy. But there are some bad state actors and individual actors in this world, and the president has to be willing to face them head on. Ron gives the impression that he's paralyzed by merely bringing up the question in debates. It's not his answers that are the problem, it's how he delivers them, and it always has been.

Gingrich and Santorum say some of the most awful, hateful things in the world, and yet they get support because they've crafted their answers to sound appealing. I only wish Ron would take the time to work on his answers too. Because his answers also have the virtue of being correct.

[Captain Shays]

Okay, call it a war on terrorists. Honestly you have to have your head in the sand to realize that we aren't in a "war" (however you wish to define it) with these extremists. We are without a doubt fighting a distinct group of people. Now how to fight them, how to do it constitutionally, how to win, and understanding what caused this war (blowback) should all be valid discussion points. But the fact that there is a group out there that really wants to kill Americans should not be up for debate, it is fact. Now also thinking if we just implemented a non-interventionalist fp that this group will suddenly become peaceful towards us is a bit pie in the sky as well, but it is possible.

Either way, the American public doesn't think Ron Paul will sufficiently defend the country.

You're right Bro. We should all acknowledge, including our next president, president Paul that there have always been radical Muslims who want to kill infidels and establish a global caliphate. It's just FACT. But, as Ron Paul knows, it's really a small group of them comparitively speaking though it's a huge number by the reports that I have read. Out of 1.4 billion of the Muslims on the planet, somewhere between 10%-14% sympathize with bin Laden. Now that needs to be tweeked a little because those reports don't indicate how much of our meddling in the affairs of Muslim countries or our interventionist foreign policy or the bases the USA set up in Ryiad after the Gulf war or our unquestionied support for Israel has to do with their sympathy for bin Laden. It's just safe to acknowledge that the reason for terrorism is two part. One part Kuran and one part interventionism. But, just to say that it's interventionism fails to explain the terrorist attacks around the world that have nothing to do with our actions or our support for Israel. It's strictly Muslim insanity. That said, it's very clear that our actions are one of the main reasons for new recruits into terrorist organizations in certain parts of the world. There is just no doubt about that and Ron Paul hits homes runs every time on that but he strikes out when it comes to acknowledging the obvious. That there are and always were and probably always will be Muslims who just hate infidels and want to kill us. On the other hand, all the other candidates strike out every time when it comes to acknowledging that our actions have blow back and result in dead innocent people.
It boils down to Ron Paul not stopping at all the things he "won't" do like meddling in other countries affairs, policing the world, unnecessary wars etc and going on to explain what he WILL do to keep us safe from the terrorists, communists, subversives or whoever wants to do us harm.

Ron Paul is a HUGE supporters of a missile defense system. Why doesn't he EVER say that? He also supports a militia style defense but I do understand why he doesn't say that lol. But it doesn't mean whacked out guys living behind barbed wire fenses waiting for the end times prophesies to come true or nut cases trying to over throw the government. Switzerland who our founding fathers modeled our foreign policy after has a militia style defense meaning EVERY able bodied man and woman in the country is armed, trained and ready to defend the country at a moments notice. It means instead of policing the world we establish an extensive civil defense system that would enable most of our citizens to survive ANY kind of attack including a nuclear, biological or chemical. What we've been taught about "nuclear winter" and "end of it all" relative to nuclear war is NOT TRUE. The fact is most of us will survive the initial attack. Its just a matter of how well we're prepared that will determine our survival in the weeks after the attack. For those who don't know, we sold out this type of defense in the SALT I Treaty with the Soviets when they tried to insure Mutually Assured Destruction. (MAD). But the game is different now. Some rogue country or terrorist could initiate an attack and we are for the most part totally defenseless.
We also have 36,000 shipping containers that enter our country EVERY DAY without being inspected the size of a tractor trailer truck. ANYTHING could come in on those including armies, guns, and other weapons. The "experts" say we just don't have the man power to inspect every one of them. But we do have 35,000 troops in South Korea protecting them. I say bring them home to inspect those shipping containers.
Obama said we should have citizens trained to protect the contry. Many people likened them to the brown shirts in Germany. I applauded him but it was restrained applause because he refused to arm them. But the fact is, we have miles and miles or electrical grid that can easily be distrupted leaving millions of people without power for extended periods of time if some terrorist or subversive group was so inclined and knowing that I know I can tell you that it's not that difficult. We also have centralized water distribution networks that are totally unprotected that could be easily contaminated. Our government would need to become totalitarian to protect us from every threat but there are millions of patriots out there who are more than willing to be watchers on the wall and give their lives in necessary to protect their own community, family and country.
This leads to the issue of centralization vs decentralization. As we become more and more centralized in everything from government, to trucking to water and electrical production and distribution we also become more authoritarian and totalitarian and facist. Ron Paul like Jefferson is a HUGE proponent of decentralization. He needs to talk about that more because its good for liberty, more efficient, less expensive and provides better services.

[Babylon]

Paul's getting wrecked on foreign policy tonight. These are all old questions. Are Paul's advisers, or anyone for that matter letting him know he needs to strengthen his answers? It just seems that if they know these questions are coming, why not have clear answers prepared? Even with the audience being as fucked up as they are, I believe they would have booed less had Paul responded clearly with strong and condensed answers.

They need to fix this FAST!


I watched a few videos of the Iowa Caucuses.
Specifically, the speakers for Ron Paul.

It reminded me of a few things.

First, persuasive public speaking is a gift, and very very rare.

Second, everyone (noting by the Ron Paul speakers at the Caucuses) thinks they can do it. They can't.

Third, the talent of rhetoric is typically found only amongst Lawyers (specifically, trial lawyers) and Preachers. Ron is neither. The fact that an OB/GYN is able to say anything interesting at all for more than 30 seconds is shocking in and of itself.

In the spirit of Samuel Johnson's quote, "Sir, an OB/GYN debating lawyers is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

[Captain Shays]

How is that different from "wiping Israel from the map" comment? It sounds like you have no problem with civilians getting killed.

Well because I said "if necessary". Ron Paul believes in the Christian Just War Principles right? So do I. The ONLY just war is a war of self defense. But once you're in that sort of war you have EVERY right to kill in order to protect your country. And if you read my comment carefully I also said "wipe any enemy off the face of the planet". I didn't say wipe any country or religion or civilization off the face of the earth.
That friend is a major difference but still appeals to the war hungry crowd nonetheless. I don't think they are as war hungry as we portray them any more than we are as pacifist as they portray us to be. What I am saying is that ALL of us just want to be protected by our government from ANY threat that comes down the pike.

[Captain Shays]

Absolutely. And I don't think that's too much to ask for. We need someone who is respected and even feared to some extent. You don't have to be a war monger to be strong militarily. Unfortunately, Paul doesn't have that badass personality.

He did when he was younger. He was a real fire cracker!!!

[eugenekop]

Well because I said "if necessary". Ron Paul believes in the Christian Just War Principles right? So do I. The ONLY just war is a war of self defense. But once you're in that sort of war you have EVERY right to kill in order to protect your country. And if you read my comment carefully I also said "wipe any enemy off the face of the planet". I didn't say wipe any country or religion or civilization off the face of the earth.
That friend is a major difference but still appeals to the war hungry crowd nonetheless. I don't think they are as war hungry as we portray them any more than we are as pacifist as they portray us to be. What I am saying is that ALL of us just want to be protected by our government from ANY threat that comes down the pike.

EVERY right to kill whom? The terrorists or the civilians in the villages who happen to live in the vicinity of the terrorist?