PDA

View Full Version : Rephrasing the foreign policy issue




Butchie
01-19-2012, 10:15 AM
I imagine most of you have watched this video, if not, it's a good one, but just watch the first minute of it, Ron get's atleast a minute in his debate answers, why doesn't he explain it like this? Is this compromising his message???

Two brilliant lines "I'm not talking about any personnel cuts" "We can have our forces anywhere in the world in 13hrs" - would be gold if Ron brought this up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPy_U6k5W-k&feature=youtu.be

Crotale
01-19-2012, 10:20 AM
Tweeted the video, great interview: https://twitter.com/#!/Samuel_E_Amer/status/160033664183435265

EBounding
01-19-2012, 10:20 AM
I haven't seen it. Thanks.

This is what frustrates me about Paul. His advisers and supporters can convey his foreign policy better than himself. :(

A. Havnes
01-19-2012, 10:20 AM
It's possible to rephrase his foreign policy in a lot of ways and still not compromise. That's an excellent video, and Tom Davis did a great job of summarizing things. Don't forget that Bush also ran on a humble foreign policy and managed to win. Granted, that was before 9/11, but the point is that people will listen if it casts America in a positive light instead of a negative.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bC9kiOzZrw

low preference guy
01-19-2012, 10:22 AM
Ron is too old to change. This is what we've got. It's time for the GOP electorate to settle for Ron Paul because he is better for the economy. It should be pointed out that both Newt and Romney supported the bailout. It should be pointed out that Santorum expanded government and doubled the size of the department of education. Ron Paul will veto any bailout or mandate and will work to eliminate the Department of Education.

low preference guy
01-19-2012, 10:25 AM
If the "Tea Party" keeps supporting Newt, I wouldn't mind seeing an ad that says that the Tea Party started as a reaction to the bailouts, but now is supporting Newt, a guy who supported the individual mandate AND the bailout. Then I would like the ad to say "The Tea Party is dead. It supports bailouts now". I wonder if that would wake them up.

Pete Kay
01-19-2012, 10:28 AM
Yes, we all know that Ron Paul needs to explain his positions on foreign policy better. His greatest weakness as a candidate is his poor communication skills. At this point in the campaign, I see no reason why he hasn't been able to devise a concise answer, rehearse it and be able to deliver it as well as Senator Davis did. Frankly, I'm getting tired of his off the cuff responses during debates where he seems to get tripped up on positions that he clearly has spent a lot of time thinking about. He could be polling in first place if he just spent some time practicing his answers. There's nothing wrong with being prepared.

gb13
01-19-2012, 10:28 AM
Somebody (more savvy with video-making than I) should make a video that compiles bits of all of Ron's strong responses regarding foreign policy, and splice them together to make one cohesive response right from Ron's mouth.

seapilot
01-19-2012, 10:33 AM
Ron Paul does dumb down the message that any blow joe can understand, but they do not want to. They want to have their cake and eat it too. This is what Ron Paul says all the time in plain speak for most to understand and many do, just not the Fox news, Talk radio people.

We can not afford any more wars! We are broke! We need to take care of our own people here!

If they can not understand that simple message then no amount of explaining will they get it without throwing cold water on them and slapping them in the face a few times.

tbone717
01-19-2012, 10:36 AM
Ron Paul does dumb down the message that any blow joe can understand, but they do not want to. They want to have their cake and eat it too. This is what Ron Paul says all the time in plain speak for most to understand and many do, just not the Fox news, Talk radio people.

We can not afford any more wars! We are broke! We need to take care of our own people here!

If they can not understand that simple message then no amount of explaining will they get it without throwing cold water on them and slapping them in the face a few times.

I generally agree with you on things, this time I have to say I do not. If the language he is using is not catching on, simply change the way he says things. It's not a matter of them not understanding the message as much as what he is saying is not resonating with voters. He does on the eocnomy, this is what I am hearing from my folks in SC - but it is on FP where people do not feel he is strong. They aren't spoon fed their views by the media, these are reasonably intelligent people. He just needs to rephrase things in a way that it positive and assuring to the average voter.

EBounding
01-19-2012, 10:41 AM
We can not afford any more wars! We are broke! We need to take care of our own people here!

If they can not understand that simple message then no amount of explaining will they get it without throwing cold water on them and slapping them in the face a few times.

The thing is, people do understand that message. The problem is they interpret it as isolationist and naive. They think it's isolationist because it sounds like Paul wants to pull back all our forces to surround the country in a turtle shell. That's not true though. We would still have a Navy in international waters and the world's most responsive Airforce. People don't know that.

Brett85
01-19-2012, 10:42 AM
It's very simple to explain a non interventionist foreign policy is a way that appeals to GOP primary voters, but Ron won't do it.

Examples-Creating a new military base in South Carolina is more beneficial to our national security than adding a new base in Germany. We should focus on defending our own country rather than using our military to subsidize the defense of other nations.
-It's not appropriate to use our troops for nation building. We use our troops to build roads, schools, and bridges in Afghanistan, and this essentially amounts to a stimulus project for the country of Afghanistan. I'm strongly opposed to Obama's overseas stimulus spending.

seapilot
01-19-2012, 11:06 AM
It's very simple to explain a non interventionist foreign policy is a way that appeals to GOP primary voters, but Ron won't do it.

Examples-Creating a new military base in South Carolina is more beneficial to our national security than adding a new base in Germany. We should focus on defending our own country rather than using our military to subsidize the defense of other nations.
-It's not appropriate to use our troops for nation building. We use our troops to build roads, schools, and bridges in Afghanistan, and this essentially amounts to a stimulus project for the country of Afghanistan. I'm strongly opposed to Obama's overseas stimulus spending.

I think I heard him say that last election cycle. Stop building roads in other countries when the ones here are falling apart. That hits on the economic situation. There are a lot of Republicans that think any cutting in military spending is bad and sacrifices the countries security. The campaign could release a plan to show that it would make the country stronger by cutting spending in wasteful areas it might alleviate some of these fears.

I thought in the last debate he had an excellent answer saying in the 90s that we shut down bases here, which I remember and sent more troops overseas. It was a Clinton, progressive planning that started that. That is why bush was against it in 2000 addressing a humble foreign policy. The other bases in Germany, Japan and S.Korea are cold war era throwbacks. They should be the first ones they close.

low preference guy
01-19-2012, 11:09 AM
the funny thing is that when the money runs out of money to have these commitments, those in charge will go back to read Ron Paul's plans, implement them, and pretend it was their idea.

AuH20
01-19-2012, 11:11 AM
I haven't seen it. Thanks.

This is what frustrates me about Paul. His advisers and supporters can convey his foreign policy better than himself. :(


He really is a horror show when explaining his foreign policy. His surrogates like Jack Hunter & Jesse Benton are so much more adept at streamlining all the loud noise and delivering an articulate, reasoned response. No OBL garbage, no Palestinian/Gaza nonsense. Just the facts, whether it's statements from the Joint Chiefs head Admiral Mullen or statistics relating to defense outlays.

vechorik
01-19-2012, 11:13 AM
I think the problem is not so much conveying Ron Paul's foreign policy (which is difficult to explain and leaves listeners with the impression "Ron Paul won't do anything").

The problem is addressing American's desire for SAFETY, SECURITY, and defense against the media-spun Muslim problem.
Maybe it would be easier to address that.

AuH20
01-19-2012, 11:18 AM
I think I heard him say that last election cycle. Stop building roads in other countries when the ones here are falling apart. That hits on the economic situation. There are a lot of Republicans that think any cutting in military spending is bad and sacrifices the countries security. The campaign could release a plan to show that it would make the country stronger by cutting spending in wasteful areas it might alleviate some of these fears.

I thought in the last debate he had an excellent answer saying in the 90s that we shut down bases here, which I remember and sent more troops overseas. It was a Clinton, progressive planning that started that. That is why bush was against it in 2000 addressing a humble foreign policy. The other bases in Germany, Japan and S.Korea are cold war era throwbacks. They should be the first ones they close.

You do notice that Rand employs this rhetoric frequently, especially when discussing the recent impasse on funding for under-maintained infrastructure in our country. To paraphrase Rand he said something along the lines of, "why are we destroying bridges in the Middle East, only being held responsible to build new ones, when our decades old infrastructure in the U.S. is being neglected?" It's reason #1003 why Rand is such a more persuasive politician than his dad.

Travlyr
01-19-2012, 11:23 AM
Ron Paul does just fine phrasing his foreign policy. Ron Paul - "A Foreign Policy of Freedom (http://mises.org/books/foreign_policy_freedom_paul.pdf)" ... "Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship"

What part of that do people not understand? The part the media spins so well.

Pete Kay
01-19-2012, 11:24 AM
He really is a horror show when explaining his foreign policy. His surrogates like Jack Hunter & Jesse Benton are so much more adept at streamlining all the loud noise and delivering an articulate, reasoned response. No OBL garbage, no Palestinian/Gaza nonsense. Just the facts, whether it's statements from Joint Chiefs head Admiral Mullen or statistics relating to defense outlays.

Yeah, a horror show is a good way to put it. I don't even watch the debates anymore, because I can't deal with seeing him being so unable to articulate his foreign policy position. Some people want to blame others for his failure in this regard, but Ron Paul is the only one responsible for his lack of salesmanship. Understanding your audience and tailoring the message so that they can comprehend it, is not compromising. That's just basic public speaking skill.

AuH20
01-19-2012, 11:30 AM
Yeah, a horror show is a good way to put it. I don't even watch the debates anymore, because I can't deal with seeing him being so unable to articulate his foreign policy position. Some people want to blame others for his failure in this regard, but Ron Paul is the only one responsible for his lack of salesmanship. Understanding your audience and tailoring the message so that they can comprehend it, is not compromising. That's just basic public speaking skill.

Alot of RP supporters are so sheltered in their comfortable philosophical bubble that they have no idea how bad he comes across with some ill-advised comments. And it has little to do with the audience being sheep. Uttering certain phrases or the quoting certain despicable figures can turn a cogent, reasonable debate answer into a repulsive piece of drek. There is nothing necessarily wrong with Ron's foreign policy views, but all the ugly side dressing that accompanies it is not necessary. Another problem that Ron encounters sometimes is his lack of details into what the foreign policy of a Ron Paul administration would look like.

UK4Paul
01-19-2012, 11:31 AM
Ron Paul does just fine phrasing his foreign policy. Ron Paul - "A Foreign Policy of Freedom (http://mises.org/books/foreign_policy_freedom_paul.pdf)" ... "Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship"

What part of that do people not understand? The part the media spins so well.

It's about communicating this stuff to the electorate.

I think Ron Paul does a good job of communicating generally, just not quite as much in debates.

On the other hand, he comes out with some cracking soundbites at times :)

Brett85
01-19-2012, 11:34 AM
Ron Paul does just fine phrasing his foreign policy. Ron Paul - "A Foreign Policy of Freedom (http://mises.org/books/foreign_policy_freedom_paul.pdf)" ... "Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship"

What part of that do people not understand? The part the media spins so well.

Because the way that Ron speaks in the debates, he comes across sounding very weak, and people assume that he wouldn't even use military action if our country was attacked. I know Republicans who think that Ron would just "sit back and take it" if we were attacked.

coffeewithgames
01-19-2012, 11:35 AM
Somebody (more savvy with video-making than I) should make a video that compiles bits of all of Ron's strong responses regarding foreign policy, and splice them together to make one cohesive response right from Ron's mouth.

I'll work on it this afternoon, I may need a Chipin ($10), for two CSPAN videos I found though that I want to use without some background music that is already in them on YouTube. My wife would be wondering about my money on Facebook ads, and buying videos for a campaign that has millions of dollars but is ineffective in apparently putting out ads addressing issues that are keeping him from running away with the nomination, doesn't make much sense.

AuH20
01-19-2012, 11:36 AM
Because the way that Ron speaks in the debates, he comes across sounding very weak, and people assume that he wouldn't even use military action if our country was attacked. I know Republicans who think that Ron would just "sit back and take it" if we were attacked.

He looks weak from a physical perspective as well. So right off the bat he has two strikes against him, before the people really find out what he's truly about. He sounds weak and looks weak. So when they hear his muddled message, they immediately assume the worst and paint him out to be some peacenik from the 60s.

raystone
01-19-2012, 11:36 AM
Ron Paul does just fine phrasing his foreign policy. Ron Paul - "A Foreign Policy of Freedom (http://mises.org/books/foreign_policy_freedom_paul.pdf)" ... "Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship"

What part of that do people not understand? The part the media spins so well.

What people ? You mean the 99.9% of voters that haven't read it ?

AuH20
01-19-2012, 11:42 AM
Read the distasteful red pin in that mock photo. People really believe this narrative that Ron is weak and submissive. And this has nothing to do with the farce known as the WoT. Voters think Ron would acquiesce to alien invaders if that scenario would ever befall the US:

http://content7.flixster.com/photo/13/98/50/13985069_ori.jpg

Travlyr
01-19-2012, 11:48 AM
What people ? You mean the 99.9% of voters that haven't read it ?

Right. The 99.9% who would be voting for Ron Paul if they knew the truth.

My point is that Ron Paul is not the one failing. People have to accept responsibility for their ignorance... for being led like sheep by the crony media liars. Ron Paul always promotes a strong defense. The media shills get hours upon hours of national stage to tell the people how bad Ron Paul's foreign policy is while Ron gets 30 seconds to rebut.

LibertyEagle
01-19-2012, 12:06 PM
Ron Paul does just fine phrasing his foreign policy. Ron Paul - "A Foreign Policy of Freedom (http://mises.org/books/foreign_policy_freedom_paul.pdf)" ... "Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship"

What part of that do people not understand? The part the media spins so well.

I don't think we can expect voters to read a book to be able to decipher what Dr. Paul is talking about.

Travlyr
01-19-2012, 12:08 PM
I don't think we can expect voters to read a book to be able to decipher what Dr. Paul is talking about.

In a sane society, voters would be able to expect a free media to decipher what Dr. Paul writes. We live in an insane society... it is not Dr. Paul's fault.

Pete Kay
01-19-2012, 12:18 PM
Right. The 99.9% who would be voting for Ron Paul if they knew the truth.

My point is that Ron Paul is not the one failing. People have to accept responsibility for their ignorance... for being led like sheep by the crony media liars. Ron Paul always promotes a strong defense. The media shills get hours upon hours of national stage to tell the people how bad Ron Paul's foreign policy is while Ron gets 30 seconds to rebut.

That's just pure excuse making. Ron Paul needs to step up his game, plain and simple. It's up to us, the supporters, to hold his feet to the fire. Back in 2007 we gave the campaign hell about the, "He's catching on!" tv ad and they obviously listened. Now the ads are in another league.

We need to push him to rework his message so that it appeals to the masses. We know that the majority of Americans even support his position. It's just that Ron is poor at selling it. The campaign can't keep expecting us to send money unless they show that they are taking our concerns seriously.

raystone
01-19-2012, 12:55 PM
Right. The 99.9% who would be voting for Ron Paul if they knew the truth.

My point is that Ron Paul is not the one failing. People have to accept responsibility for their ignorance... for being led like sheep by the crony media liars. Ron Paul always promotes a strong defense. The media shills get hours upon hours of national stage to tell the people how bad Ron Paul's foreign policy is while Ron gets 30 seconds to rebut.


At this point, we don't have time to change how people get their information. The campaign shouldn't change their message, they should change their delivery.

Captain Shays
01-19-2012, 01:09 PM
Ron Paul does just fine phrasing his foreign policy. Ron Paul - "A Foreign Policy of Freedom (http://mises.org/books/foreign_policy_freedom_paul.pdf)" ... "Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship"

What part of that do people not understand? The part the media spins so well.

Travlyr, You're my Bro. We agree on most things but it should be obvious to you of all people that we're getting beat like a dog on foreign policy and it's should be obvious that some minor tweeks are in order for the message. I read Foreign Policy of Freedom like you did and I agree with EVERY word and I am amazed that his speech on May or March of 2001 predicting terrorist attacks isn't main stream by now. But how many of the neonuts do you think Actually READ and if there are any how many do you think READ that book? Ron NEEDS to project his plan for a strnog national defense in clear and concise rhetoric that appeals to those of us who value peace through strength. Like I have said in other threads on this same topic. He wins on non interventionism/minding our own business. He wins on the debt relation to policing the world. He wins on all those accounts but then loses it on HOW we will STILL remain top dog. What WILL he do to keep us strong and safe? What is the strategy? What weapons does he approve of? Is he another John Kerry who would protect us with spit balls or does he favor a missile defense system and upgrading our nuclear arsenal? How does his strong position on the 2nd Amendment relate to our national security? Man if he would only say ONE TIME that whichever enemy tries to invade us they would first need to cross an ocean then, get past our missile defense systems, then our nuclear weapons, then the best air force in the world, the best navy in the world, the best army in the world and best marines in the world and then have to face 200,000,000 armed Americans defending their family and community. They wouldn't get past New Jersey let alone wipe us out and they should all know that.

Captain Shays
01-19-2012, 01:12 PM
I'll work on it this afternoon, I may need a Chipin ($10), for two CSPAN videos I found though that I want to use without some background music that is already in them on YouTube. My wife would be wondering about my money on Facebook ads, and buying videos for a campaign that has millions of dollars but is ineffective in apparently putting out ads addressing issues that are keeping him from running away with the nomination, doesn't make much sense.
Show me a good video and I will chip in

Brett85
01-19-2012, 01:17 PM
Right. The 99.9% who would be voting for Ron Paul if they knew the truth.

My point is that Ron Paul is not the one failing. People have to accept responsibility for their ignorance... for being led like sheep by the crony media liars. Ron Paul always promotes a strong defense. The media shills get hours upon hours of national stage to tell the people how bad Ron Paul's foreign policy is while Ron gets 30 seconds to rebut.

Ron never talks about what he would do to ensure that we have a strong national defense. He hasn't laid out any kind of national defense strategy. He's very vague in what he says.

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-19-2012, 01:21 PM
Ron never talks about what he would do to ensure that we have a strong national defense. He hasn't laid out any kind of national defense strategy. He's very vague in what he says.

Just because you repeat it doesn't make it so. What don't you get about peace, friendship, trade, and no entangling alliances don't you get? Ron's always been for the repeal of the 34, 68, and 86 gun laws. There's your National Defense right there.

blazeKing
01-19-2012, 01:23 PM
If he were going to try and change his talking points he would have done it by now. I'm sure his campaign came to him with ideas and he flat told them "No, this is how it's going to be, I'm not changing how I speak". There are plenty of great advice for him to take on how to frame the debate, but Ron is going to be Ron so we just need to respect that.

Captain Shays
01-19-2012, 01:26 PM
Just because you repeat it doesn't make it so. What don't you get about peace, friendship, trade, and no entangling alliances don't you get? Ron's always been for the repeal of the 34, 68, and 86 gun laws. There's your National Defense right there.

Thats not true and it's certainly not true to those who think his foreign policy is "dangerous" and "isolationist". We WANT weapons. BIG badass weapons. Lots of weapons. The BEST quality of weapons. Sure we don't want to mess with other countries and Ron Paul wins on that most of the time but we sure as hell don't want to be pussies or sit back and allow some other country or group of crazy nutbags to kill our kids. Sorry if I sound like a neocon to some of you but I LOVE peace through strength and I LOVE being the biggest baddest kid on the block. I just want us to be a benevolent badass

Brett85
01-19-2012, 01:30 PM
Just because you repeat it doesn't make it so. What don't you get about peace, friendship, trade, and no entangling alliances don't you get? Ron's always been for the repeal of the 34, 68, and 86 gun laws. There's your National Defense right there.

Lol. I hope most people recognize that the Republican Party isn't made up of anarcho capitalists.

Ilhaguru
01-19-2012, 01:30 PM
Paul needs several examples of how military spending does not equal defense spending.

*Policemen of the world
*Baghdad embassy bigger than the vatican
*Nation building
*Troops in Japan/Germany
*War on Drugs
*Wasteful weapons program

Those things have nothing to do with defense and are good examples. But we need more.

It's an excellent video, btw. Tom Price backed up his claims with some examples, but we need more "ammo" on top of what he said to convert people.

Don't forget, Paul was in favor of an anti-ballistic missile shield. That's clearly defense.

Lethalmiko
01-19-2012, 01:51 PM
It is an indisputable FACT that debate performances and/or charisma have arguably more impact on a candidate's election prospects than positions on issues or past history. BHO got elected in 2008 largely due to charisma (of course it helped that the corrupt bankers backed him and the media gave him a free pass, mesmerized by his "Change" rhetoric). Rick Perry joined the race as a clear front-runner only to stumble on debate performance. Newton Gingrich moved up in the polls and even overtook Romney last year also because of his debate performances after being written off in the Summer of 2011. The latest polling out of SC puts him ahead of Romney soon after the debates with momentum going forward and even Nate Silver's forecast puts him in a dead heat and within 4 percentage points in the chances of winning SC. He may well overtake Romney within the next 48 hours and win.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/south-carolina

With such obviously plain to see facts, you would expect the Paul campaign to work hard to polish his delivery and get him to move up in the polls. Though there are minor improvements, I see little dramatic improvement to the level of Gingrich. Paul should take a leaf out of the Steve Jobs playbook. Jobs would spend several days rehearsing every minute detail of his legendary presentations (I felt like buying the iPhone after watching his presentation despite not having much use for its functions). Is Paul so hard headed that he cannot get this simple point? Or does his campaign think it is irrelevant?

Why risk the possibility of huge regrets five months from now when it is completely within the power of Paul & campaign to correct this issue and start gaining a lot more traction? This is why I keep raising the question of whether the Paul campaign is its greatest enemy.

----

P/S - I rarely see this level of consensus around this issue. Most Paul supporters see this kind of discussion as "negative". I am truly amazed and give a huge thumbs (+++rep) up to everyone in here who is intellectually honest about what is wrong and more importantly, HOW to fix it. Blaming the corrupt media, ignorance, smear campaigns, the military-industrial complex, etc goes only so far. As several of us noted in another discussion I started recently, these fatal flaws in the campaign if not addressed immediately will ensure a Bush fourth term expressed in either BHO or WMR.

*****************

My favourite quotes:


He really is a horror show when explaining his foreign policy. His surrogates like Jack Hunter & Jesse Benton are so much more adept at streamlining all the loud noise and delivering an articulate, reasoned response. No OBL garbage, no Palestinian/Gaza nonsense. Just the facts, whether it's statements from the Joint Chiefs head Admiral Mullen or statistics relating to defense outlays.


Yeah, a horror show is a good way to put it. I don't even watch the debates anymore, because I can't deal with seeing him being so unable to articulate his foreign policy position. Some people want to blame others for his failure in this regard, but Ron Paul is the only one responsible for his lack of salesmanship. Understanding your audience and tailoring the message so that they can comprehend it, is not compromising. That's just basic public speaking skill.


Alot of RP supporters are so sheltered in their comfortable philosophical bubble that they have no idea how bad he comes across with some ill-advised comments. And it has little to do with the audience being sheep. Uttering certain phrases or the quoting certain despicable figures can turn a cogent, reasonable debate answer into a repulsive piece of drek. There is nothing necessarily wrong with Ron's foreign policy views, but all the ugly side dressing that accompanies it is not necessary. Another problem that Ron encounters sometimes is his lack of details into what the foreign policy of a Ron Paul administration would look like.


Because the way that Ron speaks in the debates, he comes across sounding very weak, and people assume that he wouldn't even use military action if our country was attacked. I know Republicans who think that Ron would just "sit back and take it" if we were attacked.


In a sane society, voters would be able to expect a free media to decipher what Dr. Paul writes. We live in an insane society... it is not Dr. Paul's fault.


That's just pure excuse making. Ron Paul needs to step up his game, plain and simple. It's up to us, the supporters, to hold his feet to the fire. Back in 2007 we gave the campaign hell about the, "He's catching on!" tv ad and they obviously listened. Now the ads are in another league. We need to push him to rework his message so that it appeals to the masses. We know that the majority of Americans even support his position. It's just that Ron is poor at selling it. The campaign can't keep expecting us to send money unless they show that they are taking our concerns seriously.


At this point, we don't have time to change how people get their information. The campaign shouldn't change their message, they should change their delivery.

Lethalmiko
01-19-2012, 01:51 PM
It is an indisputable FACT that debate performances and/or charisma have arguably more impact on a candidate's election prospects than positions on issues or past history. BHO got elected in 2008 largely due to charisma (of course it helped that the corrupt bankers backed him and the media gave him a free pass, mesmerized by his "Change" rhetoric). Rick Perry joined the race as a clear front-runner only to stumble on debate performance. Newton Gingrich moved up in the polls and even overtook Romney last year also because of his debate performances after being written off in the Summer of 2011. The latest polling out of SC puts him ahead of Romney soon after the debates with momentum going forward and even Nate Silver's forecast puts him in a dead heat and within 4 percentage points in the chances of winning SC. He may well overtake Romney within the next 48 hours and win.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/south-carolina

With such obviously plain-to-see facts, you would expect the Paul campaign to work hard to polish his delivery and get him to move up in the polls. Though there are minor improvements, I see little dramatic improvement to the level of Gingrich. Paul should take a leaf out of the Steve Jobs playbook. Jobs would spend several days rehearsing every minute detail of his legendary presentations (I felt like buying the iPhone after watching his presentation despite not having much use for its functions). Is Paul so hard-headed that he cannot get this simple point? Or does his campaign think it is irrelevant?

Why risk the possibility of huge regrets five months from now when it is completely within the power of Paul & campaign to correct this issue and start gaining a lot more traction? This is why I keep raising the question of whether the Paul campaign is its greatest enemy.

----

P/S - I rarely see this level of consensus around this issue. Most Paul supporters see this kind of discussion as "negative". I am truly amazed and give a huge thumbs up (+++rep) to everyone in here who is intellectually honest about what is wrong and more importantly, HOW to fix it. Blaming the corrupt media, ignorance, smear campaigns, the military-industrial complex, etc goes only so far. As several of us noted in another discussion I started recently, these fatal flaws in the campaign if not addressed immediately will ensure a Bush fourth term expressed in either BHO or WMR.

*****************

My favourite quotes:


He really is a horror show when explaining his foreign policy. His surrogates like Jack Hunter & Jesse Benton are so much more adept at streamlining all the loud noise and delivering an articulate, reasoned response. No OBL garbage, no Palestinian/Gaza nonsense. Just the facts, whether it's statements from the Joint Chiefs head Admiral Mullen or statistics relating to defense outlays.


Yeah, a horror show is a good way to put it. I don't even watch the debates anymore, because I can't deal with seeing him being so unable to articulate his foreign policy position. Some people want to blame others for his failure in this regard, but Ron Paul is the only one responsible for his lack of salesmanship. Understanding your audience and tailoring the message so that they can comprehend it, is not compromising. That's just basic public speaking skill.


Alot of RP supporters are so sheltered in their comfortable philosophical bubble that they have no idea how bad he comes across with some ill-advised comments. And it has little to do with the audience being sheep. Uttering certain phrases or the quoting certain despicable figures can turn a cogent, reasonable debate answer into a repulsive piece of drek. There is nothing necessarily wrong with Ron's foreign policy views, but all the ugly side dressing that accompanies it is not necessary. Another problem that Ron encounters sometimes is his lack of details into what the foreign policy of a Ron Paul administration would look like.


Because the way that Ron speaks in the debates, he comes across sounding very weak, and people assume that he wouldn't even use military action if our country was attacked. I know Republicans who think that Ron would just "sit back and take it" if we were attacked.


In a sane society, voters would be able to expect a free media to decipher what Dr. Paul writes. We live in an insane society... it is not Dr. Paul's fault.


That's just pure excuse making. Ron Paul needs to step up his game, plain and simple. It's up to us, the supporters, to hold his feet to the fire. Back in 2007 we gave the campaign hell about the, "He's catching on!" tv ad and they obviously listened. Now the ads are in another league. We need to push him to rework his message so that it appeals to the masses. We know that the majority of Americans even support his position. It's just that Ron is poor at selling it. The campaign can't keep expecting us to send money unless they show that they are taking our concerns seriously.


At this point, we don't have time to change how people get their information. The campaign shouldn't change their message, they should change their delivery.

EBounding
01-19-2012, 01:53 PM
Paul needs several examples of how military spending does not equal defense spending.

*Policemen of the world
*Baghdad embassy bigger than the vatican
*Nation building
*Troops in Japan/Germany
*War on Drugs
*Wasteful weapons program

Those things have nothing to do with defense and are good examples. But we need more.

It's an excellent video, btw. Tom Price backed up his claims with some examples, but we need more "ammo" on top of what he said to convert people.

Don't forget, Paul was in favor of an anti-ballistic missile shield. That's clearly defense.

YES exactly. The only way he gets specific is if the moderators press him with follow-ups. But they don't because they know it will improve his image. This sometimes happens in one-off interviews, but never during debates.

So do we have to petition the campaign or something to get him to talk about his national defense strategy?

Brett85
01-19-2012, 01:55 PM
Paul needs several examples of how military spending does not equal defense spending.

I think the term needs to be "overseas spending," not "military spending." When people hear Ron say that he wants to cut "military spending," they assume he wants to gut the military. If Ron's position is simply that we should bring our troops home and have more bases here, then he should use the term "overseas spending."

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-19-2012, 01:56 PM
Lol. I hope most people recognize that the Republican Party isn't made up of anarcho capitalists.

So Elbridge Gerry and the rest of the Anti-Federalists were An-Caps? That's news to me! I guess Costa Rica is An-Cap also because they have no Standing Army.

Brett85
01-19-2012, 02:00 PM
So Elbridge Gerry and the rest of the Anti-Federalists were An-Caps? That's news to me! I guess Costa Rica is An-Cap also because they have no Standing Army.

No, I didn't say that. But you made it sound like the 2nd amendment should be our entire national defense, and I thought you've said in the past that you're an anarcho capitalistic.

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-19-2012, 02:06 PM
No, I didn't say that. But you made it sound like the 2nd amendment should be our entire national defense, and I thought you've said in the past that you're an anarcho capitalistic.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment is and should be our National Defense, as the Militia is the only defensive military unit, and Standing Armies only purpose are for offensive and totalitarian purposes. Yes, I am a Voluntaryist (An-Cap if you prefer it), but that has nothing to do with the subject. You can be a minimal Statist and argue for the abolition of Standing Army and it is not inconsistent. I wonder what you think of Samuel Adams arguing for abolition of Standing Armies.

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-19-2012, 02:09 PM
http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/09/25/samuel-adams-to-james-warren-on-militias-and-standing-armies/


It is certainly of the last Consequence to a free Country that the Militia, which is its natural Strength, should be kept upon the most advantageous Footing. A standing Army, however necessary it may be at some times, is always dangerous to the Liberties of the People. Soldiers are apt to consider themselves as a Body distinct from the rest of the Citizens. They have their Arms always in their hands. Their Rules and their Discipline is severe. They soon become attachd to their officers and disposd to yield implicit Obedience to their Commands. Such a Power should be watchd with a jealous Eye. I have a good Opinion of the principal officers of our Army. I esteem them as Patriots as well as Soldiers. But if this War continues, as it may for years yet to come, we know not who may succeed them. Men who have been long subject to military Laws and inured to military Customs and Habits, may lose the Spirit and Feeling of Citizens. And even Citizens, having been used to admire the Heroism which the Commanders of their own Army have displayd, and to look up to them as their Saviors may be prevaild upon to surrender to them those Rights for the protection of which against Invaders they had employd and paid them. We have seen too much of this Disposition among some of our Countrymen. The Militia is composd of free Citizens. There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them. I earnestly wish that young Gentlemen of a military Genius (& many such I am satisfied there are in our Colony) might be instructed in the Art of War, and at the same time taught the Principles of a free Government, and deeply impressd with a Sense of the indispensible Obligation which every member is under to the whole Society. These might be in time fit for officers in the Militia, and being thorowly acquainted with the Duties of Citizens as well as Soldiers, might be entrusted with a Share in the Command of our Army at such times as Necessity might require so dangerous a Body to exist.

Americans today are so voraciously statist that many a Founder would tar and feather them.

Brett85
01-19-2012, 02:10 PM
Yes, the 2nd Amendment is and should be our National Defense, as the Militia is the only defensive military unit, and Standing Armies only purpose are for offensive and totalitarian purposes. Yes, I am a Voluntaryist (An-Cap if you prefer it), but that has nothing to do with the subject. You can be a minimal Statist and argue for the abolition of Standing Army and it is not inconsistent. I wonder what you think of Samuel Adams arguing for abolition of Standing Armies.

You're arguing in favor of abolishing the Navy, Air Force, and Marines as well. Also, you seem to be saying that the government shouldn't own any weapons, have a missile defense system, etc. I try my best to respect the positions that others have, so I'm not trying to bash you. But obviously Ron doesn't share your views, as he supports having a strong military, but just wants to bring them home. What I and others have been trying to say is that Ron needs to talk about what his plans are to use our military to enhance our defense here at home.

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-19-2012, 02:14 PM
You're arguing in favor of abolishing the Navy, Air Force, and Marines as well. Also, you seem to be saying that the government shouldn't own any weapons, have a missile defense system, etc. I try my best to respect the positions that others have, so I'm not trying to bash you. But obviously Ron doesn't share your views, as he supports having a strong military, but just wants to bring them home. What I and others have been trying to say is that Ron needs to talk about what his plans are to use our military to enhance our defense here at home.

You still don't get it. Standing Armies are not defensive! A free people are capable of defending themselves, their families, communities, and society. Unlike you, I have complete understanding that freedom and liberty works.

Brett85
01-19-2012, 02:19 PM
You still don't get it. Standing Armies are not defensive! A free people are capable of defending themselves, their families, communities, and society. Unlike you, I have complete understanding that freedom and liberty works.

Like I said, your ideology includes abolishing the entire military, so don't pretend that you're simply talking about not having a standing army. We wouldn't have a Navy or Air Force if it was up to you. In fact, we wouldn't have a government at all. And no, Ron Paul doesn't believe that we should abolish the army. If he actually said that, he would probably be at 1% in the polls.

Travlyr
01-19-2012, 03:03 PM
You're arguing in favor of abolishing the Navy, Air Force, and Marines as well. Also, you seem to be saying that the government shouldn't own any weapons, have a missile defense system, etc. I try my best to respect the positions that others have, so I'm not trying to bash you. But obviously Ron doesn't share your views, as he supports having a strong military, but just wants to bring them home. What I and others have been trying to say is that Ron needs to talk about what his plans are to use our military to enhance our defense here at home.

Ron Paul claims that defending the nation is a primary constitutial duty. The Militia is the most important element in that defense, but it is not the only one.

Article I Section 8 (http://constitution.org/constit_.htm)

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The Air Force can operate under the authority of the Navy.

The Purse & The Sword (http://www.amazon.com/Purse-Sword-Dr-Edwin-Vieira/dp/B003FSTVI6) by Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. explains all this. Since the media is going to keep on lying, or go back to ignoring Ron Paul, then it is up to us to spread the truth.

Butchie
01-19-2012, 03:10 PM
Ron Paul does just fine phrasing his foreign policy. Ron Paul - "A Foreign Policy of Freedom (http://mises.org/books/foreign_policy_freedom_paul.pdf)" ... "Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship"

What part of that do people not understand? The part the media spins so well.

You really think the average Republican voter ever has or ever will read that? When are some of you going to quit thinking like Ron Paul supporters and start thinking like the average voter?

Butchie
01-19-2012, 03:19 PM
If he were going to try and change his talking points he would have done it by now. I'm sure his campaign came to him with ideas and he flat told them "No, this is how it's going to be, I'm not changing how I speak". There are plenty of great advice for him to take on how to frame the debate, but Ron is going to be Ron so we just need to respect that.

Fair enough, but then Ron has to respect the fact that if he can't do this one simple thing than don't expect me to part with anymore of my hard earned money, or stand out in the freezing cold holding signs, or get yelled at by neighbors when I knock on doors, or any of the others things that I volunteer my time for towards his campaign.

Travlyr
01-19-2012, 03:21 PM
You really think the average Republican voter ever has or ever will read that? When are some of you going to quit thinking like Ron Paul supporters and start thinking like the average voter?

I do not have delusions that average voters will read Ron Paul's "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" ... a policy of Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship. An honest free media would promote his policy truthfully. They are not. There are a percentage of intelligent voters who will do their own research. It is our job to promote the truth. When we reach critical mass, then it doesn't matter what the average voter reads. They will follow the leader.

Butchie
01-19-2012, 03:25 PM
I do not have delusions that average voters will read Ron Paul's "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" ... a policy of Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship. An honest free media would promote his policy truthfully. They are not. There are a percentage of intelligent voters who will do their own research. It is our job to promote the truth. When we reach critical mass, then it doesn't matter what the average voter reads. They will follow the leader.

Good luck with that. I admire your optimism that the media will suddenly become the ethical entity that it should be and the average American will grow 50 IQ points overnight.

EBounding
01-19-2012, 03:32 PM
If he were going to try and change his talking points he would have done it by now. I'm sure his campaign came to him with ideas and he flat told them "No, this is how it's going to be, I'm not changing how I speak". There are plenty of great advice for him to take on how to frame the debate, but Ron is going to be Ron so we just need to respect that.

The thing is, he HAS changed his foreign policy talking points slightly. Up until a month or two ago, we never heard "You declare war, you fight it, and win it quickly to get it over with" (at least I didn't). This is a good line. But he usually throws it in at the tail end of his statement when he's about to run out of time.

He also finally brought up the military donations! Getting him to say that felt like pulling teeth. So I think he is willing to adjust his message. He just gets too focused on answering the exact question. And the question is never "What is your specific national defense strategy?" or "What would the role of the navy be in your administration?" So he never makes these points.

Travlyr
01-19-2012, 03:35 PM
Good luck with that. I admire your optimism that the media will suddenly become the ethical entity that it should be and the average American will grow 50 IQ points overnight.

I do not view people as dumb. I view them as indoctrinated. Indoctrination is cured by truth. Sure Dr. Paul can improve his delivery, and so can we.

Cortes
01-20-2012, 11:16 PM
Man if he would only say ONE TIME that whichever enemy tries to invade us they would first need to cross an ocean then, get past our missile defense systems, then our nuclear weapons, then the best air force in the world, the best navy in the world, the best army in the world and best marines in the world and then have to face 200,000,000 armed Americans defending their family and community. They wouldn't get past New Jersey let alone wipe us out and they should all know that.


http://i.imgur.com/pGkGf.jpg

Paul4Prez
01-21-2012, 01:32 AM
Ron Paul doesn't need to rephrase anything. People who like Ron Paul just need to do a better job of turning out to vote in the primaries. If Ron Paul supporters turn out at 2x the rate of other candidates, we will win easily. Only 8 million voted for John McCain in the primaries last time.

alucard13mmfmj
01-21-2012, 02:15 AM
i will bomb iran if we have credible information that they are making nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of nuking israel. i will gather evidence and present them to congress. if congress thinks we need to go to war, then i will produce a game plan to win to engage them and bring our troops home as fast as possible.

Feeding the Abscess
01-21-2012, 02:18 AM
Ron is too old to change. This is what we've got. It's time for the GOP electorate to settle for Ron Paul because he is better for the economy. It should be pointed out that both Newt and Romney supported the bailout. It should be pointed out that Santorum expanded government and doubled the size of the department of education. Ron Paul will veto any bailout or mandate and will work to eliminate the Department of Education.

To add to this, Santorum also voted to bailout the airline industry. To think he would have done anything but fall in line in the bank bailout as the number 3 GOP senator is hilarious.

alucard13mmfmj
01-21-2012, 02:22 AM
"conservatives" just wants a tough president who will kill people. they want a macho guy to represent them. hell, i bet every "conservative" will vote for Chuck Noris if they had the chance (who i lost respect for recently). i dont get these "conservatives" sometimes... they are anti-abortion, yet they want to bomb the sh1t out of people and possibly kill innocent children in the process.

just how many more people have to die from the 9/11 incident. im appalled that politicians and "conservatives" is using the victims of 9/11 as a way to perpetuate war and kill more people. we should honor those 9/11 victims and try to at least bring peace, instead of war and destruction in their names.