999!

[rnestam]

RP needs to stop pandering to the base and bore us to death by repeating himself over and over and over and over again. Newt won because he came across as a Badass...plain and simple, he repeated his Reagan line over and over with attitude.

"WE ARE DANGEROUS TO THE STATUS QUO....AND THIER MEDIA EMPIRE..." over and over and over and over

I think newt prooved the media is a great and deserving target. 2 hours of post debate coverage and not a mention?...time to give up on ever getting a fair shake and attack them as part of the problem, which they are

[rideurlightning]

It's not pandering to the base, it's called stating your beliefs. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Slobodan]

The problem is I watched the national "crony" news last 2 days (ABC and NBC) and they showed both days a shot of 3 people and talked about 3 people in the debate in SC with NO RON PAUL! My theory is that more then 50% just vote based on subconscious images and talking points from crony media without thinking for a second it it's right or wrong. I spend tons of time in Belgrade, Serbia their version of "crony" media does the same thing!(pushed the agenda they wanted). It's hard to overcome this until more people get of the TV and get their news online like we are (or we have access to main TV channels), but realistically what percentage of the population does get their new dependently that is close to the truth?

[maxoutco]

RP needs to stop pandering to the base and bore us to death by repeating himself over and over and over and over again. Newt won because he came across as a Badass...plain and simple, he repeated his Reagan line over and over with attitude.

"WE ARE DANGEROUS TO THE STATUS QUO....AND THIER MEDIA EMPIRE..." over and over and over and over

I think newt prooved the media is a great and deserving target. 2 hours of post debate coverage and not a mention?...time to give up on ever getting a fair shake and attack them as part of the problem, which they are

It's all about strategy, SC wasn't a part of that.

[joshnorris14]

Pandering does not mean what you think it does. Ironic that you call for him to quit "pandering" when in reality if he quit saying those things he WOULD be pandering.

[rnestam]

Pandering does not mean what you think it does. Ironic that you call for him to quit "pandering" when in reality if he quit saying those things he WOULD be pandering.

".....RP needs to stop pandering to the base and bore us to death by repeating himself over and over and over and over again.." is what I said. Hardly sounds like I said he needs to quit saying anything, just the opposite.

As in when he says something great, stick with it. HE NEEDS A DEFINING LINE other than "Freedom is Popular" and the line "I AM DANGEROUS" is perfect for shaking his passive image the MSM is giving him...I was just trying to say I think he knows "we" listen to every word he says which keeps him from repeating himself too often. I said nothing about him changing his tune or to "quit saying" certain things...just the opposite, I want him to be a broken record on the short sweet stuff WAY more. How many stupid times did we hear "True bold Reagan Conservative" come out of Newts mouth in last 3 weeks. Or again "999".....Both led to skyrocketing poll numbers. His Base is rock solid, was just saying he should forget about us and the drawn out details and stick with "I am Dangerous....The Elites don't want me....Lobbyists don't bother knocking...The Troops want respect...." Every Paragraph in his speeches should be broken down into a 5 word overview and that's ALL he should say...the facts are there, time to put the burden of proof on the other side.

[rnestam]

K, pandering was a TERRIBLE word to use then...

How about he needs to care less about pleasing the smart people and start going for the dumb vote...

[european]

K, pandering was a TERRIBLE word to use then...

How about he needs to care less about pleasing the smart people and start going for the dumb vote...

I'm sorry but I have to disagree there. It is not about smart or dumb. It is about reaching out to another type of voter. Ron Paul is now getting the vote of the people who actually do research themselves. You might refer to them/us as smart, but that is inaccurate and false. It would be more accurate to call this group pro-active and the other re-active in behaviour concerning the topic of politics. The one group in search of information and the other group wanting to get information presented to them. And their personal choice can be thousandfold. Maybe they are very pro-active in other areas of their lives.

But nevertheless I do agree with you strongly that dr Paul should change his tone (not his message), and focus in on the new group that has to be convinced. And I think it is that dr Paul should talk more about the solutions then explaining the problem. Sofar for every 60 seconds of talkingtime during the debats he is explaining the problem for 50 seconds and then gives a solution in 10 secondens. I think it should be more of 30 seconds explaining and 30 seconds solution, or even 20 seconds explaining and 40 seconds solution.

disclaimer: I didnt have a stopwatch so I can be off with my estimates, but it is the feeling I get from the debates.

[rnestam]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree there. It is not about smart or dumb. It is about reaching out to another type of voter. Ron Paul is now getting the vote of the people who actually do research themselves. You might refer to them/us as smart, but that is inaccurate and false. It would be more accurate to call this group pro-active and the other re-active in behaviour concerning the topic of politics. The one group in search of information and the other group wanting to get information presented to them. And their personal choice can be thousandfold. Maybe they are very pro-active in other areas of their lives.

But nevertheless I do agree with you strongly that dr Paul should change his tone (not his message), and focus in on the new group that has to be convinced. And I think it is that dr Paul should talk more about the solutions then explaining the problem. Sofar for every 60 seconds of talkingtime during the debats he is explaining the problem for 50 seconds and then gives a solution in 10 secondens. I think it should be more of 30 seconds explaining and 30 seconds solution, or even 20 seconds explaining and 40 seconds solution.

disclaimer: I didnt have a stopwatch so I can be off with my estimates, but it is the feeling I get from the debates.

Agree 100%....Said it better than I could...and did.

I was also leaning towards the fact that RP is the only true outsider up there, yet he doesn't stress it enough or simple enough. The re-actives, towards politics at least, are taking the other candidates at their word. Instead of explaining why Newt is nothing but a crony insider, he just needs to keep calling him one. Start the fight first, then win it...

[GunnyFreedom]

Stop base-building and start coalition-building.

An even shorter way to say it. :D

[AFPVet]

How do we network with the "others"? We are going to need some serious bank....