PDA

View Full Version : Time for a TELEPROMPTER!




presence
02-29-2012, 09:34 AM
“I’m most proud of my message, but...
I keep working on my ability to deliver it.”
-Ron Paul, Des Moines, November 2011


No RP fan wants to talk about the

elephant-in-the-room,

but when Ron speaks publically, he has a modest... a modest problem with word-repetition-stutter, and um, but um, uhh and, he talks a bit fast; is prone to disfluencies, run-ons, and prolongations; he places inton..ation in odd places, he often interrupts rather than PLAN for his reverberant applause, and his musical........metrehiccups. There is a certain beauty to his impromtu style, but it does have its downfalls. Attempts at transcription of Ron's speeches invariably invite transcription-editing. His message is wonderful, but sadly he is a B+/C- public orator. Even offered constructively and I do mean it so... ouch. In personally viewing just about all he has spoken publically for the past decade or so, I can only note the stutter becoming more pronounced as his audience grows and it is often worst in the second half of his stump. Now, this comes with a lot of things, being an enthusiastic septuagenarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/septuagenarian) included, and many of us, myself included would be at odds to do much better before an audience of 1000+, for over an hour, without notes. That said, one cannot ignore that while this form of speech does well with certain energetic demographics,

it is inevitably alienating others;

notably many of his fellow septuagenarians and those with their head in the proverbial sand. Especially so, in a society accustomed to

politics-via-teleprompter.

Listening to Ron stump makes me wish I had a ear piece in his ear where I could coach him mid-stump: "slow down", "breathe deep", "take your time", "gather yoursef", "consider your wider audience", "stablize your musical metre", etc. In this regard, I do think Ron would benefit from an intro to public speaking course and/or stuttering behavioral therapy lessons. Perhaps just a speech coach signing gestures from the audience; or simply a note on his podium reminding him to slow down. He might simply solve some of his issues by

keeping a digital metronome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metronome) in his pocket

while he speeks. Gathering some oration skills of this sort would certainly help with his ethos arguements and in courting those accustomed to the status-quo. Besides, a late-in-life quest for self-improvement may actually play out as postive media fodder. Doing so certainly couldn't hurt. Also, on the "could not hurt" side of the equation, and perhaps more importantly:

OCCASSIONALY giving an empassioned stump by teleprompter, with a good audio/video TEAM working for the home team would undoubtably bode well in the long run.

I suggest Ron make 4 speeches:

Sound Money, Economics, and Jobs
Foreign Policy, War, and National Security
Religion and Civil Liberties
Other Candidates, Obama, and Other Issues

Each prepared from stenographic notes of his previous stumps. Have them professionally edited within the campaign; so that they are:

graceful,
eloquent,
concise,
fluent, and
clear.

Pick an upcoming US state and give one PREPARED, PRACTICED, and TELEPROMPTED speech, on one topic, in series, in each of 4 different locations; I suggest Universities. Be sure to have a camera man or 3 on hand to professionally record the event, then edit the event to include key pictures of the audience and multiple perspectives; just as the mass media would do for the sitting president. Finally put out 4 HD quality videos on the official campaign website, which could be hyped as the "Ron Paul 4-Part Libery Platform Series" or similar.

I think by having his platform reduced into 4 +/- high quality elements it would allow us (the choir to which he most often preaches) a better opportunity to spread his message to the masses. In short, THE LIBERTY MESSAGE would appeal to a broader audience if it was spoon fed in a format they are used to.

presence

note:

I also mentioned this point here: Thread: Ron Paul's style of speaking!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363266-Ron-Paul-s-style-of-speaking!&p=4224378&viewfull=1#post4224378

Cleaner44
02-29-2012, 09:37 AM
Great ideas... except this falls into the catagory of talking to air because there is nothing that anyone here can do about it. :(

ZanZibar
02-29-2012, 09:40 AM
If Ron wanted a teleprompter, don't you think he would've gotten one by now?

Revolution9
02-29-2012, 09:56 AM
The OP misunderstands the usage of stopping and starting sentences on the same word with a short pause. In Dr. Paul's case this is 'bedside manner' in that these are concepts that many in the audience may have cognitive dissonance issues with so the delivery gives pause to the sentence allaying the 'command structure' of the promulgation and allowing the message passage without rejection. If yer going to have to do something radical with a patient the best manner would not to be to just outright state it but to 'ease' into it as a difficult subject to broach and the concommitant pause and restarts gives proper concern and inevitability at once to the statements whilst lessening any shock from cognitive dissonance in the listener/patient/undecided voter.

Rev9

heavenlyboy34
02-29-2012, 10:05 AM
We've actually discussed this "elephant in the room" quite a bit 'round these parts. I can see how it would be distracting for people new to RP, but not really something typical people would take into consideration when voting. Remember GWB? GHWB? (To a lesser extent) Clinton?

heavenlyboy34
02-29-2012, 10:05 AM
The OP misunderstands the usage of stopping and starting sentences on the same word with a short pause. In Dr. Paul's case this is 'bedside manner' in that these are concepts that many in the audience may have cognitive dissonance issues with so the delivery gives pause to the sentence allaying the 'command structure' of the promulgation and allowing the message passage without rejection. If yer going to have to do something radical with a patient the best manner would not to be to just outright state it but to 'ease' into it as a difficult subject to broach and the concommitant pause and restarts gives proper concern and inevitability at once to the statements whilst lessening any shock from cognitive dissonance in the listener/patient/undecided voter.

Rev9
This is part of why Gary North calls RP a Master Of Rhetoric, IIRC.

presence
02-29-2012, 10:11 AM
The OP misunderstands the usage of stopping and starting sentences on the same word with a short pause.

I've taken and faired well in many collegiate-level public-speaking and rhetoric courses. In my experienced opinion, these are not planned usages, but unpolished nervous disfluencies, which are evident to alienate a substantial subset of the uncommitted audience. If Ron's pauses were "concommitant" as you suggest they would be placed forcefully and naturally (ala MLK, etc.) rather than arhythmically in his speeches. I love Ron. I love his message. The fact is, he stutters.


This is part of why Gary North calls RP a Master Of Rhetoric, IIRC.

Quite the contrary. North specifically says RP is a POOR ORATOR, which he then says may not be necessary to be a master of rhetoric. Which I agree with to a point, but becoming a master of rhetoric should not preclude the effort to become a master orator as well; especially if you seek to become master of the free world.

Rhetoric - "The faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." (Aristotle)
Oration - The style or manner in which such a speech is given; most often impacting the ethos element of rhetoric.


Gary North, "Ron Paul is NOT a polished speaker. This criticism is correct."

http://www.garynorth.com/public/8936.cfm


If Ron wanted a teleprompter, don't you think he would've gotten one by now?

What Ron "wants" is grossly irrelevent. The fact is, he "needs" to appeal to a broader audience to win this election and spread his/our liberty message. Unless his desire to avoid telepromters trumps his desire to precipitate an intellectual social revolution; which, I highly doubt. Refusing to make telepromted speeches is just as much a shot in the foot as refusing to advertise on TV, radio, or attend debates; its just another important format of conveyence with another substantial voting bloc associated to its skilled leverage.

We've actually discussed this "elephant in the room" quite a bit 'round these parts.

Yes, but in the past he was filling rooms with hundreds and he was a quantifibly a fringe candidate. He now fills rooms with thousands and stands upon the cascading precipice of becoming our President. Giving in to the wisdom of occasional teleprompter usage is now more evident than ever. Though you and I may not need Ron in a suit and tie; there are some that would not give ANY candidate the light of day without such; same goes for a prepared speech with teleprompter and HD video. The time has past to brew a passionate band of grassroots supporters; mission accomplished. The time has come to tip the masses into our court.


Great ideas... except this falls into the catagory of talking to air because there is nothing that anyone here can do about it. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

A butterfly flaps its wings...

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect)

jmdrake
02-29-2012, 10:59 AM
I've taken and faired well in may a collegiate level public speaking course. In my experienced opinion, these are not planned usages, but unpolished disfluencies.

Of course he does. The question is how? The stuff that he has to say doesn't play well in "soundbite journalism". Take the point Ron made early on with regards to how we were able to arrest and prosecute Tim McVeigh without violating the constitution. Take Newt Gingrich's response. "The problem is that Tim McVeigh succeeded. I don't want people like that to be able to succeed." As much as I can't stand Newt Gingrich, he played the soundbite masterfully there. The point Ron was making is "Don't think it's going to just be those brown Muslims under scrutiny by the FBI. Young white Christian males may get caught up in the same dragnet". Of course Ron couldn't come out and say that. So Gingrich won the soundbite fight. Similarly when Ron criticized the way the killing of OBL went down, the "soundbite" everyone was tuned into was "Yeah! We killed the badguy!*" Saying it could have been done better was not the best soundbite for the moment. Ron needs time to do a Ross Perot style infomercial for his soundbites to make sense to the average geopolitically challenged voter. We try to brush this off by calling them "sheeple" or "neocons" or whatever, but I've seen and heard otherwise intelligent people who should know better and who are not neocons say things like "We just need to go ahead and take out Iran". I'm not just talking about Tucker Carlson. With the mentality we have of the average voter, let alone the average republican voter, that it's "us versus them", Ron's statements that we shouldn't even have sanctions against Iran sound positively bizarre. I understand what Ron is saying. But I also understand that Iran is not crazy and that Ahmadenijad does not have power over Iran's military and, from Iran's perspective and looking at how we've positively treated nuclear "rogue" nation North Korea and how we betrayed non-nuclear Libya after we "brought them in from the cold" was they gave up their nuke ambitions and terror connections, what Iran is doing is clearly in their own best survival interest. But the average voter thinks "they're just crazy and want to kill us all and we need to kill them all first." No amount of teleprompting, debate coaching etc is going to break through that. Either Ron needs to repackage his message (ain't gonna happen) or somehow make sure voters really have the opportunity to hear his thoughts in context and understand what he's saying. (There's not enough time at this point). Really in hindsight I wish Ron had gone "Ross Perot" and done some infomercials. :(

vechorik
02-29-2012, 11:00 AM
Have you heard Ron Paul read his weekly telephone addresses?
Pretty bad. I think Ron Paul speaks much better when he isn't reading.

presence
02-29-2012, 11:28 AM
Have you heard Ron Paul read his weekly telephone addresses?
Pretty bad. I think Ron Paul speaks much better when he isn't reading.

I would agree, and I had much the same issue before I took a few public speaking courses, learned to prepare and recite my speeches in poetic terms, and eliminated my tendency to stutter by video taping myself as I practiced each public engagement. Nothing a good speech coach couldn't hammer out in a few hours each evening between now and super tuesday.

The same could also be noted with regard to Ron's speeches over the past few decades on the house floor. In hindsight; could you imagine where our nation could be if Ron took the time back when to study and bow to the art of oration? Perhaps, instead of a long history of losing battles before Congress, improved style and delivery could have averted many a poor decision by our Nation.

presence

presence
02-29-2012, 11:38 AM
The stuff that he has to say doesn't play well in "soundbite journalism".
[that]
make sense to the average geopolitically challenged voter.
[we need to]
somehow make sure voters really have the opportunity to hear his thoughts in context and understand what he's saying.
[I'm afraid]
(There's not enough time at this point).
[]
Really in hindsight I wish Ron had gone "Ross Perot" and done some infomercials. :(

The fact is we are not in a moment of hindsight; we still have foresight; the primary is still in its dawn; only 1/10 of delegates have been awarded. We have an opportunity to repackage his/our message into soundbites which "make sense to the average geopolitially challenged voter" We can "make sure voters really have the opportunity to hear his thoughts in context and understand what he's saying" without changing the CONTENT of his message by helping Ron improve the STYLE and FORMAT, with which he addresses the broader audience.

presence

presence
02-29-2012, 11:46 AM
The question is how?

As a first step, we as his volunteer army, could reduce his stumping platform into a stenographed collection of transcripted RP aphormisms.

Send me a PM if you'd like to help.

From there one or more writers/editors, closer to his campaign, could rearrage his thoughts into a more coherent and eloquent series of speechs/lectures. As I've said, there are only about 2-3 hours of basic platform aphormisms which Ron regularly repeats. To appeal to a broader audience this ranting platform needs to be reduced into poetically delivered abridged subtopics.

presence

ZanZibar
02-29-2012, 11:47 AM
What Ron "wants" is grossly irrelevent. The fact is, he "needs" to appeal to a broader audience to win this election and spread his/our liberty message. Unless his desire to avoid telepromters trumps his desire to precipitate an intellectual social revolution; which, I highly doubt.


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect)Be sure to tell him that next time you see him. I'd like to know what his response is...

presence
02-29-2012, 11:52 AM
Be sure to tell him that next time you see him. I'd like to know what his response is...

A man of philosophy, I doubt he'd be offended. I make no assertion that he change the content of his message; only that he broaden the scope of his delivery methods. Making occasional teleprompted speeches is just like choosing to make radio or TV ads; it is a change in method and style.

Off topic, but how do you post if you are "banned" ????

kathy88
02-29-2012, 11:59 AM
I think Ron's "awkwardness" is one of the things that draws people in after they hear him. I initially thought, "this guy is sincere." It's endearing.

presence
02-29-2012, 12:06 PM
I think Ron's "awkwardness" is one of the things that draws people in after they hear him. I initially thought, "this guy is sincere." It's endearing.

I would agree... to an extent. He won many of us "disenfranchised voters" over with his "awkward", "endearing", and "sincere" nature; HE'S REAL in a sea of politicians many of us view as FAKE. I assert however, that there is a large subset of the voting mass (who believe in the REALNESS of most political leaders) that will never be swayed by endearing or sincere. Just as there are many people that will never be swayed by a political sign or TV commercial. Some, MANY, people vote for the best orator. They recognize, whether overtly or subconsciously, that our President must not only convince them (the voters)... but he must convince our congress, our courts, and other nations through effective oration. Or sadly, they value looks and oratory ability over integrity and fidelity to the Constitution. Either way, Ron's missing this boat.

presence

ctiger2
02-29-2012, 01:24 PM
If Ron wanted a teleprompter, don't you think he would've gotten one by now?

+1 Doh! Ya Think....

jmdrake
02-29-2012, 03:05 PM
A man of philosophy, I doubt he'd be offended. I make no assertion that he change the content of his message; only that he broaden the scope of his delivery methods. Making occasional teleprompted speeches is just like choosing to make radio or TV ads; it is a change in method and style.

I think the point that Zanzibar is making is that people who actually do talk to Ron in person (as in paid campaign staff) have tried to make suggestions to Ron. Even getting him to dress differently was apparently like pulling teeth. But there is a broader problem. There is no easy teleprompted way to say "There shouldn't even be sanctions against Iran". It's just a hard sell in today's climate. You can take the Tucker Carlson approach of "While annihilating Iran may sound appealing, we have to think of our economy". But that doesn't explain why sanctions aren't good.

And questioning the OBL raid was political suicide.* Yes Ron was right. Sure further destabilizing nuclear armed Pakistan was stupid. But most people can't think that far ahead. A teleprompter can't help on that because Ron didn't criticize the raid in debate. He did it on a radio call in show. In debate



Off topic, but how do you post if you are "banned" ????

I seem to recall that if you donate to the site they will let you customize your title. Where it says "member" you can say "grand puh bah" or in Zanzibar's case "banned".

* I personally don't think the raid happened exactly the way the government said it happened. (The SEALS most likely killed a body double by mistake and the Navy dumped it into the ocean to prevent embarrassment.) But you can't exactly say that either.

jmdrake
02-29-2012, 03:11 PM
The fact is we are not in a moment of hindsight; we still have foresight; the primary is still in its dawn; only 1/10 of delegates have been awarded. We have an opportunity to repackage his/our message into soundbites which "make sense to the average geopolitially challenged voter" We can "make sure voters really have the opportunity to hear his thoughts in context and understand what he's saying" without changing the CONTENT of his message by helping Ron improve the STYLE and FORMAT, with which he addresses the broader audience.

presence

Are there any debates between now and Super Tuesday? If not then technically we're already in "hindsite" mode even for your suggestion. And technically it's not too late for an infomercial if 1) the campaign has the money and 2) the campaign is willing to spend it that way and 3) Ron is willing to do the infomercial. I have sent suggestions to the campaign before. Some of my suggestions on how Ron could handle the Iran question are linked in my sig. Iran is probably Ron's biggest sticking point now. Iraq is supposedly "over" and even Rush is having second thoughts about Afghanistan. Really, Ron could destroy Santorum if he would just reference this video and attack Santorum using it in a debate:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRW30b_51KY

presence
02-29-2012, 07:11 PM
Are there any debates between now and Super Tuesday? If not then technically we're already in "hindsite" mode even for your suggestion.


I was speaking more in terms of stump speeches than debate performances.

jemuf
02-29-2012, 10:41 PM
It seems like the most annoying comments in this thread are from '07 and '08 members. I've noticed that it's a trend that repeats itself throughout this whole forum.

jmdrake
02-29-2012, 10:56 PM
It seems like the most annoying comments in this thread are from '07 and '08 members. I've noticed that it's a trend that repeats itself throughout this whole forum.

That's a rather odd (and a rather annoying) comment. Precisely what are you finding annoying? That '07 and '08 members aren't latching on to an idea that probably isn't going anywhere anyway?