PDA

View Full Version : The message is getting lost (criticism from an independent)




PubliusPublicola
01-04-2008, 05:24 AM
I'm sad Paul didn't break 3rd in Iowa, but what's done is done.

I see folks are debating all kinds of things that "went wrong," but my take is that there are some more fundamental problems that somebody has to speak out about. Alan Keyes got 14% in previous Iowa Caucuses with less money. It's time to swallow a big dose of reality, folks. It's better than spinach.

I believe Paul can change america, regardless of whether he wins the nomination. His message is vital for the survival of the GOP and for the health of the nation. These are my observations... and I do not expect all Paul fans to like them, but honesty and sincerity is vital right now. After reading these thoughts, feel free to take them with a grain of salt. Just read them with an open mind and without the compulsion to hit "reply" before chewing on them.

Paul's message is getting lost.

1. His message is getting lost because of his presentation.

He is a wonderful critic of what's going on in the world. However, his being a critic gets expressed at debates with him basically shouting, relying on hyperbole and tearing at "everything." It's sloppy and unfocused. His strength is his ability to criticize what's going on, suggesting that basically the Neocons are insane and that the Republican party has lost its way... becoming big spenders, big government and not too honest. Ron Paul as-master-critic is what's driving interest in him. However, that isn't translating into votes.

He needs to stop trying to be the smartest guy in the room and start trying to rally people around a vision of a more sane world.

When he switches from critic to policy maker, he really loses people because he's all over the place and then starts talking about things which (I believe) seem so radical that folks just kinda tune him out on the spot. He ends up being perceived as a nutcase because he's going on about how Lincoln shouldn't have tried to abolish slavery or about how the IRS should be destroyed. As my mother says... "he's a funny little man." For the die-hard supporters, his personality and presentation isn't a big deal. Folks love him. Most americans, however, apparently DISLIKE him. They dislike him more than they dislike Hillary Clinton (according to Rasmussen). That's bad and needs serious reflection.

It's fine to have focused attention on how many people like him and give him money, but now is the time to also focus on why all the others DISLIKE him and don't respect him. It's constraining his message.

I'll be blunt.

Happily taking money from neonazis and being perceived to have support primarily from young, idealistic college students... doesn't play well.

Ranting about how Lincoln was "wrong" in trying to abolish slavery and fighting for a strong union? Come on... :confused:

2. His message is getting lost because of his more extreme libertarian talking points.

9/11 is all our fault? Abolish the IRS? Destroy the Dept of Education? Bring troops back from Korea? Abolish the Fed? I know the libertarians will find this offensive, but not all Paul fans are rabid libertarians and he IS running for the Republican nomination - not the libertarian nomination. He has important things to say, but these talking points are likely tuning people out.

His choice to continually emphasize some of these points is absurd. Destroy the Dept of Education? Even if he believes this, this is a horrible talking point and few would think it's even possible. While i suspect 9/10 Republicans would instinctively agree that a Federal bureaucracy should by scaled back and drastically cut... he's talking about just flat out destroying it. This doesn't play well to the public, folks. Nobody expects a President to get anything done if they have such strong, uncompromising views. The issue is emphasis. Far too many of his talking points are just so far outside the realm of political consciousness that he comes out sounding like a "funny little man." Thus, his more broad and vital message about foreign policy, state rights, federal power, etc... are all lost because all folks hear are "this guy wants to abolish taxes, put his head in the sand and then destroy the Department of Education."

If he wants to be taken seriously and get his broad message out, he needs to stop focusing on these "zinger" libertarian talking points which turn off voters. Criticism of the government is FINE, but people need to hear pragmatic stuff that makes them nod and remember you.

3. His message is getting lost because he's running for Critic-in-Chief, not President.

His demographic results in Iowa indicate he's resonating with young independents and liberals. That has to expand. Let's be honest. He should doing a lot better in New Hampshire with his libertarian ideas and blunt criticism of the Bush administration.

However, to break beyond his current numbers of basically angry young folks, he needs a clearer vision of what he'll do... of what he can accomplish as President. Frankly, the libertarian criticisms will not suffice. If this campaign is going to be anything more than having a libertarian at the debates, he needs to consolidate a clear vision of pragmatic, bi-partisan and populist actions he wants to take. It's fine to say he'd LIKE to abolish the IRS... but what would he actually get accomplished? People need to hear a practical vision of President Paul. As we all know, a President isn't King - he must work with Congress.

By comparison, the democrats are all running for Legislator-in-Chief which is why a more executive sounding Republican is likely to win. America will elect a Commander-in-Chief... not a Legislator-in-Chief and not a Critic-in-Chief. When is the last time USA elected a Congressman? 1960.

4. His message is getting lost because he isn't changing the terms of the debate.

Ron Paul is positioned to redefine the terms of the debate on issues like immigration, "the war on terror," government spending and such. Instead of getting caught up in the existing terms of the debate, he needs to have talking points which shatter them. I strongly believe people are ready to move beyond the current rhetoric. Today's political rhetoric is almost always extreme black & white.

Example: the "war."

You are either "pro-war" or "anti-war" in the MSM's spin machines. This is absurd and none of the GOP contenders have tried to move beyond this rhetoric.

Instead of representing himself as "anti-war" and being thus marginalized in the eyes of most voters (i dont think even most democrats are truly "anti-war"), Ron Paul should trash this entire way of talking. The dems blundered in 2007 along the same lines, pretending they had an anti-war mandate when it turns out this "surge" approach actually worked (by focusing on al qaeda). There's a lesson to be learned there.

Imagine this very simple line of argument, but put in Ron Paul terms:


Al qaeda attacked us and they are the enemy. A small band of criminals hiding behind religion.

We shouldn't be making up lots of new enemies because of 9/11.

Al qaeda is in afghanistan, pakistan and now in iraq (thanks to our illegal invasion)

We blew it at Tora Bora and then expanded this war to include half the planet. We compromised our own laws, our values and our liberties while pretending our survival depended on this nonsense. This is a complete failure and a disgrace.

This imaginary war against all evil doers and all extremists is going to destroy us from within. We need to focus on the real enemy.

Our soldiers shouldnt be dying for some imaginary crusade to force our culture everywhere. Our credibility has been destroyed.

We're making enemies instead of fighting our real ones.

This isn't about 'pro-war' or 'anti-war.' This is about being clear who the enemy is and what our mission is. You cannot win without a clear enemy and without a clear mission.

We need a President who will pick the right fights, stop making new enemies and focus on just dealing with the pack of criminals who attacked us on 9/11.

We can keep a strong military without being spread thin all over the world like some imperial force. The cold war is over. We need to stop behaving like the Roman Empire.


Sound like something Paul can say?

Instead of crying about how every soldier should be home and instead of falling into the "anti-war" category, he should shatter the terms of the discussion by focusing on al qaeda as the enemy. America needs a leader who can do this.

Instead of being marginalized by the existing terms of the discussion, he needs to CHANGE the discussion into something where a lot more people can accept new lines of thinking. You cannot run for Republican nomination as an "anti-war" candidate with al qaeda on the loose, folks. If he actually does think we should have gone after al qaeda... then he needs to hold onto that theme and break beyond this absurd anti-war/pro-war debate.

That's just one example.

He can and must do the same on several major issues, like immigration. What he was saying back in June 2007 made a lot more sense and was going to shake up the dialog. He retreated into the standard "border and security" rhetoric, trying to dodge amnesty. He needs to break beyond this "amnesty" rhetoric and get to the real problem... as he used to do.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 05:59 AM
I like it. I think that you're right on in your messaging. But I don't think that you're going to get anywhere with Dr. Paul asking him to drop the issues he's been talking about for 30 years. Seriously... Find video of him from before 9/11. He's saying the exact same things then as he is now. Word for word in many cases.

Also, talking about the income tax is a seller. Maybe not for Democrats and government cheese types... But among Republicans, it's gold. That's why Huckabee started up with his "put a closed for business sign on the IRS" rhetoric. Stolen striaght from the Paul platform.

I definitely agree that Ron Paul needs a speech writer / coach. He likely doesn't think he needs one. He talks about his "trademarks." I'm not sure where he draws the lines on these trademarks... I think that he believes that he needs to get America past television politics, and into issue and idea driven politics...

The thing about Dr. Paul is that he'd rather be right than be president.

NoVALady
01-04-2008, 06:01 AM
bump

BeFranklin
01-04-2008, 06:04 AM
Ron Paul's message is getting lost because someone in his campaign tried to follow what the OP said, and started pandering.

Ron Paul just needs to be himself. You can remove issues like "no taxes on tips" as being a main issue. Ron Paul being himself lets the rest of us be ourselves.

PlaytoWin
01-04-2008, 06:42 AM
The original poster is quite right in my opinion. Ron Paul needs to really improve his presentation, focus on articulating his stance on the core issues and provide a pragmatic roadmap to people to achieve his objectives. His message has to become less abstract and more tangible.

For example, on the issue of foreign policy, Dr Paul consistently says he is non-interventionist - talk, trade and travel with others. That's fine, but how would he still fight terrorism, once the troops were home, then what? Let the people know he wants to stop billion dollar handouts around the globe as well. How will his military policy give us a stronger national defense, how will he maintain our readiness in a crisis (which most see as inevitable). Ron Paul needs to state we have to sacrifice to get this country back on solid financial footing, but the sacrifice is going to start by cutting the money via war, occupation and free handouts while addressing our issues at home. American people are going to benefit in terms of a stronger fiscal policy at home which will enable him to cut taxes, shore up the US Dollar, etc- they come first.

Which leads me to the key of what Ron Paul needs to strategically consider for truly building up a presidential platform. People are very worried about the economy and it will get worse. People have long voted their "pocketbook". Therefore, most importantly, Dr Paul needs to frame the debate around his strongest area- the finanical crisis of this country. That is the hub of his platform. The spokes are Immigration, Iraq War, big government spending, etc that continue to feed the hub and has this country on the brink of financial disaster.

Show us your plan Dr. Paul. Provide Leadership and Direction.

AlexMerced
01-04-2008, 06:46 AM
Ron Paul is about educating people, he's in it to win, but foremost he's about educating the real change occurs from him spreading the message more than by becoming president

jdmetz
01-04-2008, 06:57 AM
Ron Paul is about educating people, he's in it to win, but foremost he's about educating the real change occurs from him spreading the message more than by becoming president
The thing is, I think he got in this race to educate people, with no intention of winning because he didn't believe it was possible. We have changed his mind, but the first 2/3 or more of his campaign, he wasn't even trying to win - just to educate. To do that, using hyperbole, shouting, and criticizing are great tools, but they alienated establishment people at the time. When he didn't think he could win, this wasn't a problem. Now it is. There are still people who think he would abolish much of the federal government on his first day in office, including the social security and medicare (or whatever other program) they depend on. Ron Paul needs to find a way to bring those people back into the fold. He needs to lay out clearly what a Ron Paul presidency actually looks like. Early on he didn't worry about what was possible or practical, only what was ideal. He needs to let people know what is possible and practical for him to do.

PlaytoWin
01-04-2008, 07:02 AM
Ron Paul is about educating people, he's in it to win, but foremost he's about educating the real change occurs from him spreading the message more than by becoming president


I understand what you are saying, but as my name suggests, we need to win, not settle for a moral victory. IMO, this country can't afford moral victories any longer. He needs to galvanize his supporters and win new voters by building a strong platofrm that highlights DELIVERABLES to the American People.

Stealth4
01-04-2008, 07:32 AM
I understand what you are saying, but as my name suggests, we need to win, not settle for a moral victory. IMO, this country can't afford moral victories any longer. He needs to galvanize his supporters and win new voters by building a strong platofrm that highlights DELIVERABLES to the American People.

I'll agree with some of that.

scooter
01-04-2008, 07:44 AM
Some of what you say makes sense about his approach, but to say that he needs to start downplaying the libertarian views is nonsense. That's the whole appeal for his campaign.

Remember, he's not running for the Libertarian Party (with a capital "L"), he is a libertarian Republican. There's a difference.

ronpaulfan
01-04-2008, 07:49 AM
Agree. Also:

HE MUST AVOID BRINGING UP ABOLISHING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

People are dumb Dr. Paul. Please stop bringing this up, it helps no-one.

scooter
01-04-2008, 07:53 AM
One of Ronald Reagans key issues when he first ran was abolishing the Department of Education. It didn't seem so bad for him even though he didn't get the job done.

Ron Paul needs to hammer these things home even further! He just needs to explain himself a little better and explain how doing such a thing does not destroy education and actually helps it.

Scott Wilson
01-04-2008, 07:55 AM
good post

LFOD
01-04-2008, 07:59 AM
Ron Paul didn't get to this point by being different than he is, he got here by being exactly how he is. You assume that by being someone completely different, he would have done better. I say he would already be forgotten.

"he should shatter the terms of the discussion by focusing on al qaeda as the enemy."

Good grief. What do you think George Bush does at every opportunity? He changes the terms of the debate in Iraq by talking about how we have to fight Al Qaeda there.

You want a different Republican altogether. Sort of a Ron-Paul Lite.

hawks4ronpaul
01-04-2008, 08:03 AM
One of Ronald Reagans key issues when he first ran was abolishing the Department of Education. It didn't seem so bad for him even though he didn't get the job done.

Ron Paul needs to hammer these things home even further! He just needs to explain himself a little better and explain how doing such a thing does not destroy education and actually helps it.
Yes, even Dole in 1996 ran on abolishing the DOE. Its destruction was a standard GOP plank for decades, so there is nothing unusual about it, and it is why RP is the "real Republican" of the 2008 race.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

LibertyEagle
01-04-2008, 08:08 AM
Ron Paul is about educating people, he's in it to win, but foremost he's about educating the real change occurs from him spreading the message more than by becoming president

Agreed. But, much of that message is not getting across to people, the way it is being delivered. For example, people think he is weak on national defense. I have heard that concern, over and over again. He needs to paint a picture for people, of how his approach would provide much more national defense.

I don't want him to change his stances, one iota. I just wish he would re-frame his selling points so that people would understand what a Paul administration would be like and why they would be much better off. Sometimes, I don't think he even knows that people don't understand that they would be safer under his foreign policy, or that yes, he is a free trader, but he doesn't like NAFTA/CAFTA for that same reason and why that is. Or when he starts talking about getting rid of whole departments, the why and how of it. He throws out these things like abolishing the CIA/FBI and it scares the crap out of people. It wouldn't, if he explained why.

So, bottom line, yes, he is talking about the same things he has for years and years, but a whole lot of people still don't understand what he's talking about, much less his rationale. If for no other reason, if he doesn't tighten up his message, the people that he so badly wants to hear what he has to say, will still not have a clue what he is talking about, even after this campaign is over.

mudburn
01-04-2008, 08:08 AM
It is not about Ron Paul; it is about the message of freedom and liberty. That's why I support Dr. Paul. He didn't find me; I found him. I hate politics because it is primarily about being a hypocrite (actor) -- how you are perceived is more important than who/what you are. I don't want RP to play the usual politician games. I know the reality is like what I heard someone say on NPR yesterday morning: "If given the choice between doing a good job or being perceived to do a good job, I'd take the perception." Sad. But, I don't believe in compromising my principles and convictions for limited gain. The ends don't justify the means, at least not for me.

There are a lot of obstacles limiting how the message is transmitted and received. Dr. Paul shouldn't be the only one preaching the message of liberty. We all should. Liberty doesn't start or end with RP. The message of liberty isn't dependent upon RP and/or how he relays it. If this is a real revolution, it won't stop until we're all dead or until we succeed, whenever that may be.

If you don't like how RP relays the message of liberty, then make sure you do better. It's not about RP; it's about the message, and we all can and should be sharing and spreading it.

dp

partypooper
01-04-2008, 08:14 AM
Ron Paul just needs to be himself.

he has been himself. the problem is that, for the most part, and especially in recent debates, he has been his worst self as opposed to his best self. rather than opening a serious discussion on foreign policy, for example, he reduced himself to a few snippets (they are here because we are there etc) and dismissed all concerns as war-mongering and propaganda. he showed up at meet the press completely clueless about the amount of money that would be saved by closing the bases - and that is the basis of his platform.

this has been pointed out repeatedly, but it was not corrected. dr paul apparently started believing the myth of cell phones and old voters and rockwell's estimates of finishing first in iowa.

hawks4ronpaul
01-04-2008, 08:15 AM
Agree. Also:

HE MUST AVOID BRINGING UP ABOLISHING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

People are dumb Dr. Paul. Please stop bringing this up, it helps no-one.

Then, as RP has said, you cannot abolish the IRS.

People must understand that the real tax is spending.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

partypooper
01-04-2008, 08:18 AM
Agree. Also:

HE MUST AVOID BRINGING UP ABOLISHING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

People are dumb Dr. Paul. Please stop bringing this up, it helps no-one.

i disagree with this. this is a big negative for democrats, but - despite this often being forgotten on this board or even by dr paul himself - dr paul is running for republican nomination. abolishing department of education is not a big problem for many of them.

even ann coulter said that "ron paul is magnificent domestically" and most of the conservative pundits expressed agreement with him on domestic issues. their big issue is war on terror and their concerns had to be addressed in depth as opposed to being dismissed and ridiculed.

Eric21ND
01-04-2008, 08:41 AM
Agree. Also:

HE MUST AVOID BRINGING UP ABOLISHING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

People are dumb Dr. Paul. Please stop bringing this up, it helps no-one.

X10 :mad: Everytime he says that phrase without explaining WHY really makes me groan. People are tremendously ignorant. At least add a sentence or two explaining why we need more state and local control of education. Drop in some good examples, No Child Left Behind, etc. People think he's against public education for christ sake! :eek:

billybigrigger
01-04-2008, 08:46 AM
The thing about Dr. Paul is that he'd rather be right than be president.

Whis is exactly why hes the only one to be trusted with the power of the position.

jake
01-04-2008, 08:47 AM
Agree. Also:

HE MUST AVOID BRINGING UP ABOLISHING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

People are dumb Dr. Paul. Please stop bringing this up, it helps no-one.

Maybe in 1985 abolishing the Dept. Of Ed. was a good thing to have in your platform. These days, its a scary one liner that has the Sheeple thinking "this guy is nuts" or "think of the children!!" :rolleyes:

from Wikipedia:
--

The United States Department of Education (also referred to as ED, for Education Department) is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. Created by the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88),
it began operating in 1980.

Its functions were obviously in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare which was divided into the Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services when President Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act into law on October 17, 1979. It began operation on May 4, 1980. It is administered by the United States Secretary of Education.

--

PlaytoWin
01-04-2008, 08:56 AM
Ron Paul does not have to change his positon on any issues or be afraid of stating them as long as he provides a roadmap. He has to make tangible a plan of deliverables to achieve his goals. Without articulating a well thought out platform, he will not garner support from the people we need him to to win this election. Again, the hub of his platform is the economic and financial crisis in this country. It is the key to our country's longevity and status in the world. The spokes/issues collectively feeding this enormous problem are Iraq War/foreign policy, big governemt spending, illegal immigration, etc. PLEEASE articulate an execution plan people can buy into.

Phenom24
01-04-2008, 09:01 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

FOCUS ON THE MONEY.


If we don't get our country's spending under control our FOREIGN POLICY WILL BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT. WE WILL BE BROKE.


Dr. Paul has to "bring it home" to everyman. TO the little people who are paying too much for gas and food, and are fearful of the recession. Dr. Paul doesn't have to say "depression" (although that may happen) but he has to say "AMERICA - WAKE UP!!! Have you read the headlines??? All this talk about what we want to do overseas, and our economy is withering on the vine!!!"

If he wants to get people seriously thinking about foreign policy and the cost of waging war, he only has to point to Afghanistan - the world's second largest military, the Soviet Union, was defeated by freedom fighters. The same could happen to us if we leave our military around the world indefinitely.

But when you tell people that "staying the course" is going to end with them paying more in taxes or watching inflation spiral out of control, that gets their attention.

Bern
01-04-2008, 09:08 AM
I agree with the OP. I posted similar sentiments (and specfic suggestions) here :

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=74808

Ron LOL
01-04-2008, 09:26 AM
I find myself largely in agreement with the OP. I can't quite get myself on board with some of it as indeed it does seem like implementing all of those ideas would result in a "Ron Paul Lite" as another poster suggested. But I agree 100% that the message is getting lost.

I think the biggest issue I have with Ron Paul as a candidate is that while I'm receptive to his criticisms, he doesn't talk about what he would actually do as president very much. In other words, he is a problems guy, not a solutions guy. I suspect this is a big reason why people are (it seems) not receptive to his ideas.

JMann
01-04-2008, 09:39 AM
I felt months ago Paul should stop being negative and go sticky gooey positive. Instead of talking about bring our troops home, talk about all the money that will be in the pockets of Americans with a sensible foreign policy. Don't talk about abolishing the Dept of Education but rather returning control to local leaders and parents. Leave out abolishing the Fed instead talk about creating sound monetary policy.

I know that is difficult for Dr. Paul but it is the reality of a presidential campaign. People don't want to hear about what is wrong but how he will make it right. The purist out there hate these kind of post because many are filled with hate and can't see how to run a campaign. It is why the Libertarian Party is a farce. These are the one's that complain about the radical 'Neocons' taking over the Republican party while they are going around preaching radical libertarianism.

Paul just needs to learn how to present his ideas more effectively, not change his beliefs. You don't have O! and Hill and Edwards going around talking about creating government health care they say health care for all. Same plan but one would gain about 10% support the other wording gets you 30-40% support.

Paul/Belichick08
01-04-2008, 09:57 AM
No offense but it seems like you want just another politician. If he drops his "extreme libertarian positions" like bringing the troops home, abolishing the Federal Reserve, etc. than what do you have left? I don't know about everyone else but the reason I support Dr. Paul is BECAUSE he is willing to say things that everyone else isn't saying. He shouldn't criticize Lincoln because it might upset people? Give me a break! In all actuality his chances of becoming President are very slim, if you want better odds go support one of the media-ordained candidates. A revolution doesn't happen overnight, or even in one election, but it has to start somewhere. The fact that people are actually discussing the possibility of eliminating the IRS is already a victory as far as I am concerned. This movement is about a message, and getting that message out is the most important thing.

Bern
01-04-2008, 10:00 AM
I felt months ago Paul should stop being negative and go sticky gooey positive. Instead of talking about bring our troops home, talk about all the money that will be in the pockets of Americans with a sensible foreign policy. Don't talk about abolishing the Dept of Education but rather returning control to local leaders and parents. Leave out abolishing the Fed instead talk about creating sound monetary policy.
...
Paul just needs to learn how to present his ideas more effectively, not change his beliefs. You don't have O! and Hill and Edwards going around talking about creating government health care they say health care for all. Same plan but one would gain about 10% support the other wording gets you 30-40% support.

+1

Bern
01-04-2008, 10:05 AM
No offense but it seems like you want just another politician. If he drops his "extreme libertarian positions" ...

You missed the point. We are not advocating that Ron Paul drop any positions. The point is to refine the communication so that it resonates with voters.


... A revolution doesn't happen overnight, or even in one election, but it has to start somewhere. The fact that people are actually discussing the possibility of eliminating the IRS is already a victory as far as I am concerned. This movement is about a message, and getting that message out is the most important thing.

Having Ron Paul win the nomination would do more for the rEVOLution than just having his platform promoted for a few months and then largely forgotten by the majority of America.

Ron LOL
01-04-2008, 10:09 AM
Paul just needs to learn how to present his ideas more effectively, not change his beliefs.

Q. F. T.

Spirit of '76
01-04-2008, 10:18 AM
While I agree that Dr. Paul needs to polish his presentation and spell out a clear vision for the future (something like his Six-Point Plan for ending illegal immigration, only make a similar plan for the economy, one for foreign policy, etc.), I disagree with the OP in that the OP apparently hasn't been paying much attention to Ron at all.

If you think Ron has been "ranting about how Lincoln shouldn't have tried to end slavery", then you're letting the media do your thinking for you and not listening to Ron at all. You may be a good example of the kind of shallow thinking we're up against, and what you've said here stands more as an example of the public's misunderstanding of what's being said, not problems with what Dr. Paul is saying.

reverse
01-04-2008, 11:33 AM
Agreed.

Sadly, when told 'Abolish the Dept of Education' without explanation, most Americans will pick up on the words 'Abolish' and 'Education'.

ghemminger
01-04-2008, 11:37 AM
I like it. I think that you're right on in your messaging. But I don't think that you're going to get anywhere with Dr. Paul asking him to drop the issues he's been talking about for 30 years. Seriously... Find video of him from before 9/11. He's saying the exact same things then as he is now. Word for word in many cases.

Also, talking about the income tax is a seller. Maybe not for Democrats and government cheese types... But among Republicans, it's gold. That's why Huckabee started up with his "put a closed for business sign on the IRS" rhetoric. Stolen striaght from the Paul platform.

I definitely agree that Ron Paul needs a speech writer / coach. He likely doesn't think he needs one. He talks about his "trademarks." I'm not sure where he draws the lines on these trademarks... I think that he believes that he needs to get America past television politics, and into issue and idea driven politics...

The thing about Dr. Paul is that he'd rather be right than be president.


Bump - well thought out

PubliusPublicola
01-04-2008, 03:15 PM
to say that he needs to start downplaying the libertarian views is nonsense. That's the whole appeal for his campaign.

Says who?

It's easy to rally people AGAINST something. It's a lot harder to rally people FOR something.

My point is that Ron Paul barely articulates what he's actually for... in ways the majority might relate to. Some may call that "pandering" but i call that communicating a political vision. He needs to shatter the terms of the discussion and paint a vision of what he is FOR, rather than thinking he's going to get elected by just trashing stuff.

I'm not saying he has to downplay libertarian points of view.

I'm saying that his radical TALKING POINTS are absurd... politically. These cute zingers are killing his broader message... in my opinion.

PubliusPublicola
01-04-2008, 03:17 PM
Agreed.

Sadly, when told 'Abolish the Dept of Education' without explanation, most Americans will pick up on the words 'Abolish' and 'Education'.

Exactly.

There's absolutely no point for him to keep saying stuff like this when we all know precisely how all the grandmothers, mothers and students hear it.

It's really a point about just picking the right way to articulate his vision, rather than changing his beliefs. He would have a 0% chance to abolish the Dept of Education, so what on earth does he think he accomplishes by continuing to make this point?

PubliusPublicola
01-04-2008, 03:20 PM
If you think Ron has been "ranting about how Lincoln shouldn't have tried to end slavery", then you're letting the media do your thinking for you and not listening to Ron at all. You may be a good example of the kind of shallow thinking we're up against, and what you've said here stands more as an example of the public's misunderstanding of what's being said, not problems with what Dr. Paul is saying.

Or maybe i've been watching what he says really carefully and your snide comments about my "shallow thinking" isn't very rational or constructive.

frasu
01-04-2008, 03:28 PM
how about this: DO YOU GUYS KNOW ANY GOOD POLITICAL STRATEGIST OUT THERE THAT COULD HELP OUT THE CAMPAIGN? We usually operate like this, find the helper ourselves. I am thinking there has to be somebody that could give some new ideas to the HQ, an established name that is in sync wiht RP's ideas, more or less.

Any names?

Richandler
01-04-2008, 03:31 PM
This topic is filled with lots of anti-constitution thinking. Anything Paul has said sticks to who he is. I think the topic creator may have decided to support the wrong candidate. That, or he just hasn't dug deep enought into the vast history of constitutional violations.

Ron's presentation isn't going to change. The ground support however can greatly counter that by educating themselves better on all positions and presenting themselves with their ideas to other people.

The ideas are most important here. Simply because if Paul doesn't when it's all we got and if we abandon them now most people will not go back to them after this election.

AlienLanes82
01-04-2008, 03:41 PM
This topic is filled with lots of anti-constitution thinking. Anything Paul has said sticks to who he is. I think the topic creator may have decided to support the wrong candidate. That, or he just hasn't dug deep enought into the vast history of constitutional violations.


Sadly, this is the type of thinking that prevents our candidate from rising above 10% of the vote, and is why the Libertarian Party is a complete irrelevancy.

Most people are not broad constitutional thinkers, and make judgments based on whether a candidate seems to be making sense, is positive and optimistic, is 'nice' or 'Presidential' or 'cares about people like me'. There are ways for candidates to convey this sense, regardless of whether on policy they are libertarian, socialist, paleocon, neocon, or any other ideology.

And as soon as someone suggests adopting a tone that channels inclusiveness, optimism, and is appealing to the average Jane, they are told to go support a different candidate.

worldtruthfreedom
01-04-2008, 03:44 PM
If Ron Paul changes any of the things that you mention I will not be supporting him.

I like him because he isn't polished as speaks the truth as he sees it.

Haven't you had enough of bullshit politicians who watch every word they say in case they offend or don't get the vote?

Richandler
01-04-2008, 03:46 PM
Sadly, this is the type of thinking that prevents our candidate from rising above 10% of the vote, and is why the Libertarian Party is a complete irrelevancy.

Most people are not broad constitutional thinkers, and make judgments based on whether a candidate seems to be making sense, is positive and optimistic, is 'nice' or 'Presidential' or 'cares about people like me'. There are ways for candidates to convey this sense, regardless of whether on policy they are libertarian, socialist, paleocon, neocon, or any other ideology.

And as soon as someone suggests adopting a tone that channels inclusiveness, optimism, and is appealing to the average Jane, they are told to go support a different candidate.

The candidates are not as important as the message pal. Remember our good friend Bush. The man said stay out of other countries. What happened? We're everywhere now. So many people stuck with voting for him a second time because they forgot about the message and voted for a candidate. Right now we're purposing the candidate game, but soon how quickly do you fail to realize we're going to need to get a whole lot of other people elected if Ron is to have any effect in office.

As and actor you learn all of these presentation abilities to do two things: Feel real about what you say, and effectively portray that fictional story. Ron already feels good about what he says and he certainly is going to turn it into some fairy tale.

partypooper
01-04-2008, 03:48 PM
I like him because he isn't polished as speaks the truth as he sees it.

as far as i am concerned, the problem in dr paul's public appearances is not polish at all. he is not clear, he is repetitive and his arguments are too simplistic for the sort of claims he is making. his writings are much better but apparently he often forgets what he wrote (which is quite common).

PINN4CL3
01-04-2008, 03:53 PM
I think the OP is spot on in every one of those suggestions, and Ron could benefit from this advice. I hope the message gets through.

PINN4CL3
01-04-2008, 04:00 PM
If Ron Paul changes any of the things that you mention I will not be supporting him.

I like him because he isn't polished as speaks the truth as he sees it.

Haven't you had enough of bullshit politicians who watch every word they say in case they offend or don't get the vote?


Are you serious?


Take the abolishment of the IRS for example. He keeps saying in interviews that "...well we didn't have an income tax up to 1913" or "...we have the same revenues we had 10 years ago, and that's not so bad" well ok, but "that's not so bad" is not what people are looking for.

Can we HONESTLY do without an income tax? THAT'S what people want to hear. They're ready to believe his claim, but not when he can't say how exactly it would work. So if these are going to be his talking points, he needs to be more clear on his answers. That's all.

If abolishment of the IRS is not going to be something in his first 100 days in office, then he can simply say he wants to CUT spending now, starting TRIMMING down departments, eventually WEANING us off the income tax, and see if we can do without it. That is something, people would buy.

TwiLeXia
01-04-2008, 04:05 PM
I completely agree with this guy. Ron Paul needs to behave as an actual presidential candidate. People want to imagine him as president. Give them that image.

LFOD
01-04-2008, 05:51 PM
I find myself largely in agreement with the OP. I can't quite get myself on board with some of it as indeed it does seem like implementing all of those ideas would result in a "Ron Paul Lite" as another poster suggested. But I agree 100% that the message is getting lost.

I think the biggest issue I have with Ron Paul as a candidate is that while I'm receptive to his criticisms, he doesn't talk about what he would actually do as president very much. In other words, he is a problems guy, not a solutions guy. I suspect this is a big reason why people are (it seems) not receptive to his ideas.

Then you are not listening very carefully. How many times has he said that we have to start with getting our military out of it's 700 bases worldwide? That's pretty darn specific. And it's item NUMBER ONE for his entire agenda. NOTHING else is possible without that step.

Bern
01-04-2008, 05:53 PM
If abolishment of the IRS is not going to be something in his first 100 days in office, then he can simply say he wants to CUT spending now, starting TRIMMING down departments, eventually WEANING us off the income tax, and see if we can do without it. That is something, people would buy.

+100000000

He needs to show people that, while he is strongly principled and ideologically determined to abolish the income tax/IRS, he is pragmatic.

Wyurm
01-04-2008, 05:59 PM
It's good that you all get to vent, but like it or not, this is Iowa's big money maker next to corn. They really do not represent the rest of the country, just ask Bill Clinton. I mentioned that RP won 5th place with 10 pct. to a co-worker and was told that was awsome. I was actually down about it at first.

I'm posting this because I see lots of "we failed because we didn't ....." or "the campaign failed because it didn't .....", etc... type threads and this really isn't all that necessary or helpful. Its like trying to sell sausages in a vegetarian convention and getting upset because you only sold 10. New Hampshire will be better and it would be nice to do well in one of the early states at least, but Super Tuesday is the real test. So rather than drowning in negativity, why not just keep going and perhaps set aside the blame game?

Ron LOL
01-04-2008, 06:02 PM
Then you are not listening very carefully. How many times has he said that we have to start with getting our military out of it's 700 bases worldwide? That's pretty darn specific. And it's item NUMBER ONE for his entire agenda. NOTHING else is possible without that step.

Cute, but no.

Ranting about having 700 bases overseas is identifying a problem. "Bring home the troops" is not a solution any more than it is to say "we should design more fuel efficient vehicles" is a solution to our energy worries. What will we do with the troops? What will we do with the equipment? How long will this take? Could there be unintended consequences? Will we be throwing people out on the streets? Will we open up more bases here at home?

There are tons of issues associated with bringing our troops home. I support the theoretical exercise in foreign policy that leads us to this conclusion, but there are still many practical questions that need answering...and more often than not, Ron Paul either doesn't have or simply doesn't volunteer those answers.

Ron Paul does some hand waiving on occasion, and I really don't like that. For example, like how he was almost dumbfounded when Russert asked him if he knew the total revenue brought in by the income tax.

LFOD
01-04-2008, 06:10 PM
Look, nobody is going to repackage Ron Paul. The very idea makes me laugh. The man is an independent thinker of the highest principles. If someone asks him about Lincoln, he's going to give his opinion, even if it means half the country says "he said WHAT about Lincoln and the Civil War??"

He's a truth-teller, period. As it sees it, no holds barred. Take it, or go vote for a fluff-meister like Obama or Huckabee.

So just forget about hoping to talk the man into soft-pedalling his message. Ain't going to happen. It goes against his entire character.

What can be done is better advertising. And that does NOT mean more ads that looks like every other flag-waving, "I'm a patriotic American" BS ad out there. It means ads that are AUTHENTIC RON PAUL.

In other words, can the guy who is trying to mold the man to the advertising. Mold the ADS TO THE MAN. Ron Paul, exactly how he is, is who I have been excited about from the very beginning. Show it, don't hide it!

LFOD
01-04-2008, 06:14 PM
Cute, but no.

Ranting about having 700 bases overseas is identifying a problem. "Bring home the troops" is not a solution any more than it is to say "we should design more fuel efficient vehicles" is a solution to our energy worries. What will we do with the troops? What will we do with the equipment? How long will this take? Could there be unintended consequences? Will we be throwing people out on the streets? Will we open up more bases here at home?

There are tons of issues associated with bringing our troops home. I support the theoretical exercise in foreign policy that leads us to this conclusion, but there are still many practical questions that need answering...and more often than not, Ron Paul either doesn't have or simply doesn't volunteer those answers.

Ron Paul does some hand waiving on occasion, and I really don't like that. For example, like how he was almost dumbfounded when Russert asked him if he knew the total revenue brought in by the income tax.


haha - It IS the solution. It's just too straightforward and radical for you. You want to wring your hands about "unintended consequences" when the unintended consequences of having 700 foreign bases are staring you in the face.

I will agree that much of the country is similarly confused.

nc4rp
01-04-2008, 06:20 PM
sounds like we are agreed unanimously in this AMAZING!!!

this is to me the singlmost important thread that needs to be read by Dr. Paul. my .002 cents.

realist
01-04-2008, 06:27 PM
Publius and others -

Excellent posts. Indeed I hope there are advisors saying very similar things to Dr. Paul. I hope Dr. Paul himself is of the same mindset.

We have a diverse group here that has rallied around common central themes and goals despite thier differences. But, our strength is also our weakness. There are just too many voices with respect to the goals of this campaing and how to achieve them. IMHO, you are spot on and beyond that, we need HQ, or at least a central point of coordination, to focus efforts towards tangeable results. Otherwise, this will be a great campaign, and nothing more.

Some (like me) of are not here for a campaign. Some of us are here to elect a president. It is an indisputable fact that at this moment, we lack the base to make that happen. We need to appeal to a great number of new supporters. Some understand that and want to do everything possible to accomplish that ( and win the presidency). It is clear (and perhaps not wrong) that some would only want to do that if it doesn't involve compromise on thier beliefs. Noble, but unrealistic in presidential politics.

I truelly believe Dr. Pauls general message most closely reflects my vision for this country. But I also believe most of what you said is true and must be addressed if we are to progress.

PubliusPublicola
01-04-2008, 06:53 PM
I 100% respect that Paul supporters are cut from many different cloths.

Some hear what I was saying in the OP as somehow an attack on Paul and that it implies compromising him or repackaging him in some insincere manner.

No.

In fact, it's really saying that his MESSAGE isn't getting through because of the way he has been packaged and campaigning. He's simply emphasizing the wrong stuff...

He should be in New Hampshire right now... going door to door... church to church... giving a positive message about what HE WANTS TO DO in practical terms, not just ranting about all the stuff we hate. If the media wants to talk with him... they should be trailing behind him in the cold as he goes around talking to New Hampshire folk. The people of Iowa and NH expect to meet you face to face... to get their vote. All that matters is him being up there giving a POSITIVE vision for why they should support him. He can no longer bank on some reactionary outpouring of support.

This is a lot of work and trying to get hundreds of thousands of people to come out to vote for you requires more than interviews in the mainstream media and some internet poll spamming. He knows this better than we all do, and we want to see it.

hawks4ronpaul
01-04-2008, 09:31 PM
I felt months ago Paul should stop being negative and go sticky gooey positive. Instead of talking about bring our troops home, talk about all the money that will be in the pockets of Americans with a sensible foreign policy. Don't talk about abolishing the Dept of Education but rather returning control to local leaders and parents. Leave out abolishing the Fed instead talk about creating sound monetary policy.

I know that is difficult for Dr. Paul but it is the reality of a presidential campaign. People don't want to hear about what is wrong but how he will make it right. The purist out there hate these kind of post because many are filled with hate and can't see how to run a campaign. It is why the Libertarian Party is a farce. These are the one's that complain about the radical 'Neocons' taking over the Republican party while they are going around preaching radical libertarianism.

Paul just needs to learn how to present his ideas more effectively, not change his beliefs. You don't have O! and Hill and Edwards going around talking about creating government health care they say health care for all. Same plan but one would gain about 10% support the other wording gets you 30-40% support.

Yes, he should add that his plan will improve education by returning local control.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

PubliusPublicola
01-09-2008, 05:36 PM
Yes, he should add that his plan will improve education by returning local control.

That's the point.

He could be arguing FOR more local control and flexibility, rather than making alienating comments about destroying the Department of Education.

This isnt about repackaging.

It's about basic communication of a message. Does Ron Paul represent being FOR something? Or just being against something?

RonPaulalways
01-09-2008, 05:46 PM
When he says he wants to abolish the department of education, he needs to say:

"I would abolish the FEDERAL department of education and let the State departments of education operate free of federal control. The Constitution does not permit the federal government to control how States choose to educate their kids."

Ron Paul Fan
01-09-2008, 05:51 PM
A friend of mine sent me this as to why he thinks Ron Paul is crazy and why he'll never be President. I happen to agree with a lot of these things and it goes along with the OP's message. Everything needs to be packaged better, and maybe Paul isn't the one to lead it.

1. Eliminate the Federal Reserve. Most Americans have no idea what they do. Saying that you want to get rid of the Central Bank doesn't make for a good sound byte.

2. Bringing troops home from all across the globe and closing all military bases. People think this is isolationism. It's just not something that a candidate who will win would run on and it's completely impractical, like it or not.

3. We the People Act. This act puts sodomy laws back in to effect. It overturns Texas v. Lawerence which says that gay people can have sex in the privacy of their own home. For a candidate who cares so much about privacy and civil liberties, it's really contradictory to support an act that goes against federal protection of these things. It's really funny watching some Paul fans try and justify this act.

4. Sanctity of Life Act. Defines life at conception and makes abortion murder. Do you really think the states would allow murder? Huckabee also believes life begins at conception, but wants an amendment to do it and we all know that won't happen. Nobody else is running on this crazy idea.

5. Opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Again, this is a candidate who is suppose to be pro liberty and pro civil liberties, yet he's against this act which everyone holds in high regard. This is made a bigger deal by:

6. Associations with white supremacists and Alex Jones. Paul made a huge blunder by not returning Don Black's donation. Everyone knows association with white supremacists is the death of a campaign. Paul makes an even bigger blunder everytime he goes on Alex Jones. Do you think any candidate who has a chance to win would be caught dead on Alex Jones? Contrary to what most of you here think, he's a nut and it only adds to Paul's fringe candidacy. I know the argument against this. Just because Hitler donates to Ron Paul doesn't mean that Ron Paul supports what Hitler does. But do you still invite Hitler into the campaign?

7. His tax plan. Eliminate the IRS by shutting down every base overseas and bringing every troop home while at the same time paying social security and medicare, but let young people get out of social security, AND still pay down the deficit. You seriously dont understand how impractical that sounds? Everyone hates the IRS, but you can't just get rid of it and still finance the government we have now.

8. Racist newsletters. This is the final blow. Paul's name is all over this and even if he didn't right it, it looks really bad. And you guys who are defending it as not racist are just laughable. Your best defense is that Paul didn't write it and didn't even bother to look at what was being published in his name for years. No family member, or friend, or colleague read it and told him what was in it. He's a public figure, you'd think he'd be concerned about someone writing this crap in his name. My guess is that once he was out of politics he didn't really care, but then he decided to get back in the game. It didn't really hurt him running for Congress in Texas, but there's no way this wouldn't get out if he became a contender for President. They'd bury him for this and you know it.

9. Marketing. The first TV ads were terrible, but got better as they went along. Paul isn't the best messenger for this movement. His speaking abilities are sub par at best. Get someone in the Republican Party who can package the ideas better. Those of you who think Paul will run Libertarian are delusional. Do you really think that the Libertarian Party wants that racist newsletter stuff brought up on a national level while they try to market their ideas? No chance in hell. It's over for Paul.

RonPaulalways
01-10-2008, 11:32 AM
----3. We the People Act. This act puts sodomy laws back in to effect. It overturns Texas v. Lawerence which says that gay people can have sex in the privacy of their own home. For a candidate who cares so much about privacy and civil liberties, it's really contradictory to support an act that goes against federal protection of these things. It's really funny watching some Paul fans try and justify this act.-----


Smoking marijuana can be criminalized by State governments so why can't homosexual sex be banned as well? Both are personal decisions. I agree it's stupid to ban either, but the federal government should have no say in the matter as the Constitution does not give it this power. Either you obey all parts of the Constitution, or else it's just a piece of paper that everyone pays pay lip service to and ignores.


---
4. Sanctity of Life Act. Defines life at conception and makes abortion murder. Do you really think the states would allow murder? Huckabee also believes life begins at conception, but wants an amendment to do it and we all know that won't happen. Nobody else is running on this crazy idea.
----

Yes many would. The only power of the Sanctity of Life Act is to remove the jurisdiction of the federal courts to overrule State laws/courts on matters relating to abortion. States would be fully able to permit abortion and most probably would.

wil-c
01-10-2008, 12:34 PM
I'm sad Paul didn't break 3rd in Iowa, but what's done is done.

I see folks are debating all kinds of things that "went wrong," but my take is that there are some more fundamental problems that somebody has to speak out about. Alan Keyes got 14% in previous Iowa Caucuses with less money. It's time to swallow a big dose of reality, folks. It's better than spinach.

I believe Paul can change america, regardless of whether he wins the nomination. His message is vital for the survival of the GOP and for the health of the nation. These are my observations... and I do not expect all Paul fans to like them, but honesty and sincerity is vital right now. After reading these thoughts, feel free to take them with a grain of salt. Just read them with an open mind and without the compulsion to hit "reply" before chewing on them.

Paul's message is getting lost.

1. His message is getting lost because of his presentation.

He is a wonderful critic of what's going on in the world. However, his being a critic gets expressed at debates with him basically shouting, relying on hyperbole and tearing at "everything." It's sloppy and unfocused. His strength is his ability to criticize what's going on, suggesting that basically the Neocons are insane and that the Republican party has lost its way... becoming big spenders, big government and not too honest. Ron Paul as-master-critic is what's driving interest in him. However, that isn't translating into votes.

He needs to stop trying to be the smartest guy in the room and start trying to rally people around a vision of a more sane world.

When he switches from critic to policy maker, he really loses people because he's all over the place and then starts talking about things which (I believe) seem so radical that folks just kinda tune him out on the spot. He ends up being perceived as a nutcase because he's going on about how Lincoln shouldn't have tried to abolish slavery or about how the IRS should be destroyed. As my mother says... "he's a funny little man." For the die-hard supporters, his personality and presentation isn't a big deal. Folks love him. Most americans, however, apparently DISLIKE him. They dislike him more than they dislike Hillary Clinton (according to Rasmussen). That's bad and needs serious reflection.

It's fine to have focused attention on how many people like him and give him money, but now is the time to also focus on why all the others DISLIKE him and don't respect him. It's constraining his message.

I'll be blunt.

Happily taking money from neonazis and being perceived to have support primarily from young, idealistic college students... doesn't play well.

Ranting about how Lincoln was "wrong" in trying to abolish slavery and fighting for a strong union? Come on... :confused:

2. His message is getting lost because of his more extreme libertarian talking points.

9/11 is all our fault? Abolish the IRS? Destroy the Dept of Education? Bring troops back from Korea? Abolish the Fed? I know the libertarians will find this offensive, but not all Paul fans are rabid libertarians and he IS running for the Republican nomination - not the libertarian nomination. He has important things to say, but these talking points are likely tuning people out.

His choice to continually emphasize some of these points is absurd. Destroy the Dept of Education? Even if he believes this, this is a horrible talking point and few would think it's even possible. While i suspect 9/10 Republicans would instinctively agree that a Federal bureaucracy should by scaled back and drastically cut... he's talking about just flat out destroying it. This doesn't play well to the public, folks. Nobody expects a President to get anything done if they have such strong, uncompromising views. The issue is emphasis. Far too many of his talking points are just so far outside the realm of political consciousness that he comes out sounding like a "funny little man." Thus, his more broad and vital message about foreign policy, state rights, federal power, etc... are all lost because all folks hear are "this guy wants to abolish taxes, put his head in the sand and then destroy the Department of Education."

If he wants to be taken seriously and get his broad message out, he needs to stop focusing on these "zinger" libertarian talking points which turn off voters. Criticism of the government is FINE, but people need to hear pragmatic stuff that makes them nod and remember you.

3. His message is getting lost because he's running for Critic-in-Chief, not President.

His demographic results in Iowa indicate he's resonating with young independents and liberals. That has to expand. Let's be honest. He should doing a lot better in New Hampshire with his libertarian ideas and blunt criticism of the Bush administration.

However, to break beyond his current numbers of basically angry young folks, he needs a clearer vision of what he'll do... of what he can accomplish as President. Frankly, the libertarian criticisms will not suffice. If this campaign is going to be anything more than having a libertarian at the debates, he needs to consolidate a clear vision of pragmatic, bi-partisan and populist actions he wants to take. It's fine to say he'd LIKE to abolish the IRS... but what would he actually get accomplished? People need to hear a practical vision of President Paul. As we all know, a President isn't King - he must work with Congress.

By comparison, the democrats are all running for Legislator-in-Chief which is why a more executive sounding Republican is likely to win. America will elect a Commander-in-Chief... not a Legislator-in-Chief and not a Critic-in-Chief. When is the last time USA elected a Congressman? 1960.

4. His message is getting lost because he isn't changing the terms of the debate.

Ron Paul is positioned to redefine the terms of the debate on issues like immigration, "the war on terror," government spending and such. Instead of getting caught up in the existing terms of the debate, he needs to have talking points which shatter them. I strongly believe people are ready to move beyond the current rhetoric. Today's political rhetoric is almost always extreme black & white.

Example: the "war."

You are either "pro-war" or "anti-war" in the MSM's spin machines. This is absurd and none of the GOP contenders have tried to move beyond this rhetoric.

Instead of representing himself as "anti-war" and being thus marginalized in the eyes of most voters (i dont think even most democrats are truly "anti-war"), Ron Paul should trash this entire way of talking. The dems blundered in 2007 along the same lines, pretending they had an anti-war mandate when it turns out this "surge" approach actually worked (by focusing on al qaeda). There's a lesson to be learned there.

Imagine this very simple line of argument, but put in Ron Paul terms:


Al qaeda attacked us and they are the enemy. A small band of criminals hiding behind religion.

We shouldn't be making up lots of new enemies because of 9/11.

Al qaeda is in afghanistan, pakistan and now in iraq (thanks to our illegal invasion)

We blew it at Tora Bora and then expanded this war to include half the planet. We compromised our own laws, our values and our liberties while pretending our survival depended on this nonsense. This is a complete failure and a disgrace.

This imaginary war against all evil doers and all extremists is going to destroy us from within. We need to focus on the real enemy.

Our soldiers shouldnt be dying for some imaginary crusade to force our culture everywhere. Our credibility has been destroyed.

We're making enemies instead of fighting our real ones.

This isn't about 'pro-war' or 'anti-war.' This is about being clear who the enemy is and what our mission is. You cannot win without a clear enemy and without a clear mission.

We need a President who will pick the right fights, stop making new enemies and focus on just dealing with the pack of criminals who attacked us on 9/11.

We can keep a strong military without being spread thin all over the world like some imperial force. The cold war is over. We need to stop behaving like the Roman Empire.


Sound like something Paul can say?

Instead of crying about how every soldier should be home and instead of falling into the "anti-war" category, he should shatter the terms of the discussion by focusing on al qaeda as the enemy. America needs a leader who can do this.

Instead of being marginalized by the existing terms of the discussion, he needs to CHANGE the discussion into something where a lot more people can accept new lines of thinking. You cannot run for Republican nomination as an "anti-war" candidate with al qaeda on the loose, folks. If he actually does think we should have gone after al qaeda... then he needs to hold onto that theme and break beyond this absurd anti-war/pro-war debate.

That's just one example.

He can and must do the same on several major issues, like immigration. What he was saying back in June 2007 made a lot more sense and was going to shake up the dialog. He retreated into the standard "border and security" rhetoric, trying to dodge amnesty. He needs to break beyond this "amnesty" rhetoric and get to the real problem... as he used to do.

I agree with this 100% RP needs to tune the message to the average voter. Basic simple things the average voter can understand and will respond to. It does not mean change what RP stands for, but does mean getting the message across in terms the average voter can understand and/or will respond to.
Redefining the "debate" is whats needed, it is why the debate is structured the way it is now. Its far more easy to control it, and hence public opinion, the way it's carried on now. Hand-in-glove with that is the political game we're watching now. How much of it is anything substantial in terms of the issues? Outside of RP none of it, it's more of the same structured "debate" Basically intellectualized gossip is all it amounts to.
RP keeps speaking to all of us in getting dragged down into these intellectual corners. We for the most part understand the connection between the roots of the civil war, the results of that war and where we are today socially, economically, and politically. The average voter today has no clue, and really doesn't care. It isn't a topic for the campaign trail.
ENDING the income tax, is a topic for the campaign trail. It is a simple idea that anyone who might be even slightly inclined towards RP will understand and respond to.
The same for what was posted here about positions on the war and our overseas bases/entanglements, ect. A very good argument and a rational one.
Especially in terms of some entitlements, Social security for example. From what I've been able to see, NH demographics show older voters did not go for RP. I'm no expert but it doesn't take much to figure most SS recipients are going to vote to protect thier check, period.
He need to make it VERY CLEAR his agenda for restructuring things DOES NOT MEANS SS recipients are going to be without thier check. Since that cat is out of the bag that has to be done, otherwise leave this whole thing alone. Save it for the bully pulpit in the white house where he can speak (educate the public) unimpeded by the MSM and thier bias.
I'm probably getting redundant in regards to the original post at this point so I'll stop. However it does appear this is to a large degree a question of educating (awakening) the american public. However you can't expect a 7th student who's learning basic math to all of a sudden handle algebra ll.

freelance
01-10-2008, 12:42 PM
Ron Paul does not have to change his positon on any issues or be afraid of stating them as long as he provides a roadmap. He has to make tangible a plan of deliverables to achieve his goals. Without articulating a well thought out platform, he will not garner support from the people we need him to to win this election. Again, the hub of his platform is the economic and financial crisis in this country. It is the key to our country's longevity and status in the world. The spokes/issues collectively feeding this enormous problem are Iraq War/foreign policy, big governemt spending, illegal immigration, etc. PLEEASE articulate an execution plan people can buy into.

Yes, this is right on the money. He needs to express his views simply, so that the audience can understand. He needs to tell them what's wrong, what's in it for them to fix it and how he would fix it--all in simple terms: Noun/ACTION VERB/Exclamation point.

midevilmark
01-10-2008, 01:12 PM
Dr. Paul has the greatest message of our time, the problem is the packaging. When he starts to talk about monetary policy he losses half the audience. It is not that the American people are stupid, they have just never been introduced to this subject (maybe on purpose). I once had an Econ professor that could not explain how the Fed works, imagine Joe Squash. Dr. Paul needs to use analogy and real world examples to drive the message home. E.G.: In 1974 a Hershey bar was $.15, today it is nearly a $1. The question is, “has the Hershey’s bar become 666% better over time or has your purchasing power been eroded by 85%. Back when money was backed by something that same Hershey’s bar was $.05 from 1921 until 1968. He could repackage basic ideas like this to really drive the point home.
On the notion of the Fed and linking it to Gov’t spending, he could use the analogy of a family using a group credit card. They run up the card, then the credit card company calls that outstanding debt owed to them an asset, and in turn borrow more money against it.
When it comes to foreign policy he may want to scale it down to show how absurd it really is. For example, would we accept the notion in this country that I thought the guy that lives a block away from me was going to harm me, so I went out and delivered a preemptive strike and killed him? People like that we put in jail, politicians like that we put in office.
He is not going to lose one intelligent supporter due to trying to deliver his message to as many people as possible.

H Roark
01-10-2008, 01:54 PM
I completely agree with the OP!

RonPaulalways
01-11-2008, 03:43 PM
Dr. Paul has the greatest message of our time, the problem is the packaging. When he starts to talk about monetary policy he losses half the audience. It is not that the American people are stupid, they have just never been introduced to this subject (maybe on purpose). I once had an Econ professor that could not explain how the Fed works, imagine Joe Squash. Dr. Paul needs to use analogy and real world examples to drive the message home. E.G.: In 1974 a Hershey bar was $.15, today it is nearly a $1. The question is, “has the Hershey’s bar become 666% better over time or has your purchasing power been eroded by 85%. Back when money was backed by something that same Hershey’s bar was $.05 from 1921 until 1968. He could repackage basic ideas like this to really drive the point home.

There is no way Ron Paul can give a crash course on how the federal reserve reduces the standard of living of Americans by increasing the money supply in a 30 second slot in the debate. The most he can hope to do in these debates is convert people who are politically/economically more astute and understand what's he's referring to, so that those people donate-to/canvass-for his campaign. After the debates, us true believers recruit the less politically involved masses with a simpler message.