Does anyone think Dr. Paul is missing something in his speeches..

[Dave Wood]

He always talks about non intervention and the Iraq war being wrong but I think some people may be just writing him off as weak when they first hear this. Do you think it would be wiser for him to add that he promotes a strong and robust defense here at home or something along those lines?

I may be missing something on this, but it seems like he should be letting people know that though he doesnt support the current policy, under his administration, the military would be kept strong and ready for anything that comes our way....maybe even stronger???

Just curios after watching the last two speeches in S.C.

[ShaneC]

A few individuals I've talked to (mostly one's my wife has talked to) feel that RP comes off as "weak".

I can only attribute this to his...anti-war stance; as I don't recall ever hearing his pro-defensive stance.

Anyone got info on that?

I know he's for securing us, but no specifics as to "how".

[shadowhooch]

Well, his non-interventionalist policy is what attracted me to him.

I think he makes it clear that the government's role should be the defense of the people - but not through preemtive war.

Some people will disagree for sure. But that's why you vote.

[jblosser]

It comes out when people ask him "what about Korea", etc. His answer then is always: ask the Congress, it's their job; if they say go to war then we go to war with the full force of American arms; we win; we come home (if we left in the first place).

Normally though he just focuses on the current conflict which is illegal and which the majority of Americans feel is unnecessary. That's the big message because it's so succint and reaches so many.

[RPatTheBeach]

I was initially put off by how soft spoken he was. But the more I listened to his words, and not his expressions or tones, the more I started to like him.

[Swmorgan77]

Weak = Not an authoritarian would-be president with a world-solving agenda.

"Weak" is good. Like Ron Paul said: "We need a strong President... strong enough to resist the temptation to take powers that are not given to him by the Constitution."

[Lord Xar]

YES!!!!! His ONE MESSAGE IS STRONG... but he is, to me, turning into a one trick pony. I support him --- but the masses are not gonna dig him too much if that is all he has.

I know alot of his opposition is raking it in, in Iowa because they take strong stands on Illegal Immigration and 'following laws'. Have you heard Ron Paul give a strong stand on Illegal Immigration? Me either. He sorta glosses over it.

I am not sure what his deal is.. but my support is sorta wavering on this issue and it is irritating me. He has a strong message in regards to it, but he is sorta focusing in one just ONE thing.. a strong message it is... but, you know... he needs to add more..

[Dustancostine]

A few individuals I've talked to (mostly one's my wife has talked to) feel that RP comes off as "weak".



I think it doesn't have any thing to do with what he says but how he says it. He is a very humble man and delivers his speeches that way, he also sounds very academic. But he needs to learn to sell, because that is what he is doing selling himself and the message of freedom. He is also needs to get some anger, he talks about how we are being screwed over but delivers it like a college lecture, he needs to deliver it like he wants to rip Benarke's head off and crap down his throat for stealing our money.

He needs to get some fire in him. That is just the way I see it.

--Dustan

[shadowhooch]

YES!!!!! His ONE MESSAGE IS STRONG... but he is, to me, turning into a one trick pony. I support him --- but the masses are not gonna dig him too much if that is all he has.

I know alot of his opposition is raking it in, in Iowa because they take strong stands on Illegal Immigration and 'following laws'. Have you heard Ron Paul give a strong stand on Illegal Immigration? Me either. He sorta glosses over it.

I am not sure what his deal is.. but my support is sorta wavering on this issue and it is irritating me. He has a strong message in regards to it, but he is sorta focusing in one just ONE thing.. a strong message it is... but, you know... he needs to add more..

I think he focuses on it the most because it is what truly separates him from the other candidates. Many of the other candidates share his strong response on immigration reform; so he's trying to differentiate.

Though, if asked the question, he should simply spout of his 6 point solution as it is stated on his website...nuff said.:cool:

[DeadheadForPaul]

He needs to stress 2 things: Strong National Defense and Bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice

[Chase]

I think Ron Paul should say "I actually believe strongly in nation-building... but when I say nation-building, I mean building our AMERICAN nation here at home."

[shadowhooch]

He needs to stress 2 things: Strong National Defense and Bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice

Yes, that would definitely cure the misunderstanding that he is weak.....a strong response to bringing Osama to justice. Good idea.

[Kuldebar]

YES!!!!! His ONE MESSAGE IS STRONG... but he is, to me, turning into a one trick pony. I support him --- but the masses are not gonna dig him too much if that is all he has.

I know alot of his opposition is raking it in, in Iowa because they take strong stands on Illegal Immigration and 'following laws'. Have you heard Ron Paul give a strong stand on Illegal Immigration? Me either. He sorta glosses over it.

I am not sure what his deal is.. but my support is sorta wavering on this issue and it is irritating me. He has a strong message in regards to it, but he is sorta focusing in one just ONE thing.. a strong message it is... but, you know... he needs to add more..

Some audience participation is required, Ron Paul, unlike most politicians, has taken very clear positions via his writing and speeches in Congress. No weasel words or half heated attempts to make "everyone" happy. But, his work is there and accessible for the intellectually motivated and politically awakened.

Paul has to prioritize his message and the majority of people out there haven't even heard of him or what he stands for, but it's a no-brainer that the fighting in Iraq and the GWOT loom pretty big in the minds of many Americans.

So, Paul spotlights that area most in his speeches.

I have been listening to Ron Paul for 15 years or so now, I have heard most of his positions and views, but I understand the need for him to cover all that ground again, but he has to start with something and he has to take it slow.

It doesn't take much to blow people out of the water.

...a shock to the system.

It's powerful mojo, man.

[jblosser]

I think it doesn't have any thing to do with what he says but how he says it. He is a very humble man and delivers his speeches that way, he also sounds very academic. But he needs to learn to sell, because that is what he is doing selling himself and the message of freedom. He is also needs to get some anger, he talks about how we are being screwed over but delivers it like a college lecture, he needs to deliver it like he wants to rip Benarke's head off and crap down his throat for stealing our money.

He needs to get some fire in him. That is just the way I see it.

--Dustan

Because that worked so well for Dean, you know. :cool:

I don't think it can be argued he needs to change his approach considering how well it is working for him (for the last 30+ years). The problem is exposure so people hear him, not how he speaks.

[Lord Xar]

I think he focuses on it the most because it is what truly separates him from the other candidates. Many of the other candidates share his strong response on immigration reform; so he's trying to differentiate.

Though, if asked the question, he should simply spout of his 6 point solution as it is stated on his website...nuff said.:cool:

I think that is a "losers" gambit, personally. You might have strong convictions and a strong message but if you only express it WHEN SOMEONE ASKS, is rather shortsighted.

I will be real here.... most people here say "when they hear him..." or "when they hear his message ...." etc.... that is bologne.. He needs to talk strong and entwine his ONE strong message with his statellite message that are EQUALLY as important to some people... as the ONE message is important to you.

The think I find lacking here, in this forum, is the understanding that his ONE message that many of you love might not be NUMBER ONE on someone else's list and therefore, he must address things as such.

I have seen many a candidate take a fall becasue he/she focused in on one or two issues and never expressed their other issues.

So what if others are expresssing a similiar position. What sort of argument is that? If the message is a strong one, do you distance yourself from it because others are doing it?

We need to start understanding that the concept of FREEDOM and PERSONAL LIBERTY is sorta alien to MOST PEOPLE... and in addition to that message you NEED OTHER MESSAGES THAT RESONATE WITH PEOPLE...

IF you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you baffle them with bullshit.... that is sorta true... If your TRUE ONE message is not enough, talk about your other issues....

enough said...

[Kuldebar]

Ron Paul is fine. I don't want him to be like all those other managed politicians.

How about we start reassessing what goes for value in our political leaders?

Maybe even-temperament instead of structured drama?

Maybe consistent principles instead of "tailored" messages?

Maybe simple honesty instead of flaming rhetoric?

Maybe an appeal to reason and intelligence instead of the reptilian brain?

I don't want more of what we already have, I want more of what Ron Paul is bringing to the political scene.

Screw the image consultants and demographical manipulators, how's about we go with a statesman instead?

[DeadheadForPaul]

Yes, that would definitely cure the misunderstanding that he is weak.....a strong response to bringing Osama to justice. Good idea.

On the flyers I hand out, I put that Dr. Paul voted to go after Osama and that he was a strong national defense (including border security). Of course, I do this when I'm targeting Republican voters. I handed out some of these in south carolina and think they did wonders. I think such things might turn off a liberal.

[Dave Wood]

The media has a stranglehold on most peoples views regarding their safety. Living outside of DC, I can tell you first hand what people felt when the plane that hit the pentagon flew out of our backyard! Has everyone forgotten about the DC sniper shootings, talk about terror. That was the most terror I have ever felt. Not for me as much as for my daughter, he was shooting kids at school!

I believe Dr. Paul has to make a very strong stand regarding securing the average American, or he will be toast.

He touched on it briefly in SC when he said "No one can attack us, we are too powerful" but I wish he would have built up the energy from that point and gone a little further.

I love this message and have donated a lot of money to this campaign and I expect us to win!!!!!!!!!! We have to get a grip on some of the things that the average joe out there is thinking, if we dont, we will ultimately fail.

[ThePieSwindler]

Xar you obviously didn't watch the debates did you... or any of his other speeches (i know you did, im being rhetorical). He talks about the other issues all the time. He talked about immigration in the debates, he talks about it and about how the welfare state creates the real problems in the google interview, etc. On TV he is often interviewed and asked questions about JUST the iraq war, but in the debates he touched on many issues. Sure we hear about his foreign policy alot, but we hear about the market too, and getting rid of the income tax, and he does talk plenty about how he did authorize the use of force to hunt down and bring Bin Laden to justice. I've heard it in at least a half dozen different events.

[ShaneC]

Well, I for the people the Wife and I are dealing with, we need to point to something that says HOW Ron Paul will defend this country.

I dunno what though.

[jblosser]

Well, I for the people the Wife and I are dealing with, we need to point to something that says HOW Ron Paul will defend this country.

I dunno what though.

Bring the troops home, so they are here and not off "protecting" someone else.

Bring the troops home, so that the nutcases can't rally insurgents to their cause (this is the talk of "blowback"; as an example, one of his required reading books for Rudy is about the notion that suicide bombers can only be recruited from an occupied population).

Stop telling people what to do and just set a good example, so fewer want to attack us to get us off their backs.

Stop wasting the money everywhere BUT where it needs to be: training and equipping our armed forces to do their jobs.

Use extra-military options like letters of marque and reprisal, to undermine terrorist safety areas and encourage the locals that know where they are to to turn them in.

And when all else fails, and Congress does their job and declares war: Go win it overwhelmingly, and then come back home.

[aravoth]

He needs to get fired up. Like if Rudy tries to get another appluase point off him he should snap right back and say very sternly, "the war on terror has weakened us. It's pulled our troops out of the country, you and the rest of the Neo-cons made us vulnerable, we should have been pursueing bin laden in afganistan, but instead we went after weapons that didn't even exist inside a country that didn't even have an air force. That is not strength, it's stupidity."

Like, all fired up, like he was when he was on the downey show or whatever, back in the decade that is best forgotten.

[ThePieSwindler]

Well, I for the people the Wife and I are dealing with, we need to point to something that says HOW Ron Paul will defend this country.

I dunno what though.

Well ask them, what makes more sense, having our troops here at home, or scattered in more than 150 different nations across the world? Ron Paul is for a missile defense system, etc, he wanted to target Bin Laden because HE DIRECTLY attacked us. People fall into this false paradigm that fighting war means we are defending our freedom or what not. What does Iraq have to do with our freedom or our way of life or any of that bullshit rhetoric? Attacking Iraq has put us in a weaker position, and has allowed Al Qaeda to regain strength and numbers through recruiting efforts. Al qaeda is now in iraq BECAUSE WE ARE THERE. I don't see how that equates to better defense. The problem is that people have trouble thinking things through rationally. Pulling back our military and bringing them home means we are safer, at least, if you think through it logically. But to most peolpe it apparently means being "weak". Weak on WHAT? On "terror"? No, being weak on a tactic means that rather than "fighting" that tactic, you simply stop it at the source by not instigating that violence. They attack us for a reason, namely because we have been over there, so they feel they need to fight back. Its as simple as that. He beleives our military and our defense is WEAKER because of our foreign policy.

[Kuldebar]

Well, I for the people the Wife and I are dealing with, we need to point to something that says HOW Ron Paul will defend this country.

I dunno what though.


Well, for starters we can point out that the Iranians or Canadians aren't going to be invading our borders in tanks and heavy artillery any time soon.

Ron Paul has stressed time and time again that what passes as 'defense" now days actually makes us more vulnerable because most of our military funding is sent overseas and obvious things like border security, here at home is neglected.

No nation on this planet truly threatens us. Even the so-called GWOT and the attacks of 9/11 do not present a mortal threat to our existence as a nation...well, unless you consider danger of our own runaway government and continuing loss of liberty.

He has pointed out that we as a nation faced down a hostile regime with 30,000 nuclear weapons, a regime which had a leader that threatened to "bury us". We stood our ground and prevailed.

Pale imitations of past horrors are served up today by our "leaders" to frighten the American people out of their future but none of it comes close to the mortal and more present danger we survived during the darkest days of the cold war. The threat of nuclear war was constantly on everyone's mind and it was certainly a more legitimate concern.

Ron Paul has said that one of the government's proper responsibility is to defend our borders and protect it's citizens, but years of interventionist foreign policies have worked to create a very dangerous world of destabilized and volatile regions.

He wishes to reverse this course and the first step to doing that is a strong dose of sanity, not fear.

[LibertyEagle]

In his speeches, he did talk about staying focused on bin Laden and Al Qaeda, when they were in Afghanistan. He did talk about Letters of Marquee and Reprisal.

Dr. Paul is strong on national defense. Problem is... he's not getting it across to people who haven't taken the time to spend a lot of time reading his speeches. In fact, he sounded shocked when he received that question at the end at Spartanburg about national defense. He answered it fine, but instead of just repeating how we shouldn't have done what we did, he needs to lay out WHAT HE THINKS OUGHT TO BE DONE. And he needs to lay it out, step by step.

He will not win the Republican nomination unless he makes it abundantly clear that he is strong on national defense. The interesting thing is... HE IS! And much more so than all the rest. But, if people don't understand his plan, that won't matter a whole lot.

[LibertyEagle]

He needs to get fired up. Like if Rudy tries to get another appluase point off him he should snap right back and say very sternly, "the war on terror has weakened us. It's pulled our troops out of the country, you and the rest of the Neo-cons made us vulnerable, we should have been pursueing bin laden in afganistan, but instead we went after weapons that didn't even exist inside a country that didn't even have an air force. That is not strength, it's stupidity."

Like, all fired up, like he was when he was on the downey show or whatever, back in the decade that is best forgotten.

Well, maybe not quite as fired up as he was on the Downey show ;) , but I agree with you. The first debate was my favorite one, because I saw that spark in his eye and he spoke with gusto about the national ID cards, etc. HE was the one who sounded tough. The other ones sounded like puppy dogs. I haven't seen a video yet that included the reaction of the other candidates after he stood up and said we shouldn't have a national id card. Do you remember? They kinda freaked out and came slithering out from behind their podiums, each proclaiming that well no, they didn't mean for the U.S. citizens; they meant for them thar foreigners. Liars! At the time, I wished that Dr. Paul would have asked for 30 seconds for a rebuttal, just as they had been given time to rebut what he had just said. Because, he could have laid them absolutely FLAT! All he had to do was ask them what the hell they thought the REAL ID was if it was not a national id card for Americans!

[Bossobass]

As Kuldebar mentions, and Ron has said in his speeches, no nation on Earth can threaten the US with military attack...they wouldn't dare.

Ron has been awarded the Leadership Award of the Coalition for Peace Through Strength and no less than Ronald Reagan has endorsed his unwavering stance on National Defense.

He said in Spartanburg that his stance on illegal immigration stems from the fact that he stands for the rule of law, so he opposes anything illegal. He has pointed out numerous times that when we subsidize something, we get more of it. This means that it won't matter what measures we take to stem illegal immigration if we leave the subsides of free medical, free education and birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.

This point is exclusive to RP on the immigration issue, and he has mentioned it in every speech as well as having made a specific point in saying (at the NH debate)that none of the other candidates had brought it up, and that it's crucial to the immigration solution.

He also said in Spartanburg that if we bring the troops home from around the world, he'll have the options to assure secure American borders.

I personally prefer his matter-of-fact delivery. There is just SO much depth in his speeches, it's difficult to comprehend it all in one sitting. Every time I have heard him speak, at some point I find myself saying to the person next to me, "Can you believe he actually SAID that?!"

Reinstate the Constitution.
End the War on Drugs.
Abolish the Fed.
End subsidies for illegal immigrants.
End Corporate Welfare.
Abolish the IRS.
Eliminate the Federal Income Tax, and replace it with (audience): "NOTHING!"
Bring our troops home, from all bases.
Stop securing Iraq's and Korea's borders and secure our own borders.
Repeal the USA Patriot Act.
Repeal the Federeal Reserve Act.
"I promise that I will NEVER abuse Habeas Corpus."
"We DO NOT need a National ID card!"
"It's Government's job to secure the secrecy of the people, not the secrecy of the Government."
Return to Sound Monetary Policy with hard and competing currencies.

These are ALL exclusive planks to the RP platform, and every competing platform crumbles to dust before it.

I don't know what more we could ask of RP.

Bosso

[Kuldebar]

Reinstate the Constitution.
End the War on Drugs.
Abolish the Fed.
End subsidies for illegal immigrants.
End Corporate Welfare.
Abolish the IRS.
Eliminate the Federal Income Tax, and replace it with (audience): "NOTHING!"
Bring our troops home, from all bases.
Stop securing Iraq's and Korea's borders and secure our own borders.
Repeal the USA Patriot Act.
Repeal the Federeal Reserve Act.
"I promise that I will NEVER abuse Habeas Corpus."
"We DO NOT need a National ID card!"
"It's Government's job to secure the secrecy of the people, not the secrecy of the Government."
Return to Sound Monetary Policy with hard and competing currencies.



Quite the full plate for a "single trick " pony, eh? :D

Seriously, we live in a country where most people think the Income Tax pays for all the government and that the Federal Reserve is a Government owned bank...there's a huge amount of ground to cover, so, I won't fault Paul for dealing with some basics first. It's triage for the Republic.

If you notice, he always lasso's in connected issues whenever there is an opportunity but he manages to do so without making people overly confused yet more than a little curious. After all, we need thinking citizens, not sheep.

[BLS]

For those of you who don't know his 'stance' on illegal immigration.


http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/

Tells you in DETAIL what he wants to do.
Yes, he fails to speak about enough (IMO) but his stance is clear.

[Dave Wood]

As Kuldebar mentions, and Ron has said in his speeches, no nation on Earth can threaten the US with military attack...they wouldn't dare.

Ron has been awarded the Leadership Award of the Coalition for Peace Through Strength and no less than Ronald Reagan has endorsed his unwavering stance on National Defense.

He said in Spartanburg that his stance on illegal immigration stems from the fact that he stands for the rule of law, so he opposes anything illegal. He has pointed out numerous times that when we subsidize something, we get more of it. This means that it won't matter what measures we take to stem illegal immigration if we leave the subsides of free medical, free education and birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.

This point is exclusive to RP on the immigration issue, and he has mentioned it in every speech as well as having made a specific point in saying (at the NH debate)that none of the other candidates had brought it up, and that it's crucial to the immigration solution.

He also said in Spartanburg that if we bring the troops home from around the world, he'll have the options to assure secure American borders.

I personally prefer his matter-of-fact delivery. There is just SO much depth in his speeches, it's difficult to comprehend it all in one sitting. Every time I have heard him speak, at some point I find myself saying to the person next to me, "Can you believe he actually SAID that?!"

Reinstate the Constitution.
End the War on Drugs.
Abolish the Fed.
End subsidies for illegal immigrants.
End Corporate Welfare.
Abolish the IRS.
Eliminate the Federal Income Tax, and replace it with (audience): "NOTHING!"
Bring our troops home, from all bases.
Stop securing Iraq's and Korea's borders and secure our own borders.
Repeal the USA Patriot Act.
Repeal the Federeal Reserve Act.
"I promise that I will NEVER abuse Habeas Corpus."
"We DO NOT need a National ID card!"
"It's Government's job to secure the secrecy of the people, not the secrecy of the Government."
Return to Sound Monetary Policy with hard and competing currencies.

These are ALL exclusive planks to the RP platform, and every competing platform crumbles to dust before it.

I don't know what more we could ask of RP.

Bosso



My point here is the average joe isnt doing what we are doing, studying! They are not going to look for the deeper meaning in anything! They want rhetoric because that is what they are used to.

How does RP tailor his defend America ideas into a couple of hotshot talking points that get attention and then go in to the real problems and how to face them and deal with them.
I think this is a real problem! For the person newly exposed to his message, who doesnt want to work/read/study I.E. most of America, how does he show himself as a real American patriot who has no fear of defending America???
The media keeps saying we are at war. He has to deal with that rhetoric in his speeches forcefully somehow........we are running out of time folks, this is the first impression scenario, people dont forget that easily once they have written you off, something needs to change now!

No more feel good garbage......ideas now sow we can send them to him directly or to Kent Snyder.

[Lord Xar]

Quite the full plate for a "single trick " pony, eh? :D

Seriously, we live in a country where most people think the Income Tax pays for all the government and that the Federal Reserve is a Government owned bank...there's a huge amount of ground to cover, so, I won't fault Paul for dealing with some basics first. It's triage for the Republic.

If you notice, he always lasso's in connected issues whenever there is an opportunity but he manages to do so without making people overly confused yet more than a little curious. After all, we need thinking citizens, not sheep.

If you are referring to what i said, you completely missed the point.. though I can't understand how that could be possible..

[Lord Xar]

Ron Paul is fine. I don't want him to be like all those other managed politicians.



Well, when his staff is not getting back to calls made by a writer for a major newspaper in IOWA so voters have info on candidates policies.. to me, perhaps his campaign NEEDS TO BE BETTER MANAGED :-)

[LibertyEagle]

As Kuldebar mentions, and Ron has said in his speeches, no nation on Earth can threaten the US with military attack...they wouldn't dare.

Well, it wasn't a nation, but we were attacked. And Republicans need to know why they should believe him that we would have a stronger national defense under him. He's assuming too much right now. He has to lay it out. If he can't do that when he has all the time in the world in a rally, it doesn't give me a lot of hope that he's anywhere close to a finely-honed 1 minute description for a debate.

[Kuldebar]

My point here is the average joe isnt doing what we are doing, studying! They are not going to look for the deeper meaning in anything! They want rhetoric because that is what they are used to.

How does RP tailor his defend America ideas into a couple of hotshot talking points that get attention and then go in to the real problems and how to face them and deal with them.
I think this is a real problem! For the person newly exposed to his message, who doesnt want to work/read/study I.E. most of America, how does he show himself as a real American patriot who has no fear of defending America???
The media keeps saying we are at war. He has to deal with that rhetoric in his speeches forcefully somehow........we are running out of time folks, this is the first impression scenario, people dont forget that easily once they have written you off, something needs to change now!

No more feel good garbage......ideas now sow we can send them to him directly or to Kent Snyder.


I think you give way too much credence to the status quo method of "dumbing" down a message.

Ron Paul does an excellent job of explaining his positions and he answers questions, he doesn't avoid or tap dance. I think it's very likely that he fields more unscripted, non-planted, unplanned questions from people than any other candidate running.

People need to wake up, you don't wake people up by whispering to them in soothing tones. If people can't wake up to reality, the country is truly hosed.

My biggest dispute with you is about your urgency, I don't think the issue of converting the intellectually lazy is the biggest problem at the moment.

I do think the biggest challenge is getting the message out in the first place.

Ron Paul isn't a spring chicken (lol) when it comes to campaigns, he has good instincts when talking to particular audiences and he has no problem explaining his positions when asked.

But, hell, look what's on his position plate!

Sound bite politics, insipid emotionalisms and drama queen hissy fits in debates are the stuff of Guiliani's, Clinton's and every other godamned politico...let's not try to remake Ron Paul in that image.

[Kuldebar]

Well, it wasn't a nation, but we were attacked. And Republicans need to know why they should believe him that we would have a stronger national defense under him. He's assuming too much right now. He has to lay it out. If he can't do that when he has all the time in the world in a rally, it doesn't give me a lot of hope that he's anywhere close to a finely-honed 1 minute description for a debate.


It was a criminal act, not an invasion, and Paul has repeatedly pointed out that we were paying 40 billion dollars a year <just> on intelligence gathering before 9/11.

[Kuldebar]

Well, when his staff is not getting back to calls made by a writer for a major newspaper in IOWA so voters have info on candidates policies.. to me, perhaps his campaign NEEDS TO BE BETTER MANAGED :-)

Look, you try running a campaign on 2.4 million dollars and see if you can follow up every phone call, eh?

We are a grass root's campaign for a reason, not because we have 20-30 million bucks and a staff of 150 people. lol

[kimosabi]

The best I have seen Ron Paul is in the Debates, it's in the debates he kicks some serious butt!!!!

[rpf2008]

I think his speeches are on target, he talks off the top of his head and does a great job. He needs to "go with what you know".

[Broadlighter]

His message "Freedom isn't complicated" covers everything in his campaign plank and especially in matters of defense and national security. We are more secure when we are free (ie... being friends with other countries, no nation-building, no intervention, free trade, etc..). We've lost our way because smaller-minded politicians put their own agendas above the Constitution.

The test is, are the American people as a whole ready to embrace that message? We've seen the results of what happens when we don't follow the principles of freedom. If people are fed up enough to take back their country they'll be willing to try Ron Paul's message.

Our strength is in our freedom - always and I think Ron Paul is delivering that message. People who perceive that as weak or risky don't have enough faith in themselves to live freely.

[bygone]

He always talks about non intervention and the Iraq war being wrong but I think some people may be just writing him off as weak when they first hear this. Do you think it would be wiser for him to add that he promotes a strong and robust defense here at home or something along those lines?

I may be missing something on this, but it seems like he should be letting people know that though he doesnt support the current policy, under his administration, the military would be kept strong and ready for anything that comes our way....maybe even stronger???

If you paid attention to the Democratic YouTube CNN debate you found something out about this. One of the candidates there promoted the idea that we should use more "UN Troops" and that the "Unions" should be more involved in policing their own areas.

This agenda is becoming less secret by the day, isn't it? lol :)

Another candidate suggested we should use the diplomatic and sanctions answer to solve problems. Hillary said a combination of all of these answers as well as a no-fly zone over the country presumably enforced by US aircraft to exert pressure for change.

The problem with "weakness", or "non-intervention" with some people, and some military people, is that its very easy to translate that into isolationist thinking, even to the point of thinking hey, if they kill or oppress their own people that's not our problem.

Personally I have the very selfish and damnable opinion that it IS their problem, and we have enough problems of our own. America won't see it that way, though, now will they?

The danger he runs with this is that not only does it get seen as weak but it gets seen as uncaring and maybe even cruel. On MSNBC one of the questions Ron was asked had to do with withdrawal from Iraq and he said something to the effect of that we get out, and what happens happens.

This is a DELICATE issue! Some people are going to feel that this isn't right, that we do have some obligation to pick up the mess, some will even feel that we have an obligation to stand for freedom across the world, maybe not as its policeman, but as a liberator of the opressed.

Some will feel as I do, that its "their problem" and just as we fought off oppression so must they. I know thats an awful point of view but hey, life isn't always pretty and our lives start looking less pretty by the day.

And some in the military will probably feel like under Ron that you'll have less military, less funding, less lots of things, maybe even less troops or lower salaries as a result of cutbacks in spending from getting rid of the IRS. Whether or not this is true, well, you're going to have to come out and say that.

So I think there is something missing and thats a clear message about what you really have to do to make people happy. Bush obviously had his answer for it.

Maybe something you could try is something like this, you'd have to shape this to fit Ron. It is my observation that the American military does best in the role of a specific objective, that once achieved, we move on to another objective and let charity and humanitarian efforts, if necessary, do the rest until trade and peace (read free market) can finish the job.

Going to Iraq and getting Saddam, destroying most of the country's military power, and giving the people a chance to be free wasn't such a bad idea, in my opinion. Thinking that our military should be used as an occupying force was a tremendous mistake, though. However, should the people not have been able to succeed in building a suitable nation from the opportunity that we provided, albeit through chaos, we could come back and do it again until they do.

Eventually even the most bone headed of people will catch on and sooner or later this would work.

My point being really that the American military is best used as an agent of change, not as a police force. This is demoralizing to the military and the people of the country they are policing, and gives the false hope that we can establish a country for them, when the reality is that only the people of that country can ultimately do that with any lasting success.

This is the same goal you set for organized terrorist groups, in that you can go in, break things up, kill the leadership, and move on. There's no magic bullet for complete control by policing the entire world, you just have to deal with problems as they come up and stand ready to do that.

I think you can be tough on terrorism, you can use the military as an agent of change where change is needed in the world (and there are some places where it needs change) but to use the military the way it is being used now, for profiteering and policing is beyond the scope and is what ultimately the Fathers warned us about in "entaglements". Or something like that.

You can also with this strategy ensure the military has a role, and not a reduced role, and will have more chances to be permanently on offense or at ease, and I think this fits our military culture well.

Now there is the Immigration issue, and its another delicate issue. Our borders need to be secured and the immigrant flow needs to be stopped. Anything less than that will likely be met with a less than favorable reaction.

It was our mistake to allow this much immigration to begin with, and the responsible thing to do, after the flow is stopped, is to naturalize those that are already here. Anything less than that is likely to be a very ugly and more expensive solution, and a wasted opportunity for economic and cultural growth.

I believe that the immigrants that are already here present an opportunity and we can do the American thing and capitalize on it.

You asked for an opinion on what you think is missing and this opinion is mine. If you don't like it, or some part of it, I'd ask you to keep your disagreement civil and constructive.

[james1844]

Yeah, I agree, I'd like to see RP beef up his discussion of security here at home. I think the message can essentially stay the same, but its true that RP sometimes comes off as weak on defense.

[Dave Wood]

If you paid attention to the Democratic YouTube CNN debate you found something out about this. One of the candidates there promoted the idea that we should use more "UN Troops" and that the "Unions" should be more involved in policing their own areas.

This agenda is becoming less secret by the day, isn't it? lol :)

Another candidate suggested we should use the diplomatic and sanctions answer to solve problems. Hillary said a combination of all of these answers as well as a no-fly zone over the country presumably enforced by US aircraft to exert pressure for change.

The problem with "weakness", or "non-intervention" with some people, and some military people, is that its very easy to translate that into isolationist thinking, even to the point of thinking hey, if they kill or oppress their own people that's not our problem.

Personally I have the very selfish and damnable opinion that it IS their problem, and we have enough problems of our own. America won't see it that way, though, now will they?

The danger he runs with this is that not only does it get seen as weak but it gets seen as uncaring and maybe even cruel. On MSNBC one of the questions Ron was asked had to do with withdrawal from Iraq and he said something to the effect of that we get out, and what happens happens.

This is a DELICATE issue! Some people are going to feel that this isn't right, that we do have some obligation to pick up the mess, some will even feel that we have an obligation to stand for freedom across the world, maybe not as its policeman, but as a liberator of the opressed.

Some will feel as I do, that its "their problem" and just as we fought off oppression so must they. I know thats an awful point of view but hey, life isn't always pretty and our lives start looking less pretty by the day.

And some in the military will probably feel like under Ron that you'll have less military, less funding, less lots of things, maybe even less troops or lower salaries as a result of cutbacks in spending from getting rid of the IRS. Whether or not this is true, well, you're going to have to come out and say that.

So I think there is something missing and thats a clear message about what you really have to do to make people happy. Bush obviously had his answer for it.

Maybe something you could try is something like this, you'd have to shape this to fit Ron. It is my observation that the American military does best in the role of a specific objective, that once achieved, we move on to another objective and let charity and humanitarian efforts, if necessary, do the rest until trade and peace (read free market) can finish the job.

Going to Iraq and getting Saddam, destroying most of the country's military power, and giving the people a chance to be free wasn't such a bad idea, in my opinion. Thinking that our military should be used as an occupying force was a tremendous mistake, though. However, should the people not have been able to succeed in building a suitable nation from the opportunity that we provided, albeit through chaos, we could come back and do it again until they do.

Eventually even the most bone headed of people will catch on and sooner or later this would work.

My point being really that the American military is best used as an agent of change, not as a police force. This is demoralizing to the military and the people of the country they are policing, and gives the false hope that we can establish a country for them, when the reality is that only the people of that country can ultimately do that with any lasting success.

This is the same goal you set for organized terrorist groups, in that you can go in, break things up, kill the leadership, and move on. There's no magic bullet for complete control by policing the entire world, you just have to deal with problems as they come up and stand ready to do that.

I think you can be tough on terrorism, you can use the military as an agent of change where change is needed in the world (and there are some places where it needs change) but to use the military the way it is being used now, for profiteering and policing is beyond the scope and is what ultimately the Fathers warned us about in "entaglements". Or something like that.

You can also with this strategy ensure the military has a role, and not a reduced role, and will have more chances to be permanently on offense or at ease, and I think this fits our military culture well.

Now there is the Immigration issue, and its another delicate issue. Our borders need to be secured and the immigrant flow needs to be stopped. Anything less than that will likely be met with a less than favorable reaction.

It was our mistake to allow this much immigration to begin with, and the responsible thing to do, after the flow is stopped, is to naturalize those that are already here. Anything less than that is likely to be a very ugly and more expensive solution, and a wasted opportunity for economic and cultural growth.

I believe that the immigrants that are already here present an opportunity and we can do the American thing and capitalize on it.

You asked for an opinion on what you think is missing and this opinion is mine. If you don't like it, or some part of it, I'd ask you to keep your disagreement civil and constructive.

Well stated and a big fat WELCOME!

[LibertyEagle]

It was a criminal act, not an invasion, and Paul has repeatedly pointed out that we were paying 40 billion dollars a year <just> on intelligence gathering before 9/11.

Yes, but the issue is that they did nothing with the intelligence. No one would listen to the guy who kept warning, over and over again...hey look, there'a a guy over here that 's learning to fly this plane, but says he doesn't care about learning how to land it.

Also, it is my understanding is that the supposed attackers, were here on EXPIRED visas. I have heard him say that once. He should drive that home, that if we would have ENFORCED our friggin' immigration laws, this would never have happened.

[Santana28]

I've seen Dr. Paul speak in person in Iowa, and actually i was a little disappointed to be honest.

I was hoping he would address illegal immigration as strongly as his anti-UN stance - and he barely mentioned it beyond talking about having the troops come home and guard the border. he needs to address specifically about cracking down on employers and benefits and such. also, i understand what he wants to do as far as healthcare costs are concerned - but he needs to find a better, simpler way of articulating that. every time i have heard him discuss that topic, he tends to go off on a lot of tangents.

i wish he would make a weekly or monthly "YouTube Address" and post it on the front page of ronpaul2008.com - specifically articulating and fleshing out his ideas for a particular subject. I think that would be something of great value to his campaign.

at the debates, i think its time for a (respectful, *cough*) attack mode. he needs to start pointing out the flaws in his opponents plans better, and articulate why his would be more beneficial. i think he can do this without coming accross as desperate - but it needs to be backed up by a print, radio, and TV ad campaign soon after in order to make any real difference.

i think...

[shadowhooch]

I was hoping he would address illegal immigration as strongly as his anti-UN stance - and he barely mentioned it beyond talking about having the troops come home and guard the border. he needs to address specifically about cracking down on employers and benefits and such. also, i understand what he wants to do as far as healthcare costs are concerned - but he needs to find a better, simpler way of articulating that. every time i have heard him discuss that topic, he tends to go off on a lot of tangents.
i think...

Yep, I agree. He doesn't articulate these topics well and goes off onto tangents like free market philosophy and such.

The good thing is he DOES have the solutions written down already. He just needs to say them. For immigration, he needs to spout off the 6 actions listed on his website. They are solid. For healthcare, he simply needs to cite his credentials being a medical doctor with experience working in the current system (no one else can compete with that) and also spout off the legislation of tax breaks for individuals he has tried to pass.

I really hopes he steps up. He's got the ideas and the credentials. He just needs to make people aware.:o