RonCam
01-11-2008, 04:31 AM
RE: Issues, what to do with government agencies
Dr. Paul usually starts his answers about what he'd do to the IRS, government agencies, etc. with a quick "Well, I'd get rid of them!" and only (much) later follows up with something like "Of course, I have a graduated plan for phasing out the need for the (names of agencies)" and so forth. The problem I see is, often the interviewer interrupts after getting these first few "sound bites" -- and Dr. Paul never has a chance to go to his reasoned explanation.
So, I suggest the Dr. reverse the order to make sure the reasoned explanation isn't lost. For voters who only hear the "I'd get rid of this, or that," it comes across as too abrupt, and worse, maybe even frightening or "disturbing."
I think this delivery method is a attempt at dry humor, and in fact it is, for those who are "in the know." He ususally has a faint smile at this point.
BUT ...
... if the average voter doesn't notice this, it could sound as if he's proposing to dismantle the government upon taking office. Nothing wrong with a quick "I'd get rid of 'em!" but only after the listener has heard he has a logical plan and sequence (and he's not just proposing an immediate executive order!).
Has Dr. Paul's brief, or "sound-bite" way of expressing his proposals ever been checked out with focus groups, to see if in fact there may be unintended "blowback" from it?
? I am disappointed in the the Dr.'s showing in the first three primaries and wonder if anyone thinks there may be unexpected consequences from this delivery method.
Dr. Paul usually starts his answers about what he'd do to the IRS, government agencies, etc. with a quick "Well, I'd get rid of them!" and only (much) later follows up with something like "Of course, I have a graduated plan for phasing out the need for the (names of agencies)" and so forth. The problem I see is, often the interviewer interrupts after getting these first few "sound bites" -- and Dr. Paul never has a chance to go to his reasoned explanation.
So, I suggest the Dr. reverse the order to make sure the reasoned explanation isn't lost. For voters who only hear the "I'd get rid of this, or that," it comes across as too abrupt, and worse, maybe even frightening or "disturbing."
I think this delivery method is a attempt at dry humor, and in fact it is, for those who are "in the know." He ususally has a faint smile at this point.
BUT ...
... if the average voter doesn't notice this, it could sound as if he's proposing to dismantle the government upon taking office. Nothing wrong with a quick "I'd get rid of 'em!" but only after the listener has heard he has a logical plan and sequence (and he's not just proposing an immediate executive order!).
Has Dr. Paul's brief, or "sound-bite" way of expressing his proposals ever been checked out with focus groups, to see if in fact there may be unintended "blowback" from it?
? I am disappointed in the the Dr.'s showing in the first three primaries and wonder if anyone thinks there may be unexpected consequences from this delivery method.