megiddo
05-22-2007, 08:53 AM
5/19/2007 - Brenham, TX 1:30 PM
It's easy to listen to what you like to hear, and Ron Paul was very easy to listen to. He spoke clearly, and hit all the major points of his platform. He gave plenty of time for questions, and answered them forthrightly, and without ambiguity. He was warm and personable, and made time before the speech to meet his constituents. Overall, I believe the whole crowd (about 75 people) were moved to more action.
My only critiques were in advertising and delivery. It was very difficult to find this meeting, and I knew where to go. Ron Paul needs better communication of his public appearances--you can't have them without the public itself.
In delivery, Dr. Paul's voice is steady, warm, and emotional. He feels paternal without being paternalistic. It was good to hear honesty from a repeat veteran of Congress. He was not cynical, and spoke the truth. Missing from his stump speech, was some element of stumpiness.
Dr. Paul clearly knows his material, and has a structured message, but at times transitions were poor, ideas were not fully articulated, and argument was in the passive voice. Notably, the planks of his platform were explained, but not introduced. On several occassions, I had the desire to stand up and exhort him to say what it is we wanted to hear. It's fine to discuss a position on taxes or liberty, but when the explanation is over, it's then time to state a position. Let's hear an "I will cut taxes" or "I fight for your freedom!" Simple, one-line, mono-syllabic statements of his planks.
The platform needs to be fully articulated both in one-liners, and in extended form. Just to reiterate his point, he should have book-ended his arguments with these one-line planks. Perhaps we all know what these are, and for many, why they should hold; but these speech opportunities aren't for the passionate supporter (as much as we love to hear them), but for the marginal supporter, or the uninitiated.
Clearly, Dr. Paul has a public persona that can rally support. He has a sound platform that Americans cannot in good conscious disagree with. What he lacks is a simply-stated, strongly worded platform.
Perhaps the greatest scholar of constitutional rights on the public ticket today can take a few lessons on punctuating his speeches from those same founding fathers. Can we hear a "Give me liberty", Dr. Paul?
- Noah Smith, College Station, TX
It's easy to listen to what you like to hear, and Ron Paul was very easy to listen to. He spoke clearly, and hit all the major points of his platform. He gave plenty of time for questions, and answered them forthrightly, and without ambiguity. He was warm and personable, and made time before the speech to meet his constituents. Overall, I believe the whole crowd (about 75 people) were moved to more action.
My only critiques were in advertising and delivery. It was very difficult to find this meeting, and I knew where to go. Ron Paul needs better communication of his public appearances--you can't have them without the public itself.
In delivery, Dr. Paul's voice is steady, warm, and emotional. He feels paternal without being paternalistic. It was good to hear honesty from a repeat veteran of Congress. He was not cynical, and spoke the truth. Missing from his stump speech, was some element of stumpiness.
Dr. Paul clearly knows his material, and has a structured message, but at times transitions were poor, ideas were not fully articulated, and argument was in the passive voice. Notably, the planks of his platform were explained, but not introduced. On several occassions, I had the desire to stand up and exhort him to say what it is we wanted to hear. It's fine to discuss a position on taxes or liberty, but when the explanation is over, it's then time to state a position. Let's hear an "I will cut taxes" or "I fight for your freedom!" Simple, one-line, mono-syllabic statements of his planks.
The platform needs to be fully articulated both in one-liners, and in extended form. Just to reiterate his point, he should have book-ended his arguments with these one-line planks. Perhaps we all know what these are, and for many, why they should hold; but these speech opportunities aren't for the passionate supporter (as much as we love to hear them), but for the marginal supporter, or the uninitiated.
Clearly, Dr. Paul has a public persona that can rally support. He has a sound platform that Americans cannot in good conscious disagree with. What he lacks is a simply-stated, strongly worded platform.
Perhaps the greatest scholar of constitutional rights on the public ticket today can take a few lessons on punctuating his speeches from those same founding fathers. Can we hear a "Give me liberty", Dr. Paul?
- Noah Smith, College Station, TX