Message and language. Do you have suggestions?

[Publicani]

It's not the first time that Paul mentions Wolfowitz, like "even Wolfowitz said..." This is Washington speak. I had no idea who the huck Wolfowitz was and why should I care about what he said.
RP should understand that not many people are as knowledgeable as he is. Maybe the right way to say would be "even major architects of Bush's Iraq policy such as Paul Wolfowitz" if you have to mention his name at all. I checked the WIKI, he is a visiting scholar now, why RP is using his name is beyond me.

While I am talking about language, maybe he should drop fighting “neo-conservatives” as well. Sounds like a local fight and it diminishes his message. I did not know who those neo-conservatives were and many people don't know, don't care, and, in my opinion should not care. I like better when RP says we are in a soft-fascist state. That I agree and ready to support. But to get in a fight of good conservatives against bad conservatives -- I am not sure.

And please, please stop talking about great Austrian school of economics. You are absolutely right, but do you think there was an undecided voter voting Ron Paul because he is knowledgeable in Austrian economics? Seriously?

Do you agree? Do you have other suggestions how RP might improve his communication?

I know, he does not have to, he is great, but yet, what if he reads this thread, can we help him?

[Goldwater Conservative]

It's not the first time that Paul mentions Wolfowitz, like "even Wolfowitz said..." This is Washington speak. I had no idea who the huck Wolfowitz was and why should I care about what he said.
RP should understand that not many people are as knowledgeable as he is. Maybe the right way to say would be "even major architects of Bush's Iraq policy such as Paul Wolfowitz" if you have to mention his name at all. I checked the WIKI, he is a visiting scholar now, why RP is using his name is beyond me.

He should continue citing him, because Wolfowitz was EXTREMELY influential in this administration. However, you're right that he should quickly explain who he is.


While I am talking about language, maybe he should drop fighting “neo-conservatives” as well. Sounds like a local fight and it diminishes his message. I did not know who those neo-conservatives were and many people don't know, don't care, and, in my opinion should not care. I like better when RP says we are in a soft-fascist state. That I agree and ready to support. But to get in a fight of good conservatives against bad conservatives -- I am not sure.

I'm fine with him saying "neo-conservative" if he mentions that they used to be leftists and Democrats. Plant the seed of doubt for the less knowledgeable in the audience.


And please, please stop talking about great Austrian school of economics. You are absolutely right, but do you think there was an undecided voter voting Ron Paul because he is knowledgeable in Austrian economics? Seriously?

Again, I don't mind him talking about that if he explains what it means and how so many conservative economists are part of that school of thought. Like it or not, monetary policy is a big part of his candidacy and why he decided to run for public office in the first place.


Do you agree? Do you have other suggestions how RP might improve his communication?

I think he needs to hammer home the point that he's for a strong national defense, strong military, and secure borders, but that our foreign current policy is detrimental to all of those. Then he can segue to what he usually jumps right into, namely, the economics of the issue and "blowback."

[Publicani]

Then he can segue to what he usually jumps right into, namely, the economics of the issue and "blowback."

"Blowback" he uses often. I forgot to mention this word. It's again one of those Washington speak. Normal people hear: "blow what?"

"Unintended consequences" maybe? I am not sure that even this is good enough. Does not sound like a big deal.

[Goldwater Conservative]

"Blowback" he uses often. I forgot to mention this word. It's again one of those Washington speak. Normal people hear: "blow what?"

"Unintended consequences" maybe? I am not sure that even this is good enough. Does not sound like a big deal.

Maybe he should use one of those folksy metaphors Thompson and Huckabee like so much. Probably something about putting your hand in a bucket of snakes.

[pcosmar]

Maybe he should stop mentioning the Constitution, since nobody cares any more.
And that whole liberty thing is so 18th century. :rolleyes:

:mad::mad::mad:

[Publicani]

I understand the humor, but liberty and constitution are very powerful. Everybody knows what they are and Paul brings a uniqe perspective and passion. Easy to relate to. Airoport searches. Reading our emails.
But don't say "haibus corpus" without explaining. That's another one that Paul throws in between his other thoughts.
I am not saying people are stupid. Or they don't pay attention. THis is just not necessarilly a major area of their interest.
Any professional giving lectures to general public should avoid professional jargon. All these words are examples of Washington professional jargon - that's all I am saying.

[Dave Pedersen]

It's not the first time that Paul mentions Wolfowitz, like "even Wolfowitz said..." This is Washington speak. I had no idea who the huck Wolfowitz was and why should I care about what he said.
RP should understand that not many people are as knowledgeable as he is. Maybe the right way to say would be "even major architects of Bush's Iraq policy such as Paul Wolfowitz" if you have to mention his name at all. I checked the WIKI, he is a visiting scholar now, why RP is using his name is beyond me.

While I am talking about language, maybe he should drop fighting “neo-conservatives” as well. Sounds like a local fight and it diminishes his message. I did not know who those neo-conservatives were and many people don't know, don't care, and, in my opinion should not care. I like better when RP says we are in a soft-fascist state. That I agree and ready to support. But to get in a fight of good conservatives against bad conservatives -- I am not sure.

And please, please stop talking about great Austrian school of economics. You are absolutely right, but do you think there was an undecided voter voting Ron Paul because he is knowledgeable in Austrian economics? Seriously?

Do you agree? Do you have other suggestions how RP might improve his communication?

I know, he does not have to, he is great, but yet, what if he reads this thread, can we help him?

Absolutely. If anyone knows anything about Austria they know it was a member of the axis in WWII.. not really a great connection to make in the public mind.

I would like Dr. Paul to reinvent his words every week, making them simpler and more to the point. Most words have several synonyms. Dr. Paul needs to keep a fresh delivery and over time the more effective phrases can be retained. This is called self-improvement and even presidential candidates.. especially presidential candidates need to change the worm on the hook frequently. New words build into new phrases and points of argument. For instance he did great with that response in the debate to the electability question

.. "let me see if I get this straight"..

and this has to be a constant process of improving and refining the message. Some of the ways he made his points in the old debates he has dropped and actually some of those delivery segments were quite effective. Over time when a person repeats the same things over and over they tend to make shortcuts and the message gets stale. This default tendency needs to be pro-actively countered with a deliberate effort at producing fresh material.

If you're not climbing you're sliding.

[Corydoras]

While I understand your concerns about whether Ron Paul can reach Joe Sixpack, I don't agree.

The #1 reason I am voting for Ron Paul is his concern about habeas corpus.
His attack on neoconservatism is hugely appealing and demonstrates he's one of the good guys.
What rock have you been living under that you didn't know who Paul Wolfowitz is?

If the message is dumbed down, there isn't much reason to vote for him at all, is there?
What are the reasons YOU are voting for him if you don't care about what he's talking about?
If you explain that, you will give insights into how to reach Joe Sixpack.

[hillertexas]

"non-interventionism" should be replaced with "armed neutrality"

Also he needs to make it clear and repeat "Iraq=Vietnam"

[Publicani]

"non-interventionism" should be replaced with "armed neutrality"

Also he needs to make it clear and repeat "Iraq=Vietnam"

I love "armed neitrality!"

Iraq = Vietnam I am not sure. VIetnam is painful to people to remember, THey would not want to have another loss. THey'll say that is exactly why we are staying in Iraq.


What are the reasons YOU are voting for him if you don't care about what he's talking about?
If you explain that, you will give insights into how to reach Joe Sixpack.

I think I explained it in my post about Wolfowitz and neo-conserevatives. If you are serious in your comments , I can try to explain it again.

[constituent]

I would like Dr. Paul to reinvent his words every week, making them simpler and more to the point. Most words have several synonyms. Dr. Paul needs to keep a fresh delivery and over time the more effective phrases can be retained... <that means snip>

....For instance he did great with that response in the debate to the electability question

.. "let me see if I get this straight"..

and this has to be a constant process of improving and refining the message. Some of the ways he made his points in the old debates he has dropped and actually some of those delivery segments were quite effective. Over time when a person repeats the same things over and over they tend to make shortcuts and the message gets stale. This default tendency needs to be pro-actively countered with a deliberate effort at producing fresh material.



+1freakin'000

[Gadsden Flag]

He also has to stop being negative. It sounds silly, but for a presidential candidate, it is crucial that you are positive about everything. Just look positive the other candidates are. There is a reason that mainstream Republicans sincerely think that RP hates America--Yes, I've heard several people say that.

How can he do this? Well, instead of talking about how bad the Iraq war is, talk about how good it will be if we leave. Instead of warning about how dismal our foreign policy spending is, talk about how much things will improve if we close our bases in Germany and Korea. Don't say how we are spending all that money for no reason. Talk about how much money will be saved if we close those bases. Only speak negatively about the other candidates' policies. Always, always, always speak in terms of how bright the future looks if you are in charge.

He also needs to plug his own record more. The other candidates do this constantly. Has Ron ever said that he never voted to raise taxes during a debate? That is an impressive statement. He's got to start saying it.


RP's big problem is that it is hard to establish his position in the 45 seconds he is given in a debate. Yes, I know that a lot of people on this forum think he does great in these debates, but to someone is not a supporter, he comes across as a crazy old man. All of us have watched and read many RP speeches and we know what he is talking about, or why his positions are correct. It isn't really fair, because when you have positions which are contrary to everyone else, you have no room to manuever. It's almost like he is debating the moderators as well as the other candidates.

[Gadsden Flag]

Iraq = Vietnam I am not sure. VIetnam is painful to people to remember, THey would not want to have another loss. THey'll say that is exactly why we are staying in Iraq.





Something which might appeal to mainstream republicans is saying that we already 'won' the war back when Bush declared the end of major combat operations a few years ago. America's job is done. Saddam is gone. Good enough, let's go home. Let the Iraqi's manage their own country now.

[Publicani]

Something which might appeal to mainstream republicans is saying that we already 'won' the war back when Bush declared the end of major combat operations a few years ago. America's job is done. Saddam is gone. Good enough, let's go home. Let the Iraqi's manage their own country now.

That I agree completely. It is true, by the way.