Ron Paul Needs to Redirect Frivolous ?'s to Important Issues

[Article V]

When the debate moderators inevitably ask Ron Paul about marijuana or some other non-pressing issue that makes Ron Paul's candidacy seem outside the mainstream, he needs to call them out on the question.

"I'm a medical doctor; I am trained to heal people. I'm never going to advise someone to get hooked on drugs, but I'm also not going to throw them in jail if they do. I'm going to help them because that's what a doctor does, that's what a Christian does, and that's what a good society does.

"Now I wish you'd ask me about more pressing issues, such as health care--since I am a doctor and know a few things about the health care industry, having been a flight surgeon in the Air Force, an OB/GYN in my private practice, and having raised a family of doctors.

"Or perhaps, you could ask me about our current economic crisis, since I'm a published economist and the Head of the Monetary Policy Subcommittee. After all, I have been warning about the dangers of debt and spending for years, which is why they credit me as the Father of the Tea Party.

"But instead of these bigger issues, whenever you get to me, somehow all you want to know about are drugs and prostitutes. Really? Don't we have bigger problems? No credible doctor would focus on a running nose when someone is having a heart attack. And no President should either."

"Let's start listening to the American people and focus on the real problems that ail them right now today. We can't be so concerned about other people's sex lives that we spend our country into perpetual debt and foreclosure. A President needs to keep his eye on the ball. And that's exactly what I will do."

I bet he'd get huge applause and never have to deal with ludicrous questions again.

[hillbilly123069]

I have notice he has the habit the dem's consider pesky of answering questions in a way that makes sense to us uneducated folk.

[LibertarianBrit]

He could reply in this way, but it would be a much more powerful response and instantly put his interviewers in their place if he simply replied with the Austrian economist Bohm-Bawerk's thesis that economic law precedes over political power. http://blog.mises.org/12378/bohm-baw...tical-control/ By doing this he would provide the ultimate defence to those who criticise his libertarian stance on drugs etc. because it is impossible to come up with a more conservative stance than the one just mentioned. I have heard Ron Paul state that the war on drugs is too expensive, but he could be a lot more explicit on this point, which would enable him to turn around any argument put to him very quickly, by any of the usual slimy interviewers or presidential opponents.

[IDefendThePlatform]

He could reply in this way, but it would be a much more powerful response and instantly put his interviewers in their place if he simply replied with the Austrian economist Bohm-Bawerk's thesis that economic law precedes over political power. http://blog.mises.org/12378/bohm-baw...tical-control/ By doing this he would provide the ultimate defence to those who criticise his libertarian stance on drugs etc. because it is impossible to come up with a more conservative stance than the one just mentioned. I have heard Ron Paul state that the war on drugs is too expensive, but he could be a lot more explicit on this point, which would enable him to turn around any argument put to him very quickly, by any of the usual slimy interviewers or presidential opponents.

I definitely like the idea of putting his less GOP-friendly stances such as the war on drugs and foreign policy into terms of cost in $$$. Specifically, something like "Our overseas military commitments currently cost $500 billion/year. That's $5,000 in taxes for the average American family. How much security could you buy for an extra $5,000 every year?"

[Article V]

He could reply in this way, but it would be a much more powerful response and instantly put his interviewers in their place if he simply replied with the Austrian economist Bohm-Bawerk's thesis that economic law precedes over political power. http://blog.mises.org/12378/bohm-baw...tical-control/ By doing this he would provide the ultimate defence to those who criticise his libertarian stance on drugs etc. because it is impossible to come up with a more conservative stance than the one just mentioned. I have heard Ron Paul state that the war on drugs is too expensive, but he could be a lot more explicit on this point, which would enable him to turn around any argument put to him very quickly, by any of the usual slimy interviewers or presidential opponents.

In my opinion, that's too obtuse a response for Joe Public who has no interest in economics, Austrian history, or foreign philosophy. Bill O'Reilly already skewered Ron Paul for being overly obtuse in the last debate when he referenced Keynes. Quoting Bohm-Bawerk's thesis would only add insult to our injury and fodder for the fire of our gleeful naysayers.

Remember, responses must be short. I doubt the American public will be able to understand the name Bohm-Bawerk in under 2 minutes, let alone his thesis on economic law preceding political power.

Herman Cain won the first debate by looking good and uttering the catch phrase against politicians, "How's that been workin' out for ya?"
Michele Bachmann won the last debate by looking good and cheering simple slogans like "One term President!"

Yes, they both subsequently dropped after their initial bounce in polling, but that's because people researched them more afterwards and found a lack of substance.

When people research Ron Paul after the debate, they'll find worlds of substance...but we first have to wet their appetite like Cain and Bachmann did in their debate wins.

And let's not forget: The Ames Straw Poll is just two days after the debate, which means whoever wins the Ames debate will still be glowing from their post-debate bounce! We need that bounce so we can win Ames!

Ron Paul needs to keep sentences simple enough for the uninitiated to understand quickly, so that they can remember what he said and explain it back to their own friends and neighbors that didn't watch the debate. That's the goal!

Bohm-Bawerk just isn't something people talk about around the water-cooler.

[erowe1]

How about this:

When I am inaugurated as president, I will place my hand on the Bible, the word of the living God, and promise never to exercise any powers aside from those enumerated in the United States Constitution. I intend to keep that promise. If other candidates intend to break that promise, they ought to say so, or if they think the Constitution somewhere puts drug laws in the hands of the federal government, they ought to explain where.

[willwash]

Concur...I have never even heard of Bohm-Bawerk's thesis, and I consider myself reasonably well-read and certainly up to speed on the 2012 GOP race.