Boots on the Ground in SC - FP is the Issue that is Holding Us Back

[tbone717]

Look, I live in Greenville, SC and listen to talk radio. Most who are against paul is only because no one looks into his Forign policy. they believe what the media tells them.

And we are not going to change the culture and find a bunch of people suddenly researching FP stances. So, we have to work within the nature of the culture and define the message more clearly in a way that is palatable to the average voter.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I just got off the phone with my parents in SC. The Perry news has reached the average voter, the Newt story has not yet hit. My folks said that a lot of people like Paul on the economy, but his FP is what holds them back. They live in a very large 55+ over community (over 10,000 residents). It is a upper middle class, educated crowd.

That confirms what has been said here by others for a while now. The campaign needs to more clearly define the FP in a language that is understandable to the average voter. We are going to always have to combat media spin of course, but we do need to get this message out in a more succinct means that allows the average voter to feel confident in Paul's ability to protect the country.

Paul has a tendency to speak in on this issue in a way that doesn't connect with the average voter. This needs to be worked on. We cannot expect the average voter to do the research and understand the nuances in the way that folks like us do. This needs to be brought down to a simple point by point explanation that allows the average voter to embrace what Paul has been talking about.

*YAWN* so what else is new?

How many times do we have to keep repeating this same old point?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

Believe it or not, I think that's a little too harsh for a republican primary.

 

[tbone717]

*YAWN* so what else is new?

How many times do we have to keep repeating this same old point?

Sorry for boring you, but I was getting this info from actual average voters, instead of speculation and opinion.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Yep, something that all of us (except for the campaign apparently) knows.

What makes you think the campaign doesn't know? I worked with the campaign, and I assure you, they know what they need to know about it.

 

[tbone717]

What makes you think the campaign doesn't know? I worked with the campaign, and I assure you, they know what they need to know about it.

I believe what you see here from many is a plea to the campaign to do something to combat what we are hearing directly from voters. There are many of us that have put a lot of time and money into this effort. Some of us have been at this for 4+ years, some of us (myself included) have been at this for 20+ years. We just don't want to see this opportunity wasted, when there is a relatively simple fix.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Guys, Paul's foreign policy position also garners him the most support.

You do realize that even if Ron Paul was 100% gung ho with military interventionism, they would find another issue that would be the "sticking point" with voters? Sure, he could clean up his message and deliver it better, but I don't know how much it would change things. They'd just find something else.

Personally, even more than foreign policy, I think the thing that's hurting him the most is "electability". And since the media is the arbiter of who is "electable", we have to work outside of them.

Absolutely, 100% agree.

Also, people need to keep in mind that it's not the campaign's fault that the message doesn't seem to be sticking with average voters. There are a number of reasons why this could be happening. First of all, Ron Paul, HIMSELF, is liable for much of this because he tries to make the points, but he often makes them amongst a bunch of rambling like on Tuesday. They are good points, but they sometimes get lost in the fray. The campaign knows what they are doing, and they are trying to get the point across, but Ron is old, and sometimes he just can't say it better when he's in a debate. He makes all the points we want him to, like the troops support him and a declaration of war, but they're not the only thing voters here, so they don't see those points as being what Ron Paul is all about. The perception doesn't change even when the talking points do. That takes a little more time. It's not the campaign's fault. They are doing what they can, but they can only do so much. Most of the decisions are left up to Ron Paul and the voter. Face it, some voters will never come around to the message in time because they are too brainwashed to even consider cutting military and not pertectin' 'muhrica.

 

[nayjevin]

Trust me. I know these people, they are not warhawks by any stretch of the imagination. Paul has not done a good job at explaining his FP in a way that the average voter can understand it. He does great with the economic stuff - cut a trillion, close departments, balance the budget. But he has not been able to sound bite the FP at all in a way that it sells to the average voter. Remember that most people just get a small snapshot of the news everyday, they don't live in our world of reading article after article and watching video after video. Case in point, we have known about this Newt scandal for what 12 hours or more? My folks haven't even heard of it yet because they are busy living their normal lives.

What I don't understand is what you expect us to do about that, if true. I just see it as undue criticism (I don't think he needs to do that) in the wrong place (he's probably heard this criticism already, and is unlikely to see it here.) I don't see any result besides increasing doubt in the campaign and in Ron.

What is a proactive solution? Why not look for some quotes in Ron's writing? Email them to your friends. Why not use an existing video? It really doesn't seem to me that waiting for the campaign or Ron to come out with something new is the best way to solve the problem.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I believe what you see here from many is a plea to the campaign to do something to combat what we are hearing directly from voters. There are many of us that have put a lot of time and money into this effort. Some of us have been at this for 4+ years, some of us (myself included) have been at this for 20+ years. We just don't want to see this opportunity wasted, when there is a relatively simple fix.

What "simple fix" do you propose? Politics is not a simple thing. How can there possibly be a simple fix?

 

[tbone717]

What I don't understand is what you expect us to do about that, if true. I just see it as undue criticism (I don't think he needs to do that) in the wrong place (he's probably heard this criticism already, and is unlikely to see it here.) I don't see any result besides increasing doubt in the campaign and in Ron.

What is a proactive solution? Why not look for some quotes in Ron's writing? Email them to your friends. Why not use an existing video? It really doesn't seem to me that waiting for the campaign or Ron to come out with something new is the best way to solve the problem.

Well in my mind it is confirmation from the ground. So much what we hear here is speculation and opinion. I tend to go with facts and data. I have average voters here, that aren't "brainwashed neo-cons" that are happy with Paul but leery of his FP, that are willing to go with Mitt even though they don't view him as particularly strong on the economy.

How does the grassroots combat this? There are a number of ways. We can work with one of the PACs to get the message out there large scale. We can get a viral video going (but that only reaches a small fraction of voters). We can work together to get these bullet points together so that we can use those points when we dialogue with people one on one.

Part of finding a solution to a problem is correctly identifying the problem. In this case from my cursory research the problem is not convincing war mongering people that non-interventionism is the solution. It is convincing average everyday folks that Paul is strong on defense

 

[tbone717]

What "simple fix" do you propose? Politics is not a simple thing. How can there possibly be a simple fix?

The points are being made, the language needs to be changed. Simple as that. It is a sound bite world like it or not. We need to rephrase the sound bites.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The points are being made, the language needs to be changed. Simple as that. It is a sound bite world like it or not. We need to rephrase the sound bites.

But it's not "simple as that." You are ignoring a great many factors. First, the media. They will twist anything Ron Paul says, and you can bet your bottom dollar they're not going to be helping us. Secondly, Ron Paul, himself. Ron is the arbiter of what he says, and if he disagrees with changing the way he says things, then nothing can be done. Thirdly, that doesn't guarantee Ron would be able to do it effectively if he wawnted to. Fourthly, even if he did right now, most people wouldn't even hear it before the primary. Fifthly, many people are just too hawkish to accept Ron Paul anyway. Sometimes it is because of his policy and sometimes it is because of his brand of policy. Either way, there is no "simple fix" as you say.

Also, I might remind you there are a bunch of different ways to change the language. There are a lot of factors that go into having Ron Paul say such and such and making sure such and such is the right thing while making sure it is something that can be said so that it doesn't sound like he's reading from a script.

 

[maninblack]

If President Paul had intelligence that there was a national security threat he wouldn't hesitate to put a boot up someone's ass seemed to work with the voters I talked to. Then spike a whatever you're holding in your hand.

 

[Brett85]

Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee PCC keyword Matt Collins Jesse Benton Doug Wead search

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

Yep, non interventionism can be explained in a way that sounds tough. Ron still hasn't figured that out.

 

[boneyard bill]

I can't express how completely frustrated I feel at Ron Paul's exposition of his foreign policy. He always make the ideological points while avoiding the practical ones. Ron Paul thinks it's "OK" for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. That's not exactly what he said, but the inference that the media has drawn from his remarks is not wildly off base either.

The relevant point is the IRAN DOES NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM! The CIA stated that in 2008 and has re-iterated it several times since then. The Secretary of Defense said the same thing just a week or so ago. The Defense Department recently issued a report saying that the Iranian military capabilities are almost entirely DEFENSIVE.

Whether or not Iran should "be allowed" to develop a nuclear weapon is irrelevant. They aren't even trying to do so. Obama, Republicans hawks, and the media are essentially lying about the situation. Why doesn't Ron Paul call them on it? Instead, he makes the ideological point of non-interventionism. But there is a far more compelling case that THIS PARTICULAR intervention is absolute madness which may benefit certain special interests but at enormous cost to the American people.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Yep, non interventionism can be explained in a way that sounds tough. Ron still hasn't figured that out.

Has it ever crossed your mind that he has figured that out and still doesn't want to say it because he doesn't agree with saying that way?

 

[Brett85]

Also, why does Ron let the moderators get away with saying that his foreign policy views "are to the left of Obama?" I can't believe that Ron seems to just accept that statement.

 

[ds21089]

Paul has not done a good job at explaining his FP in a way that the average voter can understand it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jN0cMcCK1gk#t=70s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UBRxb07PPWA#t=3705s at least until before the point where he says "pursue our interest around the world" A military defense so strong, that nobody will even bother to attack us...which is what we would have if we brought all the troops home.

 

[nayjevin]

So it seems to me you answered your question: convince folks Ron is strong on defense.

Use Ron's words when they are effective at this. Use his advisors words when they are better. Use your own words when they are best. Use youtubes and the like as well.

 

[Brett85]

Has it ever crossed your mind that he has figured that out and still doesn't want to say it because he doesn't agree with saying that way?

So he doesn't agree with winning wars quickly when our country gets attacked?