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

[tbone717]

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.

Ill address those one by one, because I was a little short on my last answer. I had to take my kid to school.

1. The media is what it is, this is the arena we are in and if we cannot win in the arena we might as well call it a day. We cannot expect them to help us, so we work around it as best as we can. If we cannot win with a hostile media, then as I said we can save a lot of money and call it quits now. I don't think any of us want to do that.

2. Paul needs to make a decision whether he wants to win this or not. If he is not winning because of a point or two that needs to be changed, and he is unwilling to do so, then we have to question his desire to see this country changed. I don't think he feels that way. I think he does want to succeed otherwise he wouldn't be dragging himself all over the country, living out of suitcase and eating on the run.

3. There are no guarantees of course, but we need to do everything possible to win. If that requires making some changes, then we make changes.

4. I disagree with this. A change in language can be made quickly, and since we are moving in what appears to be another phase of the campaign with less people in the race there is still plenty of time.

5. Again I disagree. Having talked to more people that you can imagine, I do not view the average GOP voter as hawkish in the least. I think it is an unfair characterization that we place on people. The average voter is a lot more sensible than we give them credit for.

So how does the language get changed? It is simple. You test the message. If that requires focus groups then you do it. Like it or not, a campaign is all about marketing & selling a message. You can say the same exact thing two different ways and get different reactions depending upon the way something is said. So maybe "stop being the policeman of the world" isn't resonating. So how do we (and the campaign) say that differently so that the same message is communicated but in a way that resonates with the average voter. Maybe by saying "We need to put American defense first above the interests of other countries" might play better. Until this is tested we do not know the best way to communicate the message. The message is a good one, and one I think we can win on. However, the words that are being used are not ones that are selling the message.

 

[FreedomHorn]

He needs to somehow convey the point that he's the one that's not scared of them, and neither should we be, because we're America and our military can't be touched. It could frame his policy in a different way and inspire some folks. Also needs to point out that 9/11 was a national defense breakdown, which he wants to shore up by not having us spread so thin around the globe.

 

[Brett85]

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.

It's hard to convince folks that Ron is strong on defense when he never talks about defense. Ron hasn't laid out any kind of national defense strategy. He only talks about what he's opposed to.

 

[EBounding]

It's not worth the time to try and change most entrenched warhawks by the SC primary. That is why I think the campaign is smart.

No! This is not true!

I voted for Bush and McCain. I was pretty entrenched in the view that the wars were keeping us safe. If they're convinced about Paul's other issues, they can easily be convinced on FP if Paul just starts speaking their language. This is the Republican primary. We need Republicans. Paul speaks about foreign policy as if he is addressing Independents and Democrats. He can express the same message by simply explaining what he would do specifically for national defense.

Like Senator Tom Davis, it also took me some time to research Paul's positions on foreign policy before I could fully support it. I took the time to research him because I knew he was the only one serious about addressing the debt problem and I WANTED to find a reason to support him. But the reason it took me so long is because Paul is never specific about what he would do for national defense. I had to find random interviews where he does describe specifics.

Unlike myself though, a lot of people have no interest in researching more about Paul. Which is why he needs to say it himself!

 

[aclove]

Here's the bottom line.

Ron Paul is a Jeffersonian. So are his supporters.

Most of the GOP base are not Jeffersonians. They are Jacksonians. They like tough talk, they NEED it to get behind someone.

Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum are also not Jacksonians. They are Wilsonians. The Jacksonian base actually has more in common with Jeffersonians than they do Wilsonians, but the Wilsonian candidates are willing to lie and say whatever Jacksonians want to hear in order to win.

Ron Paul, the only Jeffersonian candidate, is simply not willing to do this...and he never will be. We're asking him to try to sound like a Jacksonian in order to "trick" the Jacksonian base into thinking he's one of them, when he's not. I simply don't think Ron is willing to do that, nor would he be convincing if he tried.

Anyone who has watched Ron over the years knows that in his heart, he doesn't really want to be President. He is willing to be President because he feels duty-bound to fill that role if that's what the country wants and needs. But he's only willing to do that if people flock to his positions without him having to "package" them in a way that is even a little bit indirect and sly. That's the limitation the campaign team is up against, and I think they know it. Ron simply will not tell people what they want to hear if it involves masking or crafting his message even slightly. That's just the way it is.

What we're really asking Ron to do is run like Rand would run. But Rand isn't running this time. Ron is. The sooner we accept that and move on, the less frustrated we'll be.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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

Maybe, why don't you ask him? The point is that he doesn't like creating a response to a problem before there is a problem. That is deceptive, and Ron Paul doen't deceive people. I think he could probably say what he believes better, but I am not so arrogant that I think I know what he believes. Maybe he believes such soundbites are either deceptive or not in line with the current situation. I don't pretend I can just create words and put them in his mouth, assuming he would agree with them. Have you ever gotten annoyed at someone who told you to say something a certain way and told them, "I'm going to say it the way I want to say it." Imagine how Ron feels with a million people telling him "you should say it like this" or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, etc....

Only Ron knows what he is comfortable with saying.

 

[tbone717]

No! This is not true!

I voted for Bush and McCain. I was pretty entrenched in the view that the wars were keeping us safe. If they're convinced about Paul's other issues, they can easily be convinced on FP if Paul just starts speaking their language. This is the Republican primary. We need Republicans. Paul speaks about foreign policy as if he is addressing Independents and Democrats. He can express the same message by simply explaining what he would do specifically for national defense.

Like Senator Tom Davis, it also took me some time to research Paul's positions on foreign policy before I could fully support it. I took the time to research him because I knew he was the only one serious about addressing the debt problem and I WANTED to find a reason to support him. But the reason it took me so long is because Paul is never specific about what he would do for national defense. I had to find random interviews where he does describe specifics.

Unlike myself though, a lot of people have no interest in researching more about Paul. Which is why he needs to say it himself!

Well stated, +rep

 

[jolynna]

Start with: Ron Paul advocates National Defence NOT International Offense, the latter will have their grandchildren living in perpetual war and perhaps participating in that war if a draft is made into law. And then add that the military support for Ron Paul is large - why is that? Share the reasons given by the military personnel --> they were lied to and are fighting for something other than what is best for America. They need to come home and defend our borders.

THIS.

My son is in the military. I correspond with about 30 women that have sons or husbands in the military. It is EASY for Romney or Newt or Santorum to be all gung-ho about war when none of THEM was willing to serve their country. Nor are their own children fighting.

There is no goal in Afghanistan? How will we know when we've won?

Our nation was fooled into Vietnam because we were told the world would fall to communism if we weren't there. 60,000 young lives were sacrificed. We LEFT Vietnam in a humiliating way. NOT ONE new country became communist because the U.S. left Vietnam. Our presence and the 60,000 lost lives in Vietnam were for nothing.

We were told there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There weren't. After 9 years of our occupation, once we left the tribes went back to warring and squabbling just like they have always done. We've been in Afghanistan for 10 years. When we leave they were do the same. If we stay in Afghanistan for 5 more years, 10 more years or 30 more years, when we leave they will go back to being as they were before we came.

 

[Brett85]

Maybe, why don't you ask him? The point is that he doesn't like creating a response to a problem before there is a problem. That is deceptive, and Ron Paul doen't deceive people. I think he could probably say what he believes better, but I am not so arrogant that I think I know what he believes. Maybe he believes such soundbites are either deceptive or not in line with the current situation. I don't pretend I can just create words and put them in his mouth, assuming he would agree with them. Have you ever gotten annoyed at someone who told you to say something a certain way and told them, "I'm going to say it the way I want to say it." Imagine how Ron feels with a million people telling him "you should say it like this" or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, etc....

Only Ron knows what he is comfortable with saying.

Ron should know what he's saying isn't working when he's behind Gingrich and Romney significantly in the polls. It all comes down to whether Ron actually wants to win or simply wants to spread his message.

 

[unknown]

Ron Paul's position has been explained relatively well.

We cant discount the constant, almost endless hammering and spin about his foreign policy by the media.

Not saying that he couldnt drop some memorable sound bites but lets be objective, the endless chorus of "hes good on domestic policies but..." has had an undeniable impact.

When I talk to people on phone from home, those are almost verbatim the words that they use, like theyve been trained to say it. As though they media has stamped it into their brains, like the media was repeating it over and over and over, oh wait...

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Ill address those one by one, because I was a little short on my last answer. I had to take my kid to school.

1. The media is what it is, this is the arena we are in and if we cannot win in the arena we might as well call it a day. We cannot expect them to help us, so we work around it as best as we can. If we cannot win with a hostile media, then as I said we can save a lot of money and call it quits now. I don't think any of us want to do that.

2. Paul needs to make a decision whether he wants to win this or not. If he is not winning because of a point or two that needs to be changed, and he is unwilling to do so, then we have to question his desire to see this country changed. I don't think he feels that way. I think he does want to succeed otherwise he wouldn't be dragging himself all over the country, living out of suitcase and eating on the run.

3. There are no guarantees of course, but we need to do everything possible to win. If that requires making some changes, then we make changes.

4. I disagree with this. A change in language can be made quickly, and since we are moving in what appears to be another phase of the campaign with less people in the race there is still plenty of time.

5. Again I disagree. Having talked to more people that you can imagine, I do not view the average GOP voter as hawkish in the least. I think it is an unfair characterization that we place on people. The average voter is a lot more sensible than we give them credit for.

So how does the language get changed? It is simple. You test the message. If that requires focus groups then you do it. Like it or not, a campaign is all about marketing & selling a message. You can say the same exact thing two different ways and get different reactions depending upon the way something is said. So maybe "stop being the policeman of the world" isn't resonating. So how do we (and the campaign) say that differently so that the same message is communicated but in a way that resonates with the average voter. Maybe by saying "We need to put American defense first above the interests of other countries" might play better. Until this is tested we do not know the best way to communicate the message. The message is a good one, and one I think we can win on. However, the words that are being used are not ones that are selling the message.

A lot of this relies on assumptions about what needs to be done and what Ron Paul is willing to do. Assumptions that come from your own beliefs and your own experience, which may not be representative of the whole nation. I try not to make assumptions, and right now, I'm just trying to tell you that it's not a simple fix. It's just not a simple thing because trying to taylor the way you talk to millions of people not a simple thing, let alone just talking to millions of people. I have learned from my education that politics is not a simple thing, and I think trying to make it sound simple is a gross mischaracterization of the problem.

 

[nayjevin]

The 'win people over with better soundbytes' theory results in soft support.

Listening to Ron over time results in the most solid base in the campaign.

 

[tbone717]

Ron should know what he's saying isn't working when he's behind Gingrich and Romney significantly in the polls. It all comes down to whether Ron actually wants to win or simply wants to spread his message.

Right. And I do not think he is so bull headed and inflexible that he isn't willing to explain his message in language so it is appealing to the average voter. He has done so well on his economic message, which is a lot different than the 08 campaign. It is the same message, but this time it is delivered in a way that appeals to voters. He can do the same with FP and it is not too late to do so.

 

[Brett85]

It also isn't unrealistic for Ron to lay out a national defense/foreign policy strategy. He doesn't have to say, "well I can't talk about this since it hasn't actually happened." Voters need to know how he would handle a potential threat to our national security.

 

[tbone717]

The 'win people over with better soundbytes' theory results in soft support.

Listening to Ron over time results in the most solid base in the campaign.

You need a combination of soft and hard support in order to win. Not everyone needs to be a diehard Paul supporter in order to vote for him.

 

[Brett85]

The 'win people over with better soundbytes' theory results in soft support.

Listening to Ron over time results in the most solid base in the campaign.

You need soft support in order to win an election. A solid 10-20% base isn't going to win a primary.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Here's the bottom line.

Ron Paul is a Jeffersonian. So are his supporters.

Most of the GOP base are not Jeffersonians. They are Jacksonians. They like tough talk, they NEED it to get behind someone.

Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum are also not Jacksonians. They are Wilsonians. The Jacksonian base actually has more in common with Jeffersonians than they do Wilsonians, but the Wilsonian candidates are willing to lie and say whatever Jacksonians want to hear in order to win.

Ron Paul, the only Jeffersonian candidate, is simply not willing to do this...and he never will be. We're asking him to try to sound like a Jacksonian in order to "trick" the Jacksonian base into thinking he's one of them, when he's not. I simply don't think Ron is willing to do that, nor would he be convincing if he tried.

Anyone who has watched Ron over the years knows that in his heart, he doesn't really want to be President. He is willing to be President because he feels duty-bound to fill that role if that's what the country wants and needs. But he's only willing to do that if people flock to his positions without him having to "package" them in a way that is even a little bit indirect and sly. That's the limitation the campaign team is up against, and I think they know it. Ron simply will not tell people what they want to hear if it involves masking or crafting his message even slightly. That's just the way it is.

What we're really asking Ron to do is run like Rand would run. But Rand isn't running this time. Ron is. The sooner we accept that and move on, the less frustrated we'll be.

There is always someone who can say it better. Thanks for this post. It's what I've been trying to get across. Ron isn't necessarily open to the idea of changing his message the way many want him to because he disagrees with it on a philosophical level. You can't ask someone to advocate a position they don't hold, and that's why I believe, as the above poster does, that Ron Paul wouldn't necessarily want to just change his words. He DOES want to win for the sake of the country, but he wants to do it the way he wants to do it, not the way others think he should do it.

 

[tbone717]

A lot of this relies on assumptions about what needs to be done and what Ron Paul is willing to do. Assumptions that come from your own beliefs and your own experience, which may not be representative of the whole nation...It's just not a simple thing because trying to taylor the way you talk to millions of people not a simple thing, let alone just talking to millions of people. I have learned from my education that politics is not a simple thing, and I think trying to make it sound simple is a gross mischaracterization of the problem.

That is why you need to test the message to different groups and see how it plays. This is nothing new, it has been done in both politics and marketing for years and years.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Ron should know what he's saying isn't working when he's behind Gingrich and Romney significantly in the polls. It all comes down to whether Ron actually wants to win or simply wants to spread his message.

I think Ron wants to win, but only if people are willing to support his message the way he is saying it. He doesn't want to pander. I think Rand would do it differently, but this time, Ron is running and he doesn't want to do it that way.

 

[Highstreet]

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.

We need to be his surrogates and explain it to them.

There is no other way. Even when he does get to explain parts of it, the media chop it up so it sounds weak.

Talk to them again, ask them what they think is his FP because many times the news spins it wrong to keep people from liking him. Then explain it.