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

[nayjevin]

To me the key to understanding the proper foreign policy is understanding how it can be possible that so many people advocate the wrong one.

It has nothing to do with being strong, and it has nothing to do with national defense. It has to do with profit, power, and control of resources.

Once this is understood, it's easy to see why all the wrong ideas are on T.V., and all the right ideas are coming from individuals who do not have ties to the military industrial complex.

 

[LibertyEagle]

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.

I totally agree.

It is wrong of people on here to just call everyone who doesn't understand Paul's FP a warhawk. More than that, it is stupid. I love Dr. Paul, but he has not laid out his foreign policy well at all. Actually, it's been absolutely horrible, in my opinion.

It is not realistic to expect voters to read reams of Dr. Paul's speeches and read some books by foreign policy experts, so that they can understand what the heck he is talking about. It is up to him to explain it so that his audience can understand it. Tom Davis could do it in a short interview; Dr. Paul should be able to do it too.

 

[raystone]

Gunnyfreedom is right

"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."

Please repost to get the message to the campaign.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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.

I know. My above post still applies.

 

[tbone717]

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.

You aren't pandering when you rephrase something. The message does not need to change, the delivery may need to change. We need to find out how to say the same thing two different ways and which of those two ways elicits a positive response.

 

[nayjevin]

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

LOL, the implication here being that my statement included the words 'we don't need soft support to win the election.'

If you'll look again, I said no such thing.

 

[tbone717]

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.

Oh I do this, but I am only one man with limited time to do so.

 

[LibertyEagle]

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.

Yup.

You aren't pandering when you rephrase something. The message does not need to change, the delivery may need to change. We need to find out how to say the same thing two different ways and which of those two ways elicits a positive response.

Absolutely. Why do people suggest someone is asking for him to pander, when it is the delivery that is being talked about?

The message is fine. The delivery is not.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Gunnyfreedom is right

"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."

Please repost to get the message to the campaign.

That is not Ron Paul's position and he will not say it. Stop trying to put words in his mouth. If he hasn't said what you want to hear by now, then maybe that is a clue that he doesn't agree with what you say.

 

[cavalier973]

With regard to Newt Gingrich saying that we should have Andrew Jackson's attitude toward our enemies: "Kill 'em", Dr. Paul should point out that Andrew Jackson's enemies were the American Indians, who posed no threat to us, but had something the government wanted--land.

Also, I think Dr. Pauls should reiterate the point I heard Sen. Davis making, that American troops based here in the U.S. can reach anywhere in the world in 13 hours; that we don't actually need bases sprinkled around the earth to keep us safe.

 

[nayjevin]

It is wrong of people on here to just call everyone who doesn't understand Paul's FP a warhawk. More than that, it is stupid.

That's a good point, but calling it stupid is the same problem. I just didn't quite see it until you said it.

I love Dr. Paul, but he has not laid out his foreign policy well at all. Actually, it's been absolutely horrible, in my opinion.

He has, in his books. And he has in debates, in my opinion. But of course crowd noises can make a difference in how we perceive it.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You aren't pandering when you rephrase something. The message does not need to change, the delivery may need to change. We need to find out how to say the same thing two different ways and which of those two ways elicits a positive response.

Did you see the post about the Jacksonians and Jeffersonians and Wilsonians? You need to go back and read it again. You still don't seem to be able to comprehend that Ron Paul would disagree with saying it in a hawkish way on a philosophical level.

 

[EBounding]

Ron Paul says in every debate that he's for a STRONG national defense.

Can anyone tell me if he has ever explained what a Strong National Defense is in the debates? I don't think he ever has and that's his problem.

He's leaving his "strong national defense" statement up to the viewers to define. If the viewers think he's a isolationist peacenik, then that's lens they're going to view his national defense stance. But if he defines it himself and get's specific they can't use that lens and they suddenly have to question what they thought about Paul before.

 

[tbone717]

Also, I think Dr. Pauls should reiterate the point I heard Sen. Davis making, that American troops based here in the U.S. can reach anywhere in the world in 13 hours; that we don't actually need bases sprinkled around the earth to keep us safe.

Agreed. Honestly, the surrogates do a better job explaining FP than the candidate does. Don't get me wrong, I think Paul is awesome. This will be my third time voting for him (88 General, 08 Primary, 12 Primary). He hits home runs all the time when talking about domestic issues, if the FP issue were fine tuned we would be in a much better position in SC. That's what I am hearing from my "boots on the ground" in SC. People are willing to settle for Romney because they just can't understand Paul's FP positions the way they have been stated so far.

 

[ohgodno]

Mainstream voters have an immediate gag reflex when the truth is pointed out so bluntly (years of lies will do that) - I see no harm tempering the delivery to break down their defenses so they become receptive to the overall message.

We KNOW the FP is based on profit, power, and control of resources — but people are not willing to believe that yet.

But open their minds to non-intervention by speaking to defense ( the thing they're scared Dr. Paul won't do ) and THEN the discussion can occur where the truth is revealed. The most important thing right now is getting people receptive to the idea of non-intervention.

We have 46% convinced said the Zogby poll - the rest need the message delivered differently. This much is clear.

 

[nayjevin]

Has anyone ever thought of the diplomatic implications of acting strong militarily? If he becomes president, he needs to NOT be the 'bomb Iran' guy. It's actually quite important for our national security and our childrens' future that he is CLEARLY NOT the 'bomb Iran' guy.

Maybe he should start quoting Neville Chamberlain and walking around with a limp wrist and forget about SC.

LOOL

 

[Brett85]

That is not Ron Paul's position and he will not say it. Stop trying to put words in his mouth. If he hasn't said what you want to hear by now, then maybe that is a clue that he doesn't agree with what you say.

Again, how is it not Ron Paul's position that we should respond with overwhelming force when we get attacked? Are you saying that Ron is a pacifist?

 

[cavalier973]

Really, all Dr. Paul needs to do is hammer the NDAA. Romney said he would have signed it, and got roundly boo'd. I'm pretty sure Gingrich supports it, too. Dr. Paul could say something along the lines of, "it would be a shame for our soldiers to come home only to find that the America they fought for is no longer free, that they and their families must live under the threat of their own government charging them with terrorism and, without a trial, imprisoning them indefinitely."

 

[tbone717]

Really, all Dr. Paul needs to do is hammer the NDAA. Romney said he would have signed it, and got roundly boo'd. I'm pretty sure Gingrich supports it, too. Dr. Paul could say something along the lines of, "it would be a shame for our soldiers to come home only to find that the America they fought for is no longer free, that they and their families must live under the threat of their own government charging them with terrorism and, without a trial, imprisoning them indefinitely."

My parents and their friends (who were the basis of my OP) have no idea what the NDAA is.

 

[Brett85]

Ron Paul says in every debate that he's for a STRONG national defense.

Can anyone tell me if he has ever explained what a Strong National Defense is in the debates? I don't think he ever has and that's his problem.

That's almost his entire problem. He won't actually lay out a national defense strategy. He won't talk about the alternative to intervention overseas which would be border security, a strong missile defense program, defending our ports, having a strong military defending us here at home, etc. I don't see why he couldn't lay out a national defense strategy the way that he laid out a plan to cut 1 trillion from the budget.