debating coach

[partypooper]

i wish dr paul practiced the debate format a little bit. i am a psychologist and, to my judgment, his arguments - as they come across in the debates - are not well understood by an average viewer.

dr paul's arguments are complex, and though he says that the message of freedom is simple, the message is not simple. that is the reason why it took thousands of years for a society with that message to appear. so the way the message is articulated can make a lot of difference in practice.

when dr paul is given plenty of time he performs splendidly. however in the debates he performs less well than he could, given how strong his arguments are. basically, he would need to practice selecting the best argument for a given question. it is not about changing the message - it is simply about improving delivery. and frankly, he could use some improvement.

i assume that he is not interested in improving the skill that would not make him a better president. the debating skills are pretty much irrelevant in the oval office. but it is a skill that most elected presidents did have, and it is probably necessary for every anti-establishment candidate to possess.

it is not about acting or following nonsense PR advice about "what people want to hear" or "how to project oneself". it is simply about being at one' best at all times and telling uncomfortable truths in the most effective way.

 

[HarryBrowneLives]

Absolutely,

 

[HarryBrowneLives]

Yes,

I worked with/for Harry Browne with his first campaign. He had a real gift for taking the complicated and making it simple ... a few thougts to pass along to HQ:

1. Although he was something of an "ambush candidate" in early debates, debaters trying to cope with his message, it is clear that the attacks will ramp up as his delivery and presentation of the mesage has become too predictable.

2. The MSM has attempted to offer up most of the "Top Teir" candiates in the hopes that one of them would catch fire and move way up. To their disappointment, this has not yet happened and now the latest friend of the MSM has now become Huckabee. Paul (and I highly suspect others) should exploit his awful record as Governor to further add a black eye and split the Christian Conservative vote between the others.

3. He should package his anti-war message as far removed from being construed as "anti american" as possible and shift the debate by presenting it as the fault of the 'neocons" or the "small group of elites in washington". This could be aided very well by hammering on the theme of ending the 'military welfare state".... i.e. why should we be spending billions to maintain bases and troops in europe. wealthy countries can defend themselves.

4. Begin to lament ending the income tax and replace it with nothing as opposed to ending the IRS and replacing it with the Fair tax or Flat tax or some other form. i think he hit on this in the post debate speech. Needle the other candidates about what they would do to end the income tax and what they would replace it with. He can articulate this very well. They will try and make this seem like a riduclous dream ... we can cement the fact that it is OUR dream and that of the american people who want to see real change instead of the status quo they offer. As we have gained support, others have attempted to co-opt some of our message without the record nor the ideas to make this anywhere close to reality.

5. Practice more on tone and delievery and these kinds of senarios within a debate format. he is too nervous in these venues in which case it seems to me it is better served with a better prepared messenger and a more focused message in some cases.

In short, in the words of the great Karl Hess (libertarian speechwriter for Goldwater) who was onced asked about the prospect of armed revolution in this country, once quipped:

"Why reach for the musket when all you need is a custard pie".

With a more focused and polished message, these other guys don't have a leg to stand on in terms of history, public records, and their plan for the future.

Good Luck and Godspeed.

 

[partypooper]

dear campaign,

i implore you to consider getting a coach for dr paul. he doesn't even need a coach, he would benefit greatly just from participating in neocon forums anonymously. i am not kidding. it's the best way to practice and dr paul can use that practice to see what responses are most effective and how to phrase them most clearly and succinctly.

i just watched dr paul on wolf blitzer where he was given the same question that he faced during the debate - a question about hitler and how non-interventionism led to the rise of hitler. he did reasonably well but he could have done better had he prepared more vigorously.

he spent too much time dwelling on the semantic difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. to an average voter, this sounds like hair-splitting. yes, the distinction is important in principle, but in the context of foreign policy is irrelevant. so no need to waste time lecturing on the semantics, stick to the meat of the point.

i hoped that dr paul will bring up more historical facts, such as the treaty of versailles which was instrumental for the rise of hitler and how much more the US was respected before it got actively involved in european politics. i heard him mention on some occasions how there were military operations against the US before pearl harbor (sinking of the ships or something). i don't know if this is true, historically, but if it is you should make it clear that the germany behaved in a manner that is much worse than iraq and this could have been used to question the analogy (he did that partly by saying that iraq had no navy or army). in any case, dr paul needs to amass additional historical evidence to break the analogy.

dr paul should note that the same exact questions pop up over and over again - they are all available on blogs by mainstream conservatives. pretty much all those questions revolve around foreign policy and whether it would make us safer or whether we would be humiliated if we left. countless commentators have said that they like dr paul except for his foreign policy. most of these commentators are still undecided on whom to support. there is plenty of space left to convert them but their worries must be acknowledged (please emphasize that our foreign policy is NOT THE ONLY reasons for terrorism - but a significant contributing reason that we can easily control), addressed in great detail and respectfully. "just come home", "they are over here because we are over there", "be friends with nations, talk to them" just doesn't cut it for those people. so lets find something that does.

dr paul should study these arguments and figure out the way to respond to the most efficiently. it is very difficult to improvise on such matters, especially in a short period of time.