Doug Wead: "Ron Paul "IS" Receiving Debate Coaching"

[TheDriver]

Whatever they're doing--double it!

 

[V3n]

I'm guessing this started after the "fences" question...

 

[Original_Intent]

Well, I think this is a great sacrifice that Ron is making. I used to do public speaking/sales and I HATED with a passion "role playing". I always felt like the best approach was to be well educated on the subject that you were going to discuss and then just be yourself. Obviously if giving a speech you want an outline and for things to be fleshed out, and if all they are doing is helping steer him away from land mines, then I think that is great. But I also sympathise with Ron not liking it, and I think it could detract if it is done tot he point that Ron feels like he is just regurgitating talking points.

Bottom line is I hate the so-called "debates" if they had a real debate instead of these moderated, biased inquisitions, Ron would own every other candidate EASILY.
Moderators only function should be to make sure each candidate has close to equal speaking time (and of course they are failing miserably at it.)

 

[FA.Hayek]

I'm guessing this started after the "fences" question...

haha, absolutely LOVE the good Dr., but even I scratched my head on that one.. imagine what your average viewer thought

 

[Oklahoman]

I think You, as some others here misunderstood what debate coaching means. They wouldn't (and shouldn't) try to change or adjust Ron's message, but the way he delivers it.

My suggestions would be:

-Try to speak slow and to pronounce words correctly, like Bachmann does . She doesn't have much to say, so she speaks slowly, but it is effective. (not her message, but the way she delivers it.)

-Be more of Commander in chief as you said you will be as a President. When You are missed on important question, use first opportunity to address that question quickly and efficienty. (As he should have been doing with "audit/end the FED" and "how much can I keep of 1$ I earn" questions. And each of this questions he could answer in 10-15 sec. He needed just to mention his book "End the Fed" and his bill to audit Fed as answer to first question, and to say "100% - I want to abolish income tax" as answer for second question.

-Every, every, EVERY SINGLE TIME there is question about foreign policy, defence and military matters be sure to mention that you recived more donations from military personnel then all other contenders combined, and more then actual Commander in chief, President Obama.

etc, etc...

This is way I understand Ron's debate preparation and coaching.

This, this, this, this.......this is exactly the message the campaign needs to see. I'm practicing my NRA/Gun Owners conference speech at Toastmasters this week on the merits of Ron Paul coming up soon, and this is the message I've even had to rehearse. Did it in 2008, and the turnout was good, this time I'm getting some kick back on the Iran statement.

I also think smiling (at the precise moment where he realizes he has totally unraveled his opponent's position) would catch the audience off guard and would show strength. They aren't use to seeing him smile, it would make an impact.

BTW, finally registered after 5 years of reading the boards daily...lol....yay for me

 

[Bruno]

This, this, this, this.......this is exactly the message the campaign needs to see. I'm practicing my NRA/Gun Owners conference speech at Toastmasters this week on the merits of Ron Paul coming up soon, and this is the message I've even had to rehearse. Did it in 2008, and the turnout was good, this time I'm getting some kick back on the Iran statement.

I also think smiling (at the precise moment where he realizes he has totally unraveled his opponent's position) would catch the audience off guard and would show strength. They aren't use to seeing him smile, it would make an impact.

BTW, finally registered after 5 years of reading the boards daily...lol....yay for me

Wow, a 5 year lurker?!? Welcome!

Toastmaster's helped me overcome my fear of public speaking. Good luck with your speech!

And good suggestion about the smiling, a smiling Ron is a powerful Ron. I thought that was one of his most impactful moments, when he smiled an said Perry might tax him too much!

 

[trey4sports]

This, this, this, this.......this is exactly the message the campaign needs to see. I'm practicing my NRA/Gun Owners conference speech at Toastmasters this week on the merits of Ron Paul coming up soon, and this is the message I've even had to rehearse. Did it in 2008, and the turnout was good, this time I'm getting some kick back on the Iran statement.

I also think smiling (at the precise moment where he realizes he has totally unraveled his opponent's position) would catch the audience off guard and would show strength. They aren't use to seeing him smile, it would make an impact.

BTW, finally registered after 5 years of reading the boards daily...lol....yay for me

very good. Glad to have you onboard!

Be sure to donate to the Sept. 17th moneybomb

err wait... that's tommorow~!

 

[jason43]

It is unfortunate but the debates in this 30 second - 1 minute format pretty much require it. He has had moments, especially in the last election where his style has been an asset. "I take my marching orders from the constitution" comes to mind. But this time around they are framing the questions to discredit him. It is blatently obvious. He does have stump speeches that he memorizes or at least has thought out base lines of discussion. He needs to develop shorter ones for this style debate. Its hard to get a 76 year old man who has been studying and speaking about this stuff in depth for 30 years to change his approach, but in order to succeed he needs to do it. He needs a 1-2 sentence responce for any possible line of BS that they can throw at him. He needs to talk about the kindness of the American people and our compassion and talk about more effective alternatives to solving poverty and polution than an government. A lot of arguments I hear on the net are focused on 'heartlessness' of libertarians because of our opposition to massive government. The only problem with their arguments is that government involvement is the prime cause of the problems they are talking about. He also needs to talk about transitioning out of these programs gradually, so as alternatives like charity hospitals become more viable, communities will be able to make a transition to them. He needs to emphasize not yanking the rug out from under people. He believes this, but it needs to be plainly said. Liberals think we want to repeal the whole gov't on day one. To combat this, he needs to have some specific and practical steps he wants to implement that can get us headed in the right direction. Once those start working, he will have more credibility and will be able to make more changes. Another thing that needs to be addressed is chronyism and corporate welfare. Liberals seem to think that Paul wants to turn the reigns over to corporations which is completely not the case.

He could have clobbered Santorum in that debate with "I encourage everyone to go read what I actually wrote about 9-11. I did not blame Americans for 9-11 and I like to think that 60 years of foreign policy, differences in perception abroad from our perception of our actions, and the reprocussions of some of our policy should be discussed in a manner more complicated than saying "they hate us because we're free". He should have had a definative and crushing response to that attack because it was a very easy one to see coming.

I like the idea of the debate coach. I really liked the in depth foreign policy vid he just made. I think he would be greatly served to keep making those on a variety of subjects like healthcare in order to put down the baseless attacks because of the lack of detail allowed in the debates. Then we can use them on twitter to get the message out. I have long discussions on twitter after the debates and I always get "Thats not what he said in the debate" as a response. He can use the actual debate questions and release longer videos that go into detail on the questions. Sharpening the sword doesnt take away from its effect.

 

[zHorns]

In case anyone didn't see this, Doug Wead answered the question on whether or not Ron was receiving debate coaching. Here is his response...

"Yes, but he doesn't like it."

I think this is good. At least Ron is trying something new in order to boost his performance in the debates, even if he doesn't like it.

Never of us thought he actual would, but this is a good thing.

Sadly, 1 minutes to discuss 60+ years of failed foreign policy is nearly impossible.

 

[sailingaway]

This, this, this, this.......this is exactly the message the campaign needs to see. I'm practicing my NRA/Gun Owners conference speech at Toastmasters this week on the merits of Ron Paul coming up soon, and this is the message I've even had to rehearse. Did it in 2008, and the turnout was good, this time I'm getting some kick back on the Iran statement.

I also think smiling (at the precise moment where he realizes he has totally unraveled his opponent's position) would catch the audience off guard and would show strength. They aren't use to seeing him smile, it would make an impact.

BTW, finally registered after 5 years of reading the boards daily...lol....yay for me

Welcome to the forums!

 

[sailingaway]

He could have clobbered Santorum in that debate with "I encourage everyone to go read what I actually wrote about 9-11. I did not blame Americans for 9-11 and I like to think that 60 years of foreign policy, differences in perception abroad from our perception of our actions, and the reprocussions of some of our policy should be discussed in a manner more complicated than saying "they hate us because we're free". He should have had a definative and crushing response to that attack because it was a very easy one to see coming.

He didn't write it, Jack Hunter did. I'm willing to bet he had no clue what Santorum was referring to.

 

[cucucachu0000]

I remember watching a documentary about ron reagan during his debates that he was being OVER coached and was trying to remember stats and clogans and such and he did terrible he studdered and looked senile. I feel this is happening to paul, he can't speak clearly its like he's a nervous kid tryiing to remember what he's been rehearsing. I've seen his debates from last election and it didn't seem this bad back then. Anyone around from last election notice his exsessive studdering and just all around nervousness seems to have greatly increased from last election? I say let that liberty lion out of his cage and speak his mind the only way he knows how.

 

[sailingaway]

I remember watching a documentary about ron reagan during his debates that he was being OVER coached and was trying to remember stats and clogans and such and he did terrible he studdered and looked senile. I feel this is happening to paul, he can't speak clearly its like he's a nervous kid tryiing to remember what he's been rehearsing. I've seen his debates from last election and it didn't seem this bad back then. Anyone around from last election notice his exsessive studdering and just all around nervousness seems to have greatly increased from last election? I say let that liberty lion out of his cage and speak his mind the only way he knows how.

He has always spoken over himself occassionally, his words cant keep up with his brain, and he is trying to condense as he speaks. But he has had stellar interviews and answers in THIS election as well as in last, and I don't remember seeing anyting that I would remotely think of as 'making him look as if he were senile'. The crowds love him -- just not the way he articulates a couple of his positions.

But you are right that over coaching can cause problems, particularly when a person isn't used to it. I'm hoping the group he has just does the 'few phrases' type of thing, and I think they are smart enough to stick to that.

 

[jason43]

He didn't write it, Jack Hunter did. I'm willing to bet he had no clue what Santorum was referring to.

There is a youtube video of him reading his texas straight talk entry from 9-11. Santorum refered to his congressional website I'm pretty sure, which would make it his words, not Hunters.

Hunter wrote this, primarily aimed at our response not the things that led up to it.

"On this 10th anniversary of 9/11, I still feel great sadness for those who perished and their families, anger toward the terrorist thugs who murdered them, and anger toward those in our government who have shamelessly exploited the victims’ memory for their own nefarious ends.

Considering this, the phrase “never forget” should apply to every aspect of remembering 9/11.

We should never forget the victims, first and foremost. Their tragic loss was one of America’s greatest losses and they can never be replaced. Our prayers should go out to their families, today and every day.

We should never forget that we will always have enemies in the world who want to harm us. Against any viable threat, we must always stand vigilant.

We should never forget those in our government who used the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history as an excuse to launch completely unrelated wars, to do unprecedented damage to Americans’ historic liberties, to run roughshod over the Constitution, and to betray the Founders’ vision by savaging some of our most deeply held values.

The last decade has been a tragic one in countless ways. Few if any Americans would like to see it repeated.

On this 10th anniversary of 9/11 and every anniversary—never forget."

 

[sailingaway]

There is a youtube video of him reading his texas straight talk entry from 9-11. Santorum refered to his congressional website I'm pretty sure, which would make it his words, not Hunters.

Hunter wrote this, primarily aimed at our response not the things that led up to it.

"On this 10th anniversary of 9/11, I still feel great sadness for those who perished and their families, anger toward the terrorist thugs who murdered them, and anger toward those in our government who have shamelessly exploited the victims’ memory for their own nefarious ends.

Considering this, the phrase “never forget” should apply to every aspect of remembering 9/11.

We should never forget the victims, first and foremost. Their tragic loss was one of America’s greatest losses and they can never be replaced. Our prayers should go out to their families, today and every day.

We should never forget that we will always have enemies in the world who want to harm us. Against any viable threat, we must always stand vigilant.

We should never forget those in our government who used the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history as an excuse to launch completely unrelated wars, to do unprecedented damage to Americans’ historic liberties, to run roughshod over the Constitution, and to betray the Founders’ vision by savaging some of our most deeply held values.

The last decade has been a tragic one in countless ways. Few if any Americans would like to see it repeated.

On this 10th anniversary of 9/11 and every anniversary—never forget."

I had read his campaign page that day and what was up was Jack Hunter's blog on it, not Ron's Texas straight talk. But you are right, that doesn't sound like what Santorum was referring to. I'm just not sure Ron knew what he WAS referring to.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I remember watching a documentary about ron reagan during his debates that he was being OVER coached and was trying to remember stats and clogans and such and he did terrible he studdered and looked senile. I feel this is happening to paul, he can't speak clearly its like he's a nervous kid tryiing to remember what he's been rehearsing. I've seen his debates from last election and it didn't seem this bad back then. Anyone around from last election notice his exsessive studdering and just all around nervousness seems to have greatly increased from last election? I say let that liberty lion out of his cage and speak his mind the only way he knows how.

First off, I doubt part of the coaching has anything to do with remembering and spouting off statistics. The one area where he needs to smooth himself out is on foreign policy. That's the major area where he has trouble picking up conservative voters because his avenue of explanation takes way longer than the time allotted and there's no room for a history lesson, which would likely fly over the audience's head anyway. Repackaging the view on why 9-11 happened with citation of the Commission Report and blowback as stated by CIA Agent Scheuer as opposed to speaking from Bin Laden's point of view is the way to get the viewer to not look at you as a terrorist sympathizer while making the exact same case. Also, constantly mentioning the vast support via donations from military personnel is another one of the staples that needs to be beat like a dead horse. On economics, Ron does fine on his own so I doubt we're doing any spring cleaning just smoothing out the edges.

 

[ctiger2]

He has always spoken over himself occassionally, his words cant keep up with his brain, and he is trying to condense as he speaks.

This is what I notice. His brain is about 1 step ahead of his mouth and sometimes he rushes without completing his spoken thoughts. I think Ron just needs to take it a tad slower and even dumb the message down for the illiterate Americans. I bet there's a bunch who just can't even follow him. Sadly...

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I had read his campaign page that day and what was up was Jack Hunter's blog on it, not Ron's Texas straight talk. But you are right, that doesn't sound like what Santorum was referring to. I'm just not sure Ron knew what he WAS referring to.

I recall the Texas Straight Talk being up on the page that day in text format.

 

[AuH20]

I guess my critical posts weren't for naught.

 

[turbobrain9]

Yes, Ron is receiving coaching and staff are talking to him about debate strategy...it's not easy as Ron tends to be stuck in his ways...but some improvements have been noted and we can only hope that the persistance of the staff will pay off as the debates become more and more critical to growing the base beyond its current demographics...