Please hire a debate coach!

[Akus]

It's a point that he has made for years, pointing out the change in Republican foreign policy. George Bush in the 2000 presidential race said he was against nation building and said we should have a humble foreign policy. That is the classic conservative stance, and only changed over the last decade.


[video=youtube;F9SOVzMV2bc]F9SOVzMV2bc[/video]

I still stand by my point. Bush is HISTORY. RP can say that he always was against intervention, but there is not need to bring up Bush. Jeb is not running. Herbert Walker, though he technically can, isn't running, either. W served two terms and can't run. There is no need to bring these clowns up.

 

[SunshineSlayer]

I agree with the original poster. It doesn't matter how "right" what someone says might be, if no one can understand it. To understand many of Paul's answers, you need to have done some background research before viewing the debate. The average person is never going to do that research, so it's important to boil the answers down to the easiest language possible and ultimately still get your point across. Save the really complicated stuff for books and the like, but for debates keep it simple or people's minds will turn off. He can do that without losing his message.

People go for candidates like Mitt Romney etc, because even though they are wrong, what they say sounds good.

 

[Paulatized]

As I said in a previous post:

My eyes were opened to the message of freedom by Ron Paul in the fall of 2007. Only now, after constant reading and listening and visiting this forum regularly, am I able to understand where RP is coming from when he gives some of the answers he gives, and I find myself having to explain his answers to those who don't have the background necessary to understand. Now at times I think "well he should have been saying that all along" when actually he was, I just didn't "hear" it. I didn't have the depth of understanding to know what he was saying back then. If that makes sense. Generally, he philosophically speaks over the average person's head.

With that said, it will still be hard to reduce such a great depth of understanding to 60 second sound bytes. That's why educating is SO important. Although I agree, coaching could only help.

 

[ProIndividual]

He should start everything he is going to say the government shouldn't do with: "is that in the Constitution? No? Oh okay, no we can't do that."

 

[Esoteric]

ehhh, guys... he already did lol. He is who he is. Let's get behind him with all our hearts, and if we come up short, we've got Rand 2016 to carry the torch.

 

[MelissaWV]

He is very good in individual interviews like the ones afterwards. He really struggles in the debate formats. He needs to get his message into clean 15-30 second packages.

The only things he is lacking are posture and closers.

Posture... there is only so much you can ask. Romney is tall AND wears those rich-guy shoes with the heels on them. Ron leans forward to hear questions and gets his "I'm thinking face" on rather than the more traditional "I care, really... or at least I act like I do while I'm watching the hockey game down here on a little television screen" face. I don't think it's that big an offense. He just looks like an elder statesman to me.

Closers remain his problem. Towards the end of the debate he was doing awesomely. You cannot blurt out 4 good ideas, make your points, and then end with a rambling rehash. You have to end with soundbytes. I still remember Bachmann's (bullshit) promise that Obama will be a one-term President. I do not remember how Ron closed his first and second answers, though I remember how he opened the second.

 

[pacelli]

I think Paul's strongest moment during the debate was when he did the, "I'm the commander in chief" bit.

I want to point out that during this debate he was not attacked by the moderator or any other candidate. Yet during one of his answers, he rambled something about the catholic church, and during his interview with anderson cooper after the debate, he made a comparison with George Bush. Yes, I've seen the campaigning Bush in the year 2000. I know he ran on a humble foreign policy. Ron doesn't seem to grasp that there is an emotional reaction that people have to certain words. Mention the catholic church and emotionally people will think, "yeah, the catholic church covered up abuse for decades". They just tuned out everything he said after he mentioned the words.

Ideologically, Ron is 100% accurate. But from the point of emotional persuasion, he needs some help. I agree with the OP. I just hope that his campaign can recover from this. Because once the 1-2% of Ron Paul donators max out, he's going to need new donors to keep going.

Incidentally who else thinks that giving Ron the prime 1-on-1 interview after the debate completely excuses Anderson Cooper from his unfulfilled promise during the LAST cnn debate?

By the way, how there are no video clips or announcements on the campaign website about last night's debate? Didn't he win some poll or something?

 

[speciallyblend]

ron paul was not the problem in this debate. the problem was cnn and the format and the fact they alienated gary johnson to marginalize ron paul!! After 30 minutes of this boring ass debate. I decided to go wash dishes!! ron and gary on the stage would of made the debate interesting!! Ron paul did ok but the debate overall was boring and unintertesting. I give cnn a f on this debate!! it reminded me the gop needs a good cleaning!! washing my dishes was more interesting then this lame ass debate!!

 

[wgadget]

I still stand by my point. Bush is HISTORY. RP can say that he always was against intervention, but there is not need to bring up Bush. Jeb is not running. Herbert Walker, though he technically can, isn't running, either. W served two terms and can't run. There is no need to bring these clowns up.

Lotsa Bushies in that audience, though. The Bushies are the ones RP needs to attract, because they're the ones that don't like his foreign policy ideas.

 

[reduen]

Ron did great!

 

[Tim724]

I agree with the need for debate coaching and Dr Paul confirmed our suspicions recently when he stated on TV his only debate preparations are reading the news and getting a good night sleep and some exercise. I don't want to get too negative, but I feel not going all-out with some debate prep is a disservice to those of us who are sacrificing our money and time for the campaign. As others in this thread pointed out, weak debate appearances make me less inspired to dig deep on my donations.

The thing to be clear about is we are not asking Dr Paul to water down or alter his message one bit. I only want him to do a better job packaging his message for the short answer format of debates and be more savvy about selecting which talking points to apply in which situations. This is necessary to get the wider band of support that we need.

By not willing to do everything possible to put his best foot forward, it'll feel like Dr Paul is running the dreaded "educational campaign" again. It is too early to make any damning condemnations, but I sure hope Dr Paul and his campaign take some measures to stop this kind of criticism among us supporters. Even if in his heart Dr Paul believes he won't win and just wants to get use the campaign to get the message out, refining his debate skills will help do this as well.

 

[acptulsa]

Yeah, a debate coach. We've been feeding him sound bites on this forum for four years, and he has ignored them all. So, I can't help but think a debate coach would be a waste of money. That said, for such an outstanding athlete he doesn't have terribly good posture--except when he does.

At least he came up with one good sound bite which is getting a lot of play. When the man who drowns the idiots with Keynesian monetary policy says, 'That is a really tough question,' well, that's both just self-effacing enough and one hell of an indictment of Obama's handling of the economy.

We have to, as the drag racers used to say back in the day, 'Run what ya brung.' We'll just have to ask people, you want slick or do you want honest and capable?

 

[sadam]

Not to change the subject but I am reviewing the debate and it appears that John King needs a debate coach as well. While the candidates were answering questions he constantly stuttered and mumbled as to try to hurry their response or stop them. Towards the end of the debate I felt like my brain was going to explode from his constant rambling. Did anyone else become bothered by this? CNN did a terrible job on this debate. They tried to do too many things. Keep It Simple Stupids!

 

[K466]

That includes hiring a debate coach and writers to help him craft his message for the sheeple. "Getting a good nights sleep and taking a walk" before the debate isn't going to get him to the next level (The White House).

Exactly. Part of a serious campaign includes better delivery of the message.

 

[RonPaul101.com]

I love Ron Paul. I have the T-Shirts. I have the bumper sticker. I have the yard sign. I don’t want him to change his values at all. I know he is working very hard on the campaign but it is important to work smart. That includes hiring a debate coach and writers to help him craft his message for the sheeple. "Getting a good nights sleep and taking a walk" before the debate isn't going to get him to the next level (The White House).

While real issues and worthy topics, people just don’t understand inflation, Keynesian economics, the FED, and the currency issues.

I agree though I don't think its a matter of coaching (though it could help) or knowledge, Ron knows all of this all of the time. I think the issue is confidence. The man has been getting beat up for his views for so long he's always in defensive posture, both verbally and physically. He shouldn't be, he's right, they're wrong and the evidence is that these candidates are beginning to side with him more often to get applause.

I would like to see Ron lay out a statement like, 'I'm glad Gov Romney agrees with me on the issue, but its not just about what we all say here at the debate or while campaigning. Being President is a results oriented job, and I'm the only one on this stage with a proven record of what I stand for on the issues. For example, if I were President in 2008 I could have already saved Americans over $5 Trillion Dollars worth of debt and a lot of lost liberties.'

Romney loved playing to the "we're all better than Obama up here so you can't go wrong" approach because he's leading and he wants it to stay that way without having to give hard facts on anything. I'd like to see Ron call these liars out for the liars they are...

 

[Eric21ND]

I cringe everytime he brings up Bush.

 

[mczerone]

Its tough to critique, but I could see some things that Paul can improve upon:

1) Pacing. Too many times he stumbled his words, had long strings of um, uhs, and pauses, and he rushed when he did find his talking point.

2) Active listening. Mitt always gets his face plastered next to whichever candidate is actually answering because he is looking at that person and responding with head-bobs and facial expression. This is partly media selection, but its also about Ron looking like someone the media wants to show. Ron was constantly looking down, or passively turning his head or body to the speaker without appearing interested.

3) Does Ron have a top-notch tailor? Its been brought up on the forums before, but it still looks like he is swimming in his jacket. He didn't look sharp.

4) Who is he working for? Ron is great about coming back to the refrain that "Freedom Works", but he doesn't acknowledge that it will work for the audience. Voters respond to hearing what they get out of questioning the fed, ending wars, or legalizing peaceful competition among small and large businesses.

That being said, Ron did have some great responses that portrayed himself as a leader and distinguished him from the status quo. Its clear that he's the best candidate if you care about peace and prosperity. If only the voters could see that these values are more in their self-interest than entitlements, protectionism, and imperialism, Paul would have 90% of the vote.

 

[trey4sports]

It is what it is. Ron is not going to get a debate coach.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

He completely has a shot, people thought obama was going to be the anti government and bring that change to the people. Someone who actually VOTES for 30 years the same way and talks about the constitution the same really COULD bring that change people are after WITHOUT the bullshit lies that most politicians give.

I mean look at if mittens actually wins? That dude would only expand on what the bushs and obama and clintons have done to our country. Its Ron Paul or Bust damn it!

Now Ron Paul does need help with speeches, the problem is that he has been talking about these subjects so long he has his own opinion and response about the subjects. I actually admire it personally BUT the sheeple do love the palins and mittens of this world. I mean hell we had the terminator as our governator. Idiocracy is in our near future, its got electrolites.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I think Paul's strongest moment during the debate was when he did the, "I'm the commander in chief" bit.

I want to point out that during this debate he was not attacked by the moderator or any other candidate. Yet during one of his answers, he rambled something about the catholic church, and during his interview with anderson cooper after the debate, he made a comparison with George Bush. Yes, I've seen the campaigning Bush in the year 2000. I know he ran on a humble foreign policy. Ron doesn't seem to grasp that there is an emotional reaction that people have to certain words. Mention the catholic church and emotionally people will think, "yeah, the catholic church covered up abuse for decades". They just tuned out everything he said after he mentioned the words.

Yeah, it's a bit of a dilemma I think that if he mentions Bush then he evokes negative emotions from a lot of people, yet, he needs to attract those Repubs who supported him & his foreign policy before he became president.

Ideologically, Ron is 100% accurate. But from the point of emotional persuasion, he needs some help. I agree with the OP. I just hope that his campaign can recover from this. Because once the 1-2% of Ron Paul donators max out, he's going to need new donors to keep going.

While I agree that Ron should look to evoke an emotional response from people & get more people to join him but I don't think we're still limited to 1-2%, may be more like 5+%

Lotsa Bushies in that audience, though. The Bushies are the ones RP needs to attract, because they're the ones that don't like his foreign policy ideas.

Yup, that's what he was trying with the Bush reference, which as I've said, seems like a double-edged sword, it can go either way for Ron.

The thing to be clear about is we are not asking Dr Paul to water down or alter his message one bit. I only want him to do a better job packaging his message for the short answer format of debates and be more savvy about selecting which talking points to apply in which situations. This is necessary to get the wider band of support that we need.

Agreed

We've been feeding him sound bites on this forum for four years, and he has ignored them all.

Yeah, he should be reading our soundbites posts if nothing else it'll give him ideas about coming up with his own versions of them on various issues.

Exactly. Part of a serious campaign includes better delivery of the message.

+1