POLL: Should Ron Paul be more politically correct in MSM?

[AndrewD]

Seen a lot of debate on this topic. Including what Ron said about UBL, what Rand said about Civil Rights Act. People are on both sides of the fence here. I believe this is a decent poll.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul should be himself. He should consider his words, of course. He IS watching his words, most of the time, but the media is asking weird, far out questions they aren't asking anyone else as if those were points of his PLATFORM. As with Rand, we won't be able to do a lot about that until Ron can get some ads out, and he will need to do that nationally. What Ron needs, is money.

 

[Schifference]

"Winning is all that matters. We know what he stands for. Wolf in sheeps clothing will work. " Unless he takes the time to educate the people they will not know what he stands for and us knowing what he stands for is not enough to win the election.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

Playing to today's polls is how Newt plays it. His bid is dead in the first week.

 

[S.Shorland]

Marxist-Leninism is the branch that holds that power is everything.I think that if he had 5 or 10 hours on television to explain the Libertarian position,he would win in a landslide.We've all had enough lies for the last x decades.It's time for an honest man to spread the feedom message.

That's one of the reasons they didn't air the Stossel show last cycle,I expect.

 

[BrendenR]

After having a long discussion with my liberal aunt a couple days ago, I think short and blanket statements like "Social Security should be eliminated" should be avoided in the MSM if possible, unless it is a forum in which he can explain how he would wind down social security, would not put people out on the street, etc. etc.

The biggest concern I have coming from those (leaning left) who are not as knowledgeable about Paul's platform as we are is what would happen in the absence of the welfare state (their assumption being Paul would just shut everything down overnight).

So, unless you can explain these things in full, it's only going scare people.

Now, saying this to a libertarian or conservative or similar audience I think is perfectly appropriate.

 

[thedude]

After having a long discussion with my liberal aunt a couple days ago, I think short and blanket statements like "Social Security should be eliminated" should be avoided in the MSM if possible, unless it is a forum in which he can explain how he would wind down social security, would not put people out on the street, etc. etc.

The biggest concern I have coming from those (leaning left) who are not as knowledgeable about Paul's platform as we are is what would happen in the absence of the welfare state (their assumption being Paul would just shut everything down overnight).

So, unless you can explain these things in full, it's only going scare people.

Now, saying this to a libertarian or conservative or similar audience I think is perfectly appropriate.

Besides the fact that Paul has repeatedly said he would not shut the spigot off overnight, and has acknowledged that people are too dependent on the nanny state to do so, right? Additionally, Paul has mentioned on liberal media putting an end to our current Foreign Policy will free up some finances that can be used to take care of people here at home.

The Dude abides

 

[thedude]

Your poll is no better than something Frank Luntz would put together.

He should be vocal about his views no matter what. vs. Winning is all that matters. Wolf in sheeps clothing will work.

F*ck you Frank!

 

[towedoubled]

When Ron Paul speaks he provokes thought. Something that is lacking in the mainstream media. The more he speaks and is heard the better. I think he is playing it well putting it to the talking heads. They are the ones that appear foolish and lacking understanding.

 

[trey4sports]

you've presented two extremes, and what we need is somewhere in between. Rand does a good job of not abandoning principle while still yet avoiding sounding fringe

 

[itsnobody]

Winning isn't all that matters, Ron Paul should just say how he really feels regardless.

 

[sailingaway]

After having a long discussion with my liberal aunt a couple days ago, I think short and blanket statements like "Social Security should be eliminated" should be avoided in the MSM if possible, unless it is a forum in which he can explain how he would wind down social security, would not put people out on the street, etc. etc.

The biggest concern I have coming from those (leaning left) who are not as knowledgeable about Paul's platform as we are is what would happen in the absence of the welfare state (their assumption being Paul would just shut everything down overnight).

So, unless you can explain these things in full, it's only going scare people.

Now, saying this to a libertarian or conservative or similar audience I think is perfectly appropriate.

That is an example of media spin. He doesn't say that; media makes it their headline. HE says 'should be funded by cutting spending overseas, then let the kids opt out'.

 

[Chieppa1]

Ugh. This whole thread annoys me. Can't say I'm surprised we've come to this though.

 

[Johncjackson]

Besides the fact that Paul has repeatedly said he would not shut the spigot off overnight, and has acknowledged that people are too dependent on the nanny state to do so, right? Additionally, Paul has mentioned on liberal media putting an end to our current Foreign Policy will free up some finances that can be used to take care of people here at home.

The Dude abides

This is a good point and something I often remind people of ( a lot of his supporters are much more vocally "political incorrect," but that's another story. However, he always gets asked these questions and then the interviews/debates get completely bogged down in that and he doesn't have time to get into all the specifics and pragmatic steps. When the interview asks " So you would abolish any program that isn't constitutional. According to you social security, medicare, the dept of education are Unconstitutional?" and then his answer begins at "Yes", that's all that really matters in the media. There is no time to consider "Yes, but I would do this or that first. And here are the reasons it has come to this, and this is what we need to do to get out of it.." And often he doesn't even really make any attempt to give what most people would see as "specifics" as far as what he would actually so. " We marched right in there. So we can march right out" is nice...but people don't want to hear that social security would end the day he takes office. Regardless of what he says AFTER the concise logic of "Unconstitutional=Abolish", that is what people HEAR.

Personally I would like a lot more emphasis on the fact that a lot of these programs ARE Unconstitutional and need to be fixed.. however, if we cut the war spending and this and that first, we can make a lot of progress before we even touch the entitlements. Also an emphasis that people who are using social programs are human beings and not enemies/scapegoats ( same as immigrants). They are just people using a system they have been taught and conditioned to use for generations. If there is a class warfare angle to play it is NOT People Vs. People, it is People vs. State. And you start with the state war spending and corporatism. And you blame the state for causing these problems, not your fellow men who are just going along.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I recall a lot of the same complaints when Rand was running for the Senate. Some accused him of selling out, called him a neocon, and a variety of other things. These folks seemed to want to focus on education while he was running and if he managed to get elected, fine. If not, fine.

Rand's choice was to not abandon his principles, but to also focus on WINNING. He stuck pretty close to his talking points and repeated them over and over again. They were short and easy for the voters to remember. He avoided a whole lot of other topics.

He won.

Now, that he has been elected he is in a position to educate the entire country and in addition to that, have an actual impact in our government.

I wish Ron would follow Rand's example.

 

[Chieppa1]

The question should be. "Will Ron Paul be more politically correct with the MSM?" The answer is "No". Deal with it, for find another candidate.

 

[acptulsa]

Rand's choice was to not abandon his principles, but to also focus on WINNING. He stuck pretty close to his talking points and repeated them over and over again. They were short and easy for the voters to remember. He avoided a whole lot of other topics.

He won.

I, too, feel the answer is somewhere in between stick to his guns and pander outright. I don't know about turning him into a copy of the chip off the old block. But he could stand to learn even better than he knows how to avoid the Trap of the Sound Bite.

Like Social Security. When they ask if he wants to do away with it, he should answer, 'Eventually'. That way, no one can form a snap judgement from a sound bite, but must find out what the nuance is. Which makes the sound bite worthless to his enemies.

I don't wish for him to change in any fundamental way, but I've said more than once I wish he'd swallow his pride and hire a good speech writer. He shouldn't try to be the Alpha and Omega, because no one person can pull that off.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The question should be. "Will Ron Paul be more politically correct with the MSM?" The answer is "No". Deal with it, for find another candidate.

Unfortunately, what is happening now is that he is not even explaining his positions such that the average voter even understands what he is talking about. I'm not quite sure how the current plan is winning anything for us, either in education or votes.

Today, even if you were the world's greatest communicator, candidates are just not given the time to fully flesh out each of their ideas and stream of consciousness communicating never has worked out well.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

One thing that would help Ron is doing what the well-polished candidates like Obama and Romney do: have well thought out, well written and memorized talking points. Always drive back to those points when talking, so that they will be automatic. As much as Obama is perceived as being the newest great communicator, when he starts going off the cuff, he is not smooth at all. Being a politician is now partially (or wholly for some of them) about being a spokesperson/actor, with memorized lines and clear delivery.

 

[LibertyEagle]

One thing that would help Ron is doing what the well-polished candidates like Obama and Romney do: have well thought out, well written and memorized talking points. Always drive back to those points when talking, so that they will be automatic. As much as Obama is perceived as being the newest great communicator, when he starts going off the cuff, he is not smooth at all. Being a politician is now partially (or wholly for some of them) about being a spokesperson/actor, with memorized lines and clear delivery.

^^^
this