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

[sailingaway]

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.

Except then he will sound like them, and his attraction is that he speaks directly.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Except then he will sound like them, and his attraction is that he speaks directly.

I have always liked Ron Paul for his positions. There is no reason why those positions cannot be delivered in polished talking points. In fact, there is a much greater chance that if they were, more Americans would actually hear and understand what he is trying so hard to tell them.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Ron Paul is Ron Paul.

At 75 years old, 30 years in Congress and three presidential runs, he ain't changing too much now.

Deal.

 

[BrendenR]

I have always liked Ron Paul for his positions. There is no reason why those positions cannot be delivered in polished talking points. In fact, there is a much greater chance that if they were, more Americans would actually hear and understand what he is trying so hard to tell them.

Exactly. I had a my liberal aunt agreeing with the fact that we need to end the welfare state. While you can't do it in a 5 second response to a question, what you can do is NOT completely freak people out. If an interviewer puts you in that position, you change the terms of the discussion or refuse to answer the question as an unfair question.

 

[BrendenR]

Ron Paul is Ron Paul.

At 75 years old, 30 years in Congress and three presidential runs, he ain't changing too much now.

Deal.

I disagree. Having watched him in 2007 and 2008, and now in 2011, I see a change for the better.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I disagree. Having watched him in 2007 and 2008, and now in 2011, I see a change for the better.

PoV and perception is a funny thing.

I see no difference myself, he's the same man he's always been.

Whatever - RON PAUL 2012!!!

 

[AndrewD]

Obama knows how to win. He is one of the best smooth talkers out there. A true snake of a politician that is just that, a politician. In 2007 he pledged to give many of the American's what they wanted at the time. And he did so in an overwhelmingly convincing fashion. Of course as we move forward to today, we can plainly see he spoke lies. Very bad lies. But he was in it to win it, and he knew once he got in office he could do whatever he wanted.

This is what stirs me up. I truly admire Dr. Paul for being so honest and straightforward. Many don't want him to ever abandon that and I don't blame them one bit. But i'm starting to think that the only way he can win, is by --

1. Withholding ALL controversial statements that he know will be twisted by MSM. And speaking more in generalities that will appeal to the Sheeple. Basically tell them what they want to hear, with his own slight Libertarian twist, so as to not be looked upon as a flip-flopper. All in the sense of political-correctness.

2. OR, by the Sheeple actually waking up and realizing how much of a liar Obama is. The people should be offended that he will even run again, considering how much he lied. If you can't see past that your doomed. But of course one of my best friends (a liberal Democrat who will ALWAYS vote for his party no matter what) has already endorsed Obama.

I don't really think either of these 2 things will happen. I think Ron will go on being Ron and continue to recruit followers. Now in the long run this is fantastic. Eventually this country will change.

But as for me personally, I want Ron in the office for 2012. I don't care how he does it. I'll even go so far as to say he can almost lie to get in, and i'll still be happy. Because I know it's for the greater good. I know he didn't come all this way using this strategy, but in my opinion this is what he needs to get to the next level, and if the Sheeple can't understand that in a straightforward honest way, we can give it to 'em the way they like it, in the form of straight-faced lies. Consider it tough love, in the end they'll be thankful.

Just my opinion, and I don't expect everyone to agree.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I have always liked Ron Paul for his positions. There is no reason why those positions cannot be delivered in polished talking points. In fact, there is a much greater chance that if they were, more Americans would actually hear and understand what he is trying so hard to tell them.

Took the words out of my mouth!

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Obama knows how to win. He is one of the best smooth talkers out there. A true snake of a politician that is just that, a politician. In 2007 he pledged to give many of the American's what they wanted at the time. And he did so in an overwhelmingly convincing fashion. Of course as we move forward to today, we can plainly see he spoke lies. Very bad lies. But he was in it to win it, and he knew once he got in office he could do whatever he wanted.

Not to change the subject, but Obama really is the Spokesmodel in Chief. He is nothing more than a front-man for a variety of special interests.

 

[rprprs]

I have always liked Ron Paul for his positions. There is no reason why those positions cannot be delivered in polished talking points. In fact, there is a much greater chance that if they were, more Americans would actually hear and understand what he is trying so hard to tell them.

EXACTLY! By now we should take it for granted that 95% of the interviews afforded Ron in the MSM will be filled with "gotcha" type issues and questions. Even the debates will be no exception. From now, and through the primaries, it's largely going to be OBL, Heroin, the CRA, etc. It is incredulous to believe that Ron (and his staff) would not, also, be aware of this. None of this should come as a surprise...we could almost write the script. As you say, there is no reason Ron should be unprepared to provide polished, succint and concise talking points ready to fire in response. Love Ron with all my heart, but half-finished sentences and philosophical ramblings are simply not going to bring the numbers we need into the fold. I know this can be done and I know it can be done without any compromise of principles or pandering. WE know the message is pure. It just needs a more polished presentation for the untrained ear.

 

[trey4sports]

He will do as he has been doing and im fine with that, and I'll do everything i can to help him win. WE (the grassroots) can only control what we have control over so to that end we should only focus on those things, and let Ron focus on himself.

 

[1SGFitzsWife]

No, he should be who he is, which is a great Patriot, though I really don't think it matters what he says people are going to put words into his mouth anyway, even though what he says is the truth it will get bastardized (can I say that?) in the main stream media, the only thing we can do is to rebuke it with the truth.

 

[centure7]

I voted "yes" but by that I don't mean Paul should tell any lies. Rather, he should be actively avoiding certain issues.

Q: Do you want to legalize heroin?
A: Practically nobody wants to legalize heroin in congress, so it doesn't matter... what matters right now is marijuana.
Alternative: Its not on my agenda... people are spreading lies. There are times when I'd consider it and this isn't one of them.

Q: Do you want to end Social Security?
A: No, I want people to be able to opt out. People are spreading lies about that issue, and the fact is my plan is the best way to fund Social Security while it is slowly phased out.

This kind of thing is what Rand Paul did and it worked for him.

The only mistake he's made so far is Osama bin Ladin. He was not clear enough that he actually supported Bin Ladin being pursued. It was only his execution without a trial as well as the lack of cooperation with Pakistan that he objected to. Its downright laughable how Paul is played off as an isolationist and yet at the same time getting criticized when he talks about the isolationist policy the US is implementing against Pakistan.

Paul needs to go on the ATTACK when someone brings up an obscure irrelevant issue they find strongly objectionable... punish them verbally for asking the question. The keywords and keyphrases to use are: "focusing in the irrelevant / obscure", "what-if scenarios", "impossible hypotheticals", and "avoiding the real issues".

1. Point out the irrelevance of the issue.
2. Point out the similar issues that are real today.
3. Put the journalist himself in the hot seat for avoiding the real issues... turn the tables.

Ron Paul's positions on all the relevant issues of today are extremely popular in almost all cases.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Clearly there's biased language in this poll. Being tactical in what you say is not akin to hiding anything. Ron Paul should be talking about what he can realistically achieve in his first term of office, should he be granted the opportunity. He shouldn't lie or anything like that, but he should temper what he has to say by basing what he has to say within the confines of what he can realistically accomplish - NOT his ideal philosophical endgame. So far he's been doing a decent job of that.

 

[cornell]

Yes, Ron Paul should be himself, but he can stay true to his beliefs and just word things differently/explain them better to get rid of some of the "shock value" of quoting him that can be very detrimental. For example, what he said to WHO Radio about killing OBL wasn't as eloquently worded as he had said previously and was repeated and spun by many commentators. To word something in an unclear way that can be repeated to RP's detriment seemed completely unnecessary to me.

 

[Paul4Prez]

I think he can do both. Answer the question, explain the freedom principle behind it, then refocus on one of the big issues in the campaign -- spending, debt, taxes, etc.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I believe he should always stay true to his principles & not try to "tailor" his speech to gain votes because that's exactly what most of us admire him for, that he isn't just there to get votes but to make people think & push them towards liberty; if that costs him his election, then so be it. If anybody wants a politician who "tailors" his speeches or avoids touchy issues to gain votes then they should go for another candidate, there are plenty of those around. I've never felt as much hope for any candidate as Ron Paul, not double-headed Rand Paul or pro-Israel, pro-internationalism Gary Johnson or anyone else in the past because there's a touch of "genuineness" in Ron Paul that is found wanting in almost every other politician I've ever seen & I think Ron should stay that way.

Lets think about it, even IF Ron "tailored" his speeches & avoided the touchy issues just to get people to vote for him without them really understanding what he stands for, then what? In that case, even if he does become president, one thing is for sure that American people are going to have to face a lot of difficulties in the years, if not decades, to come & if majority of the people voted for him WITHOUT realizing what he stands for then they're going to blame all the mess that's going to unfold on Ron Paul & libertarianism & that'll likely repel people from libertarianism in the future & we'll definitely see more statist outlook in the US for a long time to come. So considering this, even though I do want to him to win & I've also invested lots of money, time & energy in this thing, I believe that having Ron Paul as president will ONLY be good if he has done it due to masses having become more receptive to the message of liberty, & NOT because he gave them what they wanted to hear while avoiding the fundamentals of liberty (like some here believe he shouldn't've talked about OBL even though his position was perfectly in line with philosophy of liberty & something he should've voiced). Accordingly, despite all the efforts so many of us have put into this thing, if the majority hasn't opened up to the ideas of liberty then I'd rather have Ron lose the elections because him winning under such circumstances wouldn't augur well for the LONG-TERM prospects of liberty anyway; he's just one man, he can't change much, the real change comes from The People, that's why winning elections is not what he defines himself with, stimulating the masses is what he emphasizes on.