Rephrasing the foreign policy issue

[Butchie]

I imagine most of you have watched this video, if not, it's a good one, but just watch the first minute of it, Ron get's atleast a minute in his debate answers, why doesn't he explain it like this? Is this compromising his message???

Two brilliant lines "I'm not talking about any personnel cuts" "We can have our forces anywhere in the world in 13hrs" - would be gold if Ron brought this up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPy_U6k5W-k&feature=youtu.be

 

[Crotale]

Tweeted the video, great interview: https://twitter.com/#!/Samuel_E_Amer/status/160033664183435265

 

[EBounding]

I haven't seen it. Thanks.

This is what frustrates me about Paul. His advisers and supporters can convey his foreign policy better than himself.

 

[A. Havnes]

It's possible to rephrase his foreign policy in a lot of ways and still not compromise. That's an excellent video, and Tom Davis did a great job of summarizing things. Don't forget that Bush also ran on a humble foreign policy and managed to win. Granted, that was before 9/11, but the point is that people will listen if it casts America in a positive light instead of a negative.

 

[low preference guy]

Ron is too old to change. This is what we've got. It's time for the GOP electorate to settle for Ron Paul because he is better for the economy. It should be pointed out that both Newt and Romney supported the bailout. It should be pointed out that Santorum expanded government and doubled the size of the department of education. Ron Paul will veto any bailout or mandate and will work to eliminate the Department of Education.

 

[low preference guy]

If the "Tea Party" keeps supporting Newt, I wouldn't mind seeing an ad that says that the Tea Party started as a reaction to the bailouts, but now is supporting Newt, a guy who supported the individual mandate AND the bailout. Then I would like the ad to say "The Tea Party is dead. It supports bailouts now". I wonder if that would wake them up.

 

[Pete Kay]

Yes, we all know that Ron Paul needs to explain his positions on foreign policy better. His greatest weakness as a candidate is his poor communication skills. At this point in the campaign, I see no reason why he hasn't been able to devise a concise answer, rehearse it and be able to deliver it as well as Senator Davis did. Frankly, I'm getting tired of his off the cuff responses during debates where he seems to get tripped up on positions that he clearly has spent a lot of time thinking about. He could be polling in first place if he just spent some time practicing his answers. There's nothing wrong with being prepared.

 

[gb13]

Somebody (more savvy with video-making than I) should make a video that compiles bits of all of Ron's strong responses regarding foreign policy, and splice them together to make one cohesive response right from Ron's mouth.

 

[seapilot]

Ron Paul does dumb down the message that any blow joe can understand, but they do not want to. They want to have their cake and eat it too. This is what Ron Paul says all the time in plain speak for most to understand and many do, just not the Fox news, Talk radio people.

We can not afford any more wars! We are broke! We need to take care of our own people here!

If they can not understand that simple message then no amount of explaining will they get it without throwing cold water on them and slapping them in the face a few times.

 

[tbone717]

Ron Paul does dumb down the message that any blow joe can understand, but they do not want to. They want to have their cake and eat it too. This is what Ron Paul says all the time in plain speak for most to understand and many do, just not the Fox news, Talk radio people.

We can not afford any more wars! We are broke! We need to take care of our own people here!

If they can not understand that simple message then no amount of explaining will they get it without throwing cold water on them and slapping them in the face a few times.

I generally agree with you on things, this time I have to say I do not. If the language he is using is not catching on, simply change the way he says things. It's not a matter of them not understanding the message as much as what he is saying is not resonating with voters. He does on the eocnomy, this is what I am hearing from my folks in SC - but it is on FP where people do not feel he is strong. They aren't spoon fed their views by the media, these are reasonably intelligent people. He just needs to rephrase things in a way that it positive and assuring to the average voter.

 

[EBounding]

We can not afford any more wars! We are broke! We need to take care of our own people here!

If they can not understand that simple message then no amount of explaining will they get it without throwing cold water on them and slapping them in the face a few times.

The thing is, people do understand that message. The problem is they interpret it as isolationist and naive. They think it's isolationist because it sounds like Paul wants to pull back all our forces to surround the country in a turtle shell. That's not true though. We would still have a Navy in international waters and the world's most responsive Airforce. People don't know that.

 

[Brett85]

It's very simple to explain a non interventionist foreign policy is a way that appeals to GOP primary voters, but Ron won't do it.

Examples-Creating a new military base in South Carolina is more beneficial to our national security than adding a new base in Germany. We should focus on defending our own country rather than using our military to subsidize the defense of other nations.
-It's not appropriate to use our troops for nation building. We use our troops to build roads, schools, and bridges in Afghanistan, and this essentially amounts to a stimulus project for the country of Afghanistan. I'm strongly opposed to Obama's overseas stimulus spending.

 

[seapilot]

It's very simple to explain a non interventionist foreign policy is a way that appeals to GOP primary voters, but Ron won't do it.

Examples-Creating a new military base in South Carolina is more beneficial to our national security than adding a new base in Germany. We should focus on defending our own country rather than using our military to subsidize the defense of other nations.
-It's not appropriate to use our troops for nation building. We use our troops to build roads, schools, and bridges in Afghanistan, and this essentially amounts to a stimulus project for the country of Afghanistan. I'm strongly opposed to Obama's overseas stimulus spending.

I think I heard him say that last election cycle. Stop building roads in other countries when the ones here are falling apart. That hits on the economic situation. There are a lot of Republicans that think any cutting in military spending is bad and sacrifices the countries security. The campaign could release a plan to show that it would make the country stronger by cutting spending in wasteful areas it might alleviate some of these fears.

I thought in the last debate he had an excellent answer saying in the 90s that we shut down bases here, which I remember and sent more troops overseas. It was a Clinton, progressive planning that started that. That is why bush was against it in 2000 addressing a humble foreign policy. The other bases in Germany, Japan and S.Korea are cold war era throwbacks. They should be the first ones they close.

 

[low preference guy]

the funny thing is that when the money runs out of money to have these commitments, those in charge will go back to read Ron Paul's plans, implement them, and pretend it was their idea.

 

[AuH20]

I haven't seen it. Thanks.

This is what frustrates me about Paul. His advisers and supporters can convey his foreign policy better than himself.

He really is a horror show when explaining his foreign policy. His surrogates like Jack Hunter & Jesse Benton are so much more adept at streamlining all the loud noise and delivering an articulate, reasoned response. No OBL garbage, no Palestinian/Gaza nonsense. Just the facts, whether it's statements from the Joint Chiefs head Admiral Mullen or statistics relating to defense outlays.

 

[vechorik]

I think the problem is not so much conveying Ron Paul's foreign policy (which is difficult to explain and leaves listeners with the impression "Ron Paul won't do anything").

The problem is addressing American's desire for SAFETY, SECURITY, and defense against the media-spun Muslim problem.
Maybe it would be easier to address that.

 

[AuH20]

I think I heard him say that last election cycle. Stop building roads in other countries when the ones here are falling apart. That hits on the economic situation. There are a lot of Republicans that think any cutting in military spending is bad and sacrifices the countries security. The campaign could release a plan to show that it would make the country stronger by cutting spending in wasteful areas it might alleviate some of these fears.

I thought in the last debate he had an excellent answer saying in the 90s that we shut down bases here, which I remember and sent more troops overseas. It was a Clinton, progressive planning that started that. That is why bush was against it in 2000 addressing a humble foreign policy. The other bases in Germany, Japan and S.Korea are cold war era throwbacks. They should be the first ones they close.

You do notice that Rand employs this rhetoric frequently, especially when discussing the recent impasse on funding for under-maintained infrastructure in our country. To paraphrase Rand he said something along the lines of, "why are we destroying bridges in the Middle East, only being held responsible to build new ones, when our decades old infrastructure in the U.S. is being neglected?" It's reason #1003 why Rand is such a more persuasive politician than his dad.

 

[Travlyr]

To those who insist Ron can't rephrase his FP without compromising..

Ron Paul does just fine phrasing his foreign policy. Ron Paul - "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" ... "Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship"

What part of that do people not understand? The part the media spins so well.

 

[Pete Kay]

He really is a horror show when explaining his foreign policy. His surrogates like Jack Hunter & Jesse Benton are so much more adept at streamlining all the loud noise and delivering an articulate, reasoned response. No OBL garbage, no Palestinian/Gaza nonsense. Just the facts, whether it's statements from Joint Chiefs head Admiral Mullen or statistics relating to defense outlays.

Yeah, a horror show is a good way to put it. I don't even watch the debates anymore, because I can't deal with seeing him being so unable to articulate his foreign policy position. Some people want to blame others for his failure in this regard, but Ron Paul is the only one responsible for his lack of salesmanship. Understanding your audience and tailoring the message so that they can comprehend it, is not compromising. That's just basic public speaking skill.

 

[AuH20]

Yeah, a horror show is a good way to put it. I don't even watch the debates anymore, because I can't deal with seeing him being so unable to articulate his foreign policy position. Some people want to blame others for his failure in this regard, but Ron Paul is the only one responsible for his lack of salesmanship. Understanding your audience and tailoring the message so that they can comprehend it, is not compromising. That's just basic public speaking skill.

Alot of RP supporters are so sheltered in their comfortable philosophical bubble that they have no idea how bad he comes across with some ill-advised comments. And it has little to do with the audience being sheep. Uttering certain phrases or the quoting certain despicable figures can turn a cogent, reasonable debate answer into a repulsive piece of drek. There is nothing necessarily wrong with Ron's foreign policy views, but all the ugly side dressing that accompanies it is not necessary. Another problem that Ron encounters sometimes is his lack of details into what the foreign policy of a Ron Paul administration would look like.