Rephrasing the foreign policy issue

[UK4Paul]

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.

It's about communicating this stuff to the electorate.

I think Ron Paul does a good job of communicating generally, just not quite as much in debates.

On the other hand, he comes out with some cracking soundbites at times

 

[Brett85]

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.

Because the way that Ron speaks in the debates, he comes across sounding very weak, and people assume that he wouldn't even use military action if our country was attacked. I know Republicans who think that Ron would just "sit back and take it" if we were attacked.

 

[coffeewithgames]

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.

I'll work on it this afternoon, I may need a Chipin ($10), for two CSPAN videos I found though that I want to use without some background music that is already in them on YouTube. My wife would be wondering about my money on Facebook ads, and buying videos for a campaign that has millions of dollars but is ineffective in apparently putting out ads addressing issues that are keeping him from running away with the nomination, doesn't make much sense.

 

[AuH20]

Because the way that Ron speaks in the debates, he comes across sounding very weak, and people assume that he wouldn't even use military action if our country was attacked. I know Republicans who think that Ron would just "sit back and take it" if we were attacked.

He looks weak from a physical perspective as well. So right off the bat he has two strikes against him, before the people really find out what he's truly about. He sounds weak and looks weak. So when they hear his muddled message, they immediately assume the worst and paint him out to be some peacenik from the 60s.

 

[raystone]

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.

What people ? You mean the 99.9% of voters that haven't read it ?

 

[AuH20]

Read the distasteful red pin in that mock photo. People really believe this narrative that Ron is weak and submissive. And this has nothing to do with the farce known as the WoT. Voters think Ron would acquiesce to alien invaders if that scenario would ever befall the US:

http://content7.flixster.com/photo/13/98/50/13985069_ori.jpg

 

[Travlyr]

What people ? You mean the 99.9% of voters that haven't read it ?

Right. The 99.9% who would be voting for Ron Paul if they knew the truth.

My point is that Ron Paul is not the one failing. People have to accept responsibility for their ignorance... for being led like sheep by the crony media liars. Ron Paul always promotes a strong defense. The media shills get hours upon hours of national stage to tell the people how bad Ron Paul's foreign policy is while Ron gets 30 seconds to rebut.

 

[LibertyEagle]

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.

I don't think we can expect voters to read a book to be able to decipher what Dr. Paul is talking about.

 

[Travlyr]

I don't think we can expect voters to read a book to be able to decipher what Dr. Paul is talking about.

In a sane society, voters would be able to expect a free media to decipher what Dr. Paul writes. We live in an insane society... it is not Dr. Paul's fault.

 

[Pete Kay]

Right. The 99.9% who would be voting for Ron Paul if they knew the truth.

My point is that Ron Paul is not the one failing. People have to accept responsibility for their ignorance... for being led like sheep by the crony media liars. Ron Paul always promotes a strong defense. The media shills get hours upon hours of national stage to tell the people how bad Ron Paul's foreign policy is while Ron gets 30 seconds to rebut.

That's just pure excuse making. Ron Paul needs to step up his game, plain and simple. It's up to us, the supporters, to hold his feet to the fire. Back in 2007 we gave the campaign hell about the, "He's catching on!" tv ad and they obviously listened. Now the ads are in another league.

We need to push him to rework his message so that it appeals to the masses. We know that the majority of Americans even support his position. It's just that Ron is poor at selling it. The campaign can't keep expecting us to send money unless they show that they are taking our concerns seriously.

 

[raystone]

Right. The 99.9% who would be voting for Ron Paul if they knew the truth.

My point is that Ron Paul is not the one failing. People have to accept responsibility for their ignorance... for being led like sheep by the crony media liars. Ron Paul always promotes a strong defense. The media shills get hours upon hours of national stage to tell the people how bad Ron Paul's foreign policy is while Ron gets 30 seconds to rebut.

At this point, we don't have time to change how people get their information. The campaign shouldn't change their message, they should change their delivery.

 

[Captain Shays]

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.

Travlyr, You're my Bro. We agree on most things but it should be obvious to you of all people that we're getting beat like a dog on foreign policy and it's should be obvious that some minor tweeks are in order for the message. I read Foreign Policy of Freedom like you did and I agree with EVERY word and I am amazed that his speech on May or March of 2001 predicting terrorist attacks isn't main stream by now. But how many of the neonuts do you think Actually READ and if there are any how many do you think READ that book? Ron NEEDS to project his plan for a strnog national defense in clear and concise rhetoric that appeals to those of us who value peace through strength. Like I have said in other threads on this same topic. He wins on non interventionism/minding our own business. He wins on the debt relation to policing the world. He wins on all those accounts but then loses it on HOW we will STILL remain top dog. What WILL he do to keep us strong and safe? What is the strategy? What weapons does he approve of? Is he another John Kerry who would protect us with spit balls or does he favor a missile defense system and upgrading our nuclear arsenal? How does his strong position on the 2nd Amendment relate to our national security? Man if he would only say ONE TIME that whichever enemy tries to invade us they would first need to cross an ocean then, get past our missile defense systems, then our nuclear weapons, then the best air force in the world, the best navy in the world, the best army in the world and best marines in the world and then have to face 200,000,000 armed Americans defending their family and community. They wouldn't get past New Jersey let alone wipe us out and they should all know that.

 

[Captain Shays]

I'll work on it this afternoon, I may need a Chipin ($10), for two CSPAN videos I found though that I want to use without some background music that is already in them on YouTube. My wife would be wondering about my money on Facebook ads, and buying videos for a campaign that has millions of dollars but is ineffective in apparently putting out ads addressing issues that are keeping him from running away with the nomination, doesn't make much sense.

Show me a good video and I will chip in

 

[Brett85]

Right. The 99.9% who would be voting for Ron Paul if they knew the truth.

My point is that Ron Paul is not the one failing. People have to accept responsibility for their ignorance... for being led like sheep by the crony media liars. Ron Paul always promotes a strong defense. The media shills get hours upon hours of national stage to tell the people how bad Ron Paul's foreign policy is while Ron gets 30 seconds to rebut.

Ron never talks about what he would do to ensure that we have a strong national defense. He hasn't laid out any kind of national defense strategy. He's very vague in what he says.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ron never talks about what he would do to ensure that we have a strong national defense. He hasn't laid out any kind of national defense strategy. He's very vague in what he says.

Just because you repeat it doesn't make it so. What don't you get about peace, friendship, trade, and no entangling alliances don't you get? Ron's always been for the repeal of the 34, 68, and 86 gun laws. There's your National Defense right there.

 

[blazeKing]

If he were going to try and change his talking points he would have done it by now. I'm sure his campaign came to him with ideas and he flat told them "No, this is how it's going to be, I'm not changing how I speak". There are plenty of great advice for him to take on how to frame the debate, but Ron is going to be Ron so we just need to respect that.

 

[Captain Shays]

Just because you repeat it doesn't make it so. What don't you get about peace, friendship, trade, and no entangling alliances don't you get? Ron's always been for the repeal of the 34, 68, and 86 gun laws. There's your National Defense right there.

Thats not true and it's certainly not true to those who think his foreign policy is "dangerous" and "isolationist". We WANT weapons. BIG badass weapons. Lots of weapons. The BEST quality of weapons. Sure we don't want to mess with other countries and Ron Paul wins on that most of the time but we sure as hell don't want to be pussies or sit back and allow some other country or group of crazy nutbags to kill our kids. Sorry if I sound like a neocon to some of you but I LOVE peace through strength and I LOVE being the biggest baddest kid on the block. I just want us to be a benevolent badass

 

[Brett85]

Just because you repeat it doesn't make it so. What don't you get about peace, friendship, trade, and no entangling alliances don't you get? Ron's always been for the repeal of the 34, 68, and 86 gun laws. There's your National Defense right there.

Lol. I hope most people recognize that the Republican Party isn't made up of anarcho capitalists.

 

[Ilhaguru]

Paul needs several examples of how military spending does not equal defense spending.

*Policemen of the world
*Baghdad embassy bigger than the vatican
*Nation building
*Troops in Japan/Germany
*War on Drugs
*Wasteful weapons program

Those things have nothing to do with defense and are good examples. But we need more.

It's an excellent video, btw. Tom Price backed up his claims with some examples, but we need more "ammo" on top of what he said to convert people.

Don't forget, Paul was in favor of an anti-ballistic missile shield. That's clearly defense.

 

[Lethalmiko]

It is an indisputable FACT that debate performances and/or charisma have arguably more impact on a candidate's election prospects than positions on issues or past history. BHO got elected in 2008 largely due to charisma (of course it helped that the corrupt bankers backed him and the media gave him a free pass, mesmerized by his "Change" rhetoric). Rick Perry joined the race as a clear front-runner only to stumble on debate performance. Newton Gingrich moved up in the polls and even overtook Romney last year also because of his debate performances after being written off in the Summer of 2011. The latest polling out of SC puts him ahead of Romney soon after the debates with momentum going forward and even Nate Silver's forecast puts him in a dead heat and within 4 percentage points in the chances of winning SC. He may well overtake Romney within the next 48 hours and win.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/south-carolina

With such obviously plain to see facts, you would expect the Paul campaign to work hard to polish his delivery and get him to move up in the polls. Though there are minor improvements, I see little dramatic improvement to the level of Gingrich. Paul should take a leaf out of the Steve Jobs playbook. Jobs would spend several days rehearsing every minute detail of his legendary presentations (I felt like buying the iPhone after watching his presentation despite not having much use for its functions). Is Paul so hard headed that he cannot get this simple point? Or does his campaign think it is irrelevant?

Why risk the possibility of huge regrets five months from now when it is completely within the power of Paul & campaign to correct this issue and start gaining a lot more traction? This is why I keep raising the question of whether the Paul campaign is its greatest enemy.

----

P/S - I rarely see this level of consensus around this issue. Most Paul supporters see this kind of discussion as "negative". I am truly amazed and give a huge thumbs (+++rep) up to everyone in here who is intellectually honest about what is wrong and more importantly, HOW to fix it. Blaming the corrupt media, ignorance, smear campaigns, the military-industrial complex, etc goes only so far. As several of us noted in another discussion I started recently, these fatal flaws in the campaign if not addressed immediately will ensure a Bush fourth term expressed in either BHO or WMR.

*****************

My favourite quotes:

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.

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.

Because the way that Ron speaks in the debates, he comes across sounding very weak, and people assume that he wouldn't even use military action if our country was attacked. I know Republicans who think that Ron would just "sit back and take it" if we were attacked.

In a sane society, voters would be able to expect a free media to decipher what Dr. Paul writes. We live in an insane society... it is not Dr. Paul's fault.

That's just pure excuse making. Ron Paul needs to step up his game, plain and simple. It's up to us, the supporters, to hold his feet to the fire. Back in 2007 we gave the campaign hell about the, "He's catching on!" tv ad and they obviously listened. Now the ads are in another league. We need to push him to rework his message so that it appeals to the masses. We know that the majority of Americans even support his position. It's just that Ron is poor at selling it. The campaign can't keep expecting us to send money unless they show that they are taking our concerns seriously.

At this point, we don't have time to change how people get their information. The campaign shouldn't change their message, they should change their delivery.