then he needs to be speaking to someone. Doug Wead, Jack Hunter, whomever. He does NOT come off just speaking to the camera. He animates to people, only.
I'm not keen on your video compilation idea, but you're absolutely right about Ron animating in front of audiences. Did you notice Doug Wead alluded to doing something like this in his last column?
ETA - I'm a big believer in using the traditional methods, and I don't think that anybody is advocating abandoning them in favor of a fireside chat approach.
But like it or not, Ron Paul isn't the traditional politician. I think of it like this - Plato said "the only character capable of ruling a just society must be one with a passion for truth, and who has achieved the greatest wisdom or knowledge of the Good: the philosopher," and as such I do think that giving Paul a platform to talk to people with his calm demeanor in a non-traditional approach would benefit him. (And us.)
It would allow him to take his message above the depths of the muck the news-as-entertainment industry wants them to dwell in.
But the campaign would have to do it right. Lighting, sound, make-up...the impression has to be absolutely perfect.
EATA: Matt's immediate knee-jerk reaction makes no sense. Ross Perot had big ears. He looked like an elf, not a president, and nobody anywhere had heard of him. He gave America one chat, and was immediately propelled into a 30% share. He didn't win, but he was definitely a top tier candidate. Obama saw the value in it.
The more I think about this, the more excited I get. Think about how the how reenergized the grass roots would get. Imagine that people seeing kids waving Ron Paul shirts suddenly understood the message they were standing behind.
The impact this could have is immeasurable. I am literally almost in tears thinking about how much good this could do - both for the election and for long term America. How can anybody who supports liberty not see the potential this could have?
