Ron Paul losing his articulacy?

[BRG253]

I hate to say it but I don't think Ron Paul has been doing very well in these things so far. He talks about "liberty" in an abstract way that means nothing to a person who isn't already acquainted with his ideas. In 2007, it was like the place would shake every time he opened his mouth, but he's not saying anything hard-hitting this time. I'm just not feeling the energy that he had four years ago. Anyone agree?

 

[Original_Intent]

I thought he did well in the debates. I did get a little frustrated with him on Stossel afterwards - he made his initial point and then kind of meandered off into a long ramble. I know he likes to explain and educate, but I think he really connects better when he keeps his answers short and to the point. I do think he was a bit worn out by the time he got on Stossel, too.

 

[KCIndy]

I'll admit there's one thing Ron Paul can't do well: parsing answers down to slick, standardized political platitudes that fit the twenty second attention span of the average American voter.

Personally, I think this is to his credit.

Unfortunately, it DOES make it difficult for him to snare the vote of the typical couch potato.

 

[johnrocks]

I love RP but he's not the one who energizes me, his message energizes me.

A person is going to accept freedom,free markets,non intervention, etc. or they aren't,imho.

Porky Pig could say what he says and energize me whereas Aristotle could be on that stage talking like Newt,Bachmann or the others and lose me at the first mention of Iran or Federal marriage laws.

 

[acptulsa]

Gee, I thought we were running 'sound bites for Ron Paul' threads here four years ago trying to get him to use shorter, sharper answers. And I thought he was in fact getting better with Doug Wead on the team.

I also have to applaud him for not 'Doing the Dubya' and inventing words that don't exist and don't mean anything. How's that for 'articulacy'?

 

[Jace]

..

 

[Jandrsn21]

I think he just has stage fright! I see tv clips and he always aticulates his points very well, even if the interviewer hits him with a screwball. Also seeing clips of his rallies and campaign stops he always talks clear and concise.

 

[Elwar]

Hearing it for the first time is usually more powerful than hearing him say it for the 50th time.

But we are not his audience. Those that heard his message for the first time are feeling the same way you did in 2007.

 

[dannno]

I just watched the Ron vs. Pawlenty clip about Iran. Ron was awesome.

Ya not sure why the OP feels the way they do.

 

[PineGroveDave]

I just watched the Ron vs. Pawlenty clip about Iran. Ron was awesome.

wasn't that Santorum?

 

[ord33]

I love RP but he's not the one who energizes me, his message energizes me.

A person is going to accept freedom,free markets,non intervention, etc. or they aren't,imho.

Porky Pig could say what he says and energize me whereas Aristotle could be on that stage talking like Newt,Bachmann or the others and lose me at the first mention of Iran or Federal marriage laws.

I agree somewhat, but you have to admit that Dr. Paul is the rare politician that has integrity and principles. To be honest, I was more connected to him at first through his integrity and principles (from a slim jim). I had to come around on his foreign policy and a few other views. I think it is a pretty rare circumstance to find someone with his principles in public office. Perhaps liberty candidates are more likely to be honest though, I don't know?!

 

[smtwngrl]

I hate to say it but I don't think Ron Paul has been doing very well in these things so far. He talks about "liberty" in an abstract way that means nothing to a person who isn't already acquainted with his ideas. In 2007, it was like the place would shake every time he opened his mouth, but he's not saying anything hard-hitting this time. I'm just not feeling the energy that he had four years ago. Anyone agree?

Yes, there is a difference from 4 years ago.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no one like Ron Paul. It's not just his message, it is his consistency, his integrity, and his knowledge about economics, history, and the constitution. He is the one we need.

Yet, four years ago, every word was perfect. He could be asked a question, and there were no superfluous words, no rambling. That has changed some. I attribute it to the difference in his age.

 

[Chowder]

I don't think it's his age, he's just really excited and he keeps thinking I got to win this! I got to win this! He's not in education mode anymore. He's fighting to win.

 

[libertybrewcity]

watch Ron Paul in the debates again. I thought he was amazing.

 

[anaconda]

He stammers over his words more than he did in 2007 but it's not a deal breaker. Wead should coach him to slow down so that he gets that half split second longer to think before talking. Ron's brain is armed with zillions of solid off the cuff talking points. He just needs to slow down. He's 76 for gosh sakes.

 

[hard@work]

The dude has always stuttered. Make it endearing to yourself and others.

 

[economics102]

First of all Ron has had some great moments in the recent debates. The line about heroin. The "I'm the commander in chief, I tell the generals what to do"...I think if you were to boil Ron Paul down the distinction in part is that, in the debates, he's very bold and eloquent on foreign policy, and often very jumbled on economics. I can only speak for myself but, being a former liberal Democrat, in 2007 I was, if I'm recalling correctly, initially drawn to Paul's debate answers on foreign policy, and then I watched things like the Google interview, where he had time to flush out his economic arguments in detail, and one issue at a time Ron convinced me that he's basically right on everything.

Certainly age plays a role. But I think there's more at play here.

Ron definitely appears more nervous at the the debates this time around than last time. But I think there's good reason for that -- he had nothing to lose last time. Last time he had no serious expectation of winning. This time, he knows it could really happen, and he's surrounded by a team of people who are there because they believe he can win. I know most of us here feel strongly that the fate of the United States hinges on Dr. Paul's election, and I'm sure Dr. Paul views it similarly. So I can't even begin to imagine the kind of pressure he feels this time around -- this is truly a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders now. I can't imagine what it's like to be Ron Paul, the man that millions of people have placed their faith in to carry out this unique mission to save the country.

Also as others said we're so far removed from how a regular voter perceives him that we're forlorn. Ron Paul appealed to us with intellectual arguments. Having already accepted those arguments and heard Ron repeat them on hundreds of TV interviews and debates, we have nothing to judge him now on but style and in comparison to previous articulations.

 

[Canderson]

we've only had two debates and everyones saying "wheres Pauls great lines?", well he didnt have one every debate in 07 and 08, remember there were TONS of debates and he was able to make a few great lines, hell get one next month, dont worry.

 

[Tinnuhana]

If people just have seen the distilled debate lines on YouTube, out of some context, they wouldn't know that he did some rambling back then, too.

 

[economics102]

we've only had two debates and everyones saying "wheres Pauls great lines?", well he didnt have one every debate in 07 and 08, remember there were TONS of debates and he was able to make a few great lines, hell get one next month, dont worry.

Also, he's HAD some great lines already. I think the atmosphere is just different this time, because the focus in 2008 was on foreign policy, and there was some incredible drama to seeing 10 puppets effuse support for militarism and one guy stand against it. And this was in succession to a president of their own party, so the backdrop was "we've gotta CONTINUE Bush's warmongering!" This time the attention is mainly on the economy, an issue where it's more difficult to stand out because he's being flanked by others who sound similar, and they're also being overshadowed by a common enemy (Obama) who they all rhetorically contrast against.

Also as I said earlier, I think Ron Paul, especially in debate mode, is 1000x more impresive when talking about foreign policy than about the economy, so the fact that foreign policy is a distant second in focus to the economy this time around doesn't play in Ron's favor.

I think a great line for Ron Paul to use would be to say "I keep hearing that any of the candidates on stage would be better than Obama, but I doubt that's really true. Was BUSH any better than Obama? Are the policies PRACTICED by any of these candidates who have legislative experience any better than Obama's? All I see around me is status quo and more status quo, and yet more status quo in the White House."