The Campaign Should Use Doug Wead Rather Than Jack Hunter as Surrogate for Live Media

nbruno322

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
1,730
Nothing at all against Jack Hunter, he is a fantastic writer and intellectual and a true asset for the campaign. I just feel Doug Wead is better on his feet dealing with a live TV interview against the vicious hacks in the media. I think Jack kind of stumbled during his interview, while Doug knocked it out of the park and was better able to get the message out in a way that would win supporters.

Just my 2 cents, that I think the campaign should get Doug on TV as much as possible.

See the two videos below and contrast.




 
Last edited:
It depends on your audience. Doug Wead sometimes doesn't quite seem to 'get' Ron, and that is not as good for independents. For the Fox News crowd, Doug is great.
 
jack reminds me of me... if i was on my first interview. The hair, the voice. Oh boy. lol
 
Last edited:
Jack is great with the media, but the fact is he has an accent that doesn't play well outside the South. Doug has that good Midwestern, sounds good to any American ear accent.

Unleash Jack on the SC and FLA media!!
 
I saw Hunter on tv with subtitles. Have to say that I like Wead better. He has that always congenial look about him, no matter what he's saying. Hunter seems more "southern," if ya know what I mean.
 
I respectfully agree. There was a substantial contrast in the interviews I saw (before this thread). Wead was very strong, Jack not so much. Jack writes really well and is a great advocate in print. Perhaps TV isn't his medium or he doesn't have the experience yet. The campaign desperately needs some strong surrogates and Wead is one of the very best.
 
Wead's solid for Fox, but sailing is right, he doesn't seem to quite get Ron on a philosophical level. Hunter should be kept away from all non-southern TV outlets. Dude is seriously grating.

Campaign could have had Tom Woods defend Ron on any number of media outlets, would have been mastery at work.
 
Here's the difference: Wead gets respect from the Fox pundits because he worked for Reagan. They see Jack as a young punk.
 
Doug Wead's strength comes from that he originates from the Establishment. So he knows all the propaganda, talking points, and tactics that the media uses, and can beat them at their own game.
 
Jack is great, but Wead is like a force of nature. Wead is incredible.

Eh, Wead is pretty conciliatory. He's friendlier with the media, and a good voice to put on Fox, but Woods is far more knowledgeable on just about any topic regarding conservatism, the constitution, and libertarianism.
 
Jack is great with the media, but the fact is he has an accent that doesn't play well outside the South. Doug has that good Midwestern, sounds good to any American ear accent.

Unleash Jack on the SC and FLA media!!
In California (where I am) Jack's accent plays great.
 
Here's the difference: Wead gets respect from the Fox pundits because he worked for Reagan. They see Jack as a young punk.

Whereas with independents, flip that model.... Or rather, the Reagan is not as persuasive and the young punk not necessarily a handicap with independents.
 
Hunter simply doesn't come across that well up here. He has that preppy, well-groomed Southern aura to him which is great for the South and the Pacific coast, but terrible for the Midwest. Like it or not, a lot of northerners have quite the bias towards southern accents. His voice is about as grating to Iowans as my voice would be to people from South Carolina. And I have a THICK accent.
 
The words that came out of Jack Hunter's mouth in the video sound right, but the presentation is wrong. He has a strange way of speaking, quirky accent and a silly haircut (all of which I can look past, but I have to think in terms of the average voter). He has the message but I would like to see less of him and more of Doug Wead. If I knew nothing about Ron Paul I would be put off by Jack Hunter, not so with Doug Wead.
 
Back
Top