The message is getting lost (criticism from an independent)

[AlienLanes82]

This topic is filled with lots of anti-constitution thinking. Anything Paul has said sticks to who he is. I think the topic creator may have decided to support the wrong candidate. That, or he just hasn't dug deep enought into the vast history of constitutional violations.

Sadly, this is the type of thinking that prevents our candidate from rising above 10% of the vote, and is why the Libertarian Party is a complete irrelevancy.

Most people are not broad constitutional thinkers, and make judgments based on whether a candidate seems to be making sense, is positive and optimistic, is 'nice' or 'Presidential' or 'cares about people like me'. There are ways for candidates to convey this sense, regardless of whether on policy they are libertarian, socialist, paleocon, neocon, or any other ideology.

And as soon as someone suggests adopting a tone that channels inclusiveness, optimism, and is appealing to the average Jane, they are told to go support a different candidate.

 

[worldtruthfreedom]

If Ron Paul changes any of the things that you mention I will not be supporting him.

I like him because he isn't polished as speaks the truth as he sees it.

Haven't you had enough of bullshit politicians who watch every word they say in case they offend or don't get the vote?

 

[Richandler]

Sadly, this is the type of thinking that prevents our candidate from rising above 10% of the vote, and is why the Libertarian Party is a complete irrelevancy.

Most people are not broad constitutional thinkers, and make judgments based on whether a candidate seems to be making sense, is positive and optimistic, is 'nice' or 'Presidential' or 'cares about people like me'. There are ways for candidates to convey this sense, regardless of whether on policy they are libertarian, socialist, paleocon, neocon, or any other ideology.

And as soon as someone suggests adopting a tone that channels inclusiveness, optimism, and is appealing to the average Jane, they are told to go support a different candidate.

The candidates are not as important as the message pal. Remember our good friend Bush. The man said stay out of other countries. What happened? We're everywhere now. So many people stuck with voting for him a second time because they forgot about the message and voted for a candidate. Right now we're purposing the candidate game, but soon how quickly do you fail to realize we're going to need to get a whole lot of other people elected if Ron is to have any effect in office.

As and actor you learn all of these presentation abilities to do two things: Feel real about what you say, and effectively portray that fictional story. Ron already feels good about what he says and he certainly is going to turn it into some fairy tale.

 

[partypooper]

I like him because he isn't polished as speaks the truth as he sees it.

as far as i am concerned, the problem in dr paul's public appearances is not polish at all. he is not clear, he is repetitive and his arguments are too simplistic for the sort of claims he is making. his writings are much better but apparently he often forgets what he wrote (which is quite common).

 

[PINN4CL3]

I think the OP is spot on in every one of those suggestions, and Ron could benefit from this advice. I hope the message gets through.

 

[PINN4CL3]

If Ron Paul changes any of the things that you mention I will not be supporting him.

I like him because he isn't polished as speaks the truth as he sees it.

Haven't you had enough of bullshit politicians who watch every word they say in case they offend or don't get the vote?

Are you serious?


Take the abolishment of the IRS for example. He keeps saying in interviews that "...well we didn't have an income tax up to 1913" or "...we have the same revenues we had 10 years ago, and that's not so bad" well ok, but "that's not so bad" is not what people are looking for.

Can we HONESTLY do without an income tax? THAT'S what people want to hear. They're ready to believe his claim, but not when he can't say how exactly it would work. So if these are going to be his talking points, he needs to be more clear on his answers. That's all.

If abolishment of the IRS is not going to be something in his first 100 days in office, then he can simply say he wants to CUT spending now, starting TRIMMING down departments, eventually WEANING us off the income tax, and see if we can do without it. That is something, people would buy.

 

[TwiLeXia]

I completely agree with this guy. Ron Paul needs to behave as an actual presidential candidate. People want to imagine him as president. Give them that image.

 

[LFOD]

I find myself largely in agreement with the OP. I can't quite get myself on board with some of it as indeed it does seem like implementing all of those ideas would result in a "Ron Paul Lite" as another poster suggested. But I agree 100% that the message is getting lost.

I think the biggest issue I have with Ron Paul as a candidate is that while I'm receptive to his criticisms, he doesn't talk about what he would actually do as president very much. In other words, he is a problems guy, not a solutions guy. I suspect this is a big reason why people are (it seems) not receptive to his ideas.

Then you are not listening very carefully. How many times has he said that we have to start with getting our military out of it's 700 bases worldwide? That's pretty darn specific. And it's item NUMBER ONE for his entire agenda. NOTHING else is possible without that step.

 

[pmbug]

If abolishment of the IRS is not going to be something in his first 100 days in office, then he can simply say he wants to CUT spending now, starting TRIMMING down departments, eventually WEANING us off the income tax, and see if we can do without it. That is something, people would buy.

+100000000

He needs to show people that, while he is strongly principled and ideologically determined to abolish the income tax/IRS, he is pragmatic.

 

[Wyurm]

It's good that you all get to vent, but like it or not, this is Iowa's big money maker next to corn. They really do not represent the rest of the country, just ask Bill Clinton. I mentioned that RP won 5th place with 10 pct. to a co-worker and was told that was awsome. I was actually down about it at first.

I'm posting this because I see lots of "we failed because we didn't ....." or "the campaign failed because it didn't .....", etc... type threads and this really isn't all that necessary or helpful. Its like trying to sell sausages in a vegetarian convention and getting upset because you only sold 10. New Hampshire will be better and it would be nice to do well in one of the early states at least, but Super Tuesday is the real test. So rather than drowning in negativity, why not just keep going and perhaps set aside the blame game?

 

[Ron LOL]

Then you are not listening very carefully. How many times has he said that we have to start with getting our military out of it's 700 bases worldwide? That's pretty darn specific. And it's item NUMBER ONE for his entire agenda. NOTHING else is possible without that step.

Cute, but no.

Ranting about having 700 bases overseas is identifying a problem. "Bring home the troops" is not a solution any more than it is to say "we should design more fuel efficient vehicles" is a solution to our energy worries. What will we do with the troops? What will we do with the equipment? How long will this take? Could there be unintended consequences? Will we be throwing people out on the streets? Will we open up more bases here at home?

There are tons of issues associated with bringing our troops home. I support the theoretical exercise in foreign policy that leads us to this conclusion, but there are still many practical questions that need answering...and more often than not, Ron Paul either doesn't have or simply doesn't volunteer those answers.

Ron Paul does some hand waiving on occasion, and I really don't like that. For example, like how he was almost dumbfounded when Russert asked him if he knew the total revenue brought in by the income tax.

 

[LFOD]

Look, nobody is going to repackage Ron Paul. The very idea makes me laugh. The man is an independent thinker of the highest principles. If someone asks him about Lincoln, he's going to give his opinion, even if it means half the country says "he said WHAT about Lincoln and the Civil War??"

He's a truth-teller, period. As it sees it, no holds barred. Take it, or go vote for a fluff-meister like Obama or Huckabee.

So just forget about hoping to talk the man into soft-pedalling his message. Ain't going to happen. It goes against his entire character.

What can be done is better advertising. And that does NOT mean more ads that looks like every other flag-waving, "I'm a patriotic American" BS ad out there. It means ads that are AUTHENTIC RON PAUL.

In other words, can the guy who is trying to mold the man to the advertising. Mold the ADS TO THE MAN. Ron Paul, exactly how he is, is who I have been excited about from the very beginning. Show it, don't hide it!

 

[LFOD]

Cute, but no.

Ranting about having 700 bases overseas is identifying a problem. "Bring home the troops" is not a solution any more than it is to say "we should design more fuel efficient vehicles" is a solution to our energy worries. What will we do with the troops? What will we do with the equipment? How long will this take? Could there be unintended consequences? Will we be throwing people out on the streets? Will we open up more bases here at home?

There are tons of issues associated with bringing our troops home. I support the theoretical exercise in foreign policy that leads us to this conclusion, but there are still many practical questions that need answering...and more often than not, Ron Paul either doesn't have or simply doesn't volunteer those answers.

Ron Paul does some hand waiving on occasion, and I really don't like that. For example, like how he was almost dumbfounded when Russert asked him if he knew the total revenue brought in by the income tax.

haha - It IS the solution. It's just too straightforward and radical for you. You want to wring your hands about "unintended consequences" when the unintended consequences of having 700 foreign bases are staring you in the face.

I will agree that much of the country is similarly confused.

 

[nc4rp]

sounds like we are agreed unanimously in this AMAZING!!!

this is to me the singlmost important thread that needs to be read by Dr. Paul. my .002 cents.

 

[realist]

Publius and others -

Excellent posts. Indeed I hope there are advisors saying very similar things to Dr. Paul. I hope Dr. Paul himself is of the same mindset.

We have a diverse group here that has rallied around common central themes and goals despite thier differences. But, our strength is also our weakness. There are just too many voices with respect to the goals of this campaing and how to achieve them. IMHO, you are spot on and beyond that, we need HQ, or at least a central point of coordination, to focus efforts towards tangeable results. Otherwise, this will be a great campaign, and nothing more.

Some (like me) of are not here for a campaign. Some of us are here to elect a president. It is an indisputable fact that at this moment, we lack the base to make that happen. We need to appeal to a great number of new supporters. Some understand that and want to do everything possible to accomplish that ( and win the presidency). It is clear (and perhaps not wrong) that some would only want to do that if it doesn't involve compromise on thier beliefs. Noble, but unrealistic in presidential politics.

I truelly believe Dr. Pauls general message most closely reflects my vision for this country. But I also believe most of what you said is true and must be addressed if we are to progress.

 

[PubliusPublicola]

I 100% respect that Paul supporters are cut from many different cloths.

Some hear what I was saying in the OP as somehow an attack on Paul and that it implies compromising him or repackaging him in some insincere manner.

No.

In fact, it's really saying that his MESSAGE isn't getting through because of the way he has been packaged and campaigning. He's simply emphasizing the wrong stuff...

He should be in New Hampshire right now... going door to door... church to church... giving a positive message about what HE WANTS TO DO in practical terms, not just ranting about all the stuff we hate. If the media wants to talk with him... they should be trailing behind him in the cold as he goes around talking to New Hampshire folk. The people of Iowa and NH expect to meet you face to face... to get their vote. All that matters is him being up there giving a POSITIVE vision for why they should support him. He can no longer bank on some reactionary outpouring of support.

This is a lot of work and trying to get hundreds of thousands of people to come out to vote for you requires more than interviews in the mainstream media and some internet poll spamming. He knows this better than we all do, and we want to see it.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

I felt months ago Paul should stop being negative and go sticky gooey positive. Instead of talking about bring our troops home, talk about all the money that will be in the pockets of Americans with a sensible foreign policy. Don't talk about abolishing the Dept of Education but rather returning control to local leaders and parents. Leave out abolishing the Fed instead talk about creating sound monetary policy.

I know that is difficult for Dr. Paul but it is the reality of a presidential campaign. People don't want to hear about what is wrong but how he will make it right. The purist out there hate these kind of post because many are filled with hate and can't see how to run a campaign. It is why the Libertarian Party is a farce. These are the one's that complain about the radical 'Neocons' taking over the Republican party while they are going around preaching radical libertarianism.

Paul just needs to learn how to present his ideas more effectively, not change his beliefs. You don't have O! and Hill and Edwards going around talking about creating government health care they say health care for all. Same plan but one would gain about 10% support the other wording gets you 30-40% support.

Yes, he should add that his plan will improve education by returning local control.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

 

[PubliusPublicola]

Yes, he should add that his plan will improve education by returning local control.

That's the point.

He could be arguing FOR more local control and flexibility, rather than making alienating comments about destroying the Department of Education.

This isnt about repackaging.

It's about basic communication of a message. Does Ron Paul represent being FOR something? Or just being against something?

 

[RonPaulalways]

When he says he wants to abolish the department of education, he needs to say:

"I would abolish the FEDERAL department of education and let the State departments of education operate free of federal control. The Constitution does not permit the federal government to control how States choose to educate their kids."

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

A friend of mine sent me this as to why he thinks Ron Paul is crazy and why he'll never be President. I happen to agree with a lot of these things and it goes along with the OP's message. Everything needs to be packaged better, and maybe Paul isn't the one to lead it.

1. Eliminate the Federal Reserve. Most Americans have no idea what they do. Saying that you want to get rid of the Central Bank doesn't make for a good sound byte.

2. Bringing troops home from all across the globe and closing all military bases. People think this is isolationism. It's just not something that a candidate who will win would run on and it's completely impractical, like it or not.

3. We the People Act. This act puts sodomy laws back in to effect. It overturns Texas v. Lawerence which says that gay people can have sex in the privacy of their own home. For a candidate who cares so much about privacy and civil liberties, it's really contradictory to support an act that goes against federal protection of these things. It's really funny watching some Paul fans try and justify this act.

4. Sanctity of Life Act. Defines life at conception and makes abortion murder. Do you really think the states would allow murder? Huckabee also believes life begins at conception, but wants an amendment to do it and we all know that won't happen. Nobody else is running on this crazy idea.

5. Opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Again, this is a candidate who is suppose to be pro liberty and pro civil liberties, yet he's against this act which everyone holds in high regard. This is made a bigger deal by:

6. Associations with white supremacists and Alex Jones. Paul made a huge blunder by not returning Don Black's donation. Everyone knows association with white supremacists is the death of a campaign. Paul makes an even bigger blunder everytime he goes on Alex Jones. Do you think any candidate who has a chance to win would be caught dead on Alex Jones? Contrary to what most of you here think, he's a nut and it only adds to Paul's fringe candidacy. I know the argument against this. Just because Hitler donates to Ron Paul doesn't mean that Ron Paul supports what Hitler does. But do you still invite Hitler into the campaign?

7. His tax plan. Eliminate the IRS by shutting down every base overseas and bringing every troop home while at the same time paying social security and medicare, but let young people get out of social security, AND still pay down the deficit. You seriously dont understand how impractical that sounds? Everyone hates the IRS, but you can't just get rid of it and still finance the government we have now.

8. Racist newsletters. This is the final blow. Paul's name is all over this and even if he didn't right it, it looks really bad. And you guys who are defending it as not racist are just laughable. Your best defense is that Paul didn't write it and didn't even bother to look at what was being published in his name for years. No family member, or friend, or colleague read it and told him what was in it. He's a public figure, you'd think he'd be concerned about someone writing this crap in his name. My guess is that once he was out of politics he didn't really care, but then he decided to get back in the game. It didn't really hurt him running for Congress in Texas, but there's no way this wouldn't get out if he became a contender for President. They'd bury him for this and you know it.

9. Marketing. The first TV ads were terrible, but got better as they went along. Paul isn't the best messenger for this movement. His speaking abilities are sub par at best. Get someone in the Republican Party who can package the ideas better. Those of you who think Paul will run Libertarian are delusional. Do you really think that the Libertarian Party wants that racist newsletter stuff brought up on a national level while they try to market their ideas? No chance in hell. It's over for Paul.