What "soundbites" do you want to hear tonite

[Zyphlin]

- Many other countries in the world are free and prosperous (name a few here..) but do you see terrorists actively fighting a war with them? No. Why? Because they haven't spent the last 50 years meddling in the affairs of the middle eastern countries.

- The longer we are in the middle east, the more the terrorists will grow in numbers.

- If we're in Iraq for another 100 years like McCain wants then social security will be bankrupt in a matter of years.

I actually think these are the kind of things he needs to AVOID during the debate.

The people that watch these things that are gungho on the "Get out of Iraq Now!" crowd have already became Ron Paul supporters. You're not going to gain any more voters by stating these things agian and again in a debate, and will continue to cause people that you could sway to other parts of hismesage to tune out right away.

The McCain thing is a great example of why some people on the fence of Ron Paul don't fully go to him. Ron Paul fanatics think the 100 year thing meant McCain wants to stay there for 100 years. Others view it as hyperbole stating he's willing to stay there for as long as it takes to reach the goals he has for it. While this is still unacceptable to the Ron Paul base, its something many republicans do'nt have an issue with or may even agree with. Misrepresenting the view isn't likely to get people to go "ohhh, boo McCain, go Ron Paul" but actually look at Ron Paul and his supporters as fanatics trying to twist words to make their point.

Short, sweet answers that explain some of his domestic positions in more "common" terms would be best. Hit McCain on the economy, free speech, and immigration majorly...but do it with the understanding you're in a 1 minute type format for speaking and you're talking to "average" people. Hit Romney on his stances on gun control and past stances on abortion and also how his private sector experience doesn't necessarily make him an economic genius.

There's a lot of things about Ron Paul that are and will be VERY pleasing to the ears of Republicans who currently either support the war or believe that we can't get out of Iraq immedietely. However, if the first thing they hear from Ron Paul is "get out now" type speech then their ears will be closed long before he gets to the thing sthat could sway them. Likewise, if they hear big extreme ideas like "get rid of the department of education" without a basic explanation of why they're going to think of him as some kind of crazed extremist instead of going and research more. Its easy to say "hear his idea and research to better understand", but you have to hook people enough to the idea to plant that seed to make them WANT to go out and research.

If you can get republicans hooked onto Paul over things like immigraiton, economics, freedom of speech, size of government, etc...they will begin to look at his war and foreign policies views with a slightly more favorable eye to Ron Paul. At that point, you may be able to THEN sway them to agreeing with his foreign policy as well. If his foreign policy is the first thing they hear though, and they don't like it, nothign else will get through.

Paul has his base, and its not going anywhere. It is likely one of the greatest grass roots bases in this countries political history. But he can't get elected on that base alone. He must grow the base, he must expand, if he wants to get the nomination. And to do that he must try and focus his talk on issues that appeal to those other voters instead of just pandering the issues that fire up his base but make undecideds run away from him with their hands on their ears.

 

[beachmaster]

If you can get republicans hooked onto Paul over things like immigraiton, economics, freedom of speech, size of government, etc...they will begin to look at his war and foreign policies views with a slightly more favorable eye to Ron Paul.

Very slightly, if at all. I hear all the time... "I like Ron Paul on EVERYTHING, except the war/foreign policy". They then proceed to make statements indicating that the war/foreign policy trumps everything else. They don't even care if the war is bankrupting us, they want their war and eat it too!

Ron Paul needs to stress that we will fight just and necessary wars, and will use constitutional means to strenuously and swiftly defeat enemies who attack us, including terrorists, and will do a BETTER job of it than the blundering president we've got.

Another thing... Ron Paul should say, "Remember, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED? We won the war! We defeated Saddam Hussein's army and overthrew his regime. The president declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. So why are we still there if Mission is Accomplished... to clean up the UN mess? I say NO, we won the war. It is not up to us to build nations."

 

[Zyphlin]

Very slightly, if at all. I hear all the time... "I like Ron Paul on EVERYTHING, except the war/foreign policy". They then proceed to make statements indicating that the war/foreign policy trumps everything else. They don't even care if the war is bankrupting us, they want their war and eat it too!

Ron Paul needs to stress that we will fight just and necessary wars, and will use constitutional means to strenuously and swiftly defeat enemies who attack us, including terrorists, and will do a BETTER job of it than the blundering president we've got.

Another thing... Ron Paul should say, "Remember, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED? We won the war! We defeated Saddam Hussein's army and overthrew his regime. The president declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. So why are we still there if Mission is Accomplished... to clean up the UN mess? I say NO, we won the war. It is not up to us to build nations."

That may be true. My question to you then is....how is the other things you want him to say in your post going to convince them then? If they're not willing to vote for him after you actually convince them that they like all his domestic things, do you really think about ranting about how the war is unconsitutional and unncessary, and we need to come home now because Bush said "mission accomplished"?

No, that's not going to change their minds.

But know what it likely will do, turn off those republicans that actually ARE on the fence.

Lets say out of 10 people you have 1 die hard ron paul fan, 1 die hard McCain fan, 2 who put national security/the war first, 4 that put everything on an even keel, and 2 that put domestic stuff first.

Likely, Ron Paul's standard message will get him that Ron Paul fan, and quite possibly the domestic fan. That's 3.

McCain however is likely to get those other 7. Why? Because Pauls lead in half the time, or his followers lead in, is right into the war stuff...which puts off those 4 in the middle real quick to the point they won't listen to teh rest.

However, hook those people in the middle...that are wavering...on his domestic things first and you may be able to get it to overweigh their feelings towards Paul on foreign/War issues.

Even more...if Paul wants to focus some on his foreign policy, focus it on a few things that are easier to swallow. Many republicans are very weary of the "pull out now" Iraq stuff. They're a lot less weary of the "Pull out of Germany and Japan and random bases around the world where we're doing nothing but sitting around and propping up foreign economies".

Saying the exact same controversial things the whole time is not going to gain him any new voters. Its great for igniting his base, and it will keep everyone here excited, but its not going to get him over 20 or 30% in the voting booth. He's got to find a way to reach those people that are undecided or are not heavily favoring anyone...and the only way to do that is to try a new strategy of getting his message across because the "Talk about getting out of Iraq and the WOT first and foremost" approach is not working on those people.

 

[beachmaster]

That may be true. My question to you then is....how is the other things you want him to say in your post going to convince them then? If they're not willing to vote for him after you actually convince them that they like all his domestic things, do you really think about ranting about how the war is unconsitutional and unncessary, and we need to come home now because Bush said "mission accomplished"?

No, that's not going to change their minds.

When Dr. Paul was interviewed by our local talk radio show host last week, he almost won him over and got his vote with his answer about how he would fight enemies who attacked us. Unfortunately however, our radio talk host went turncoat on us and voted Romney and encouraged others to do so.

The host had emailed me and I him... I don't think he ever intended to vote Ron Paul, so let's forget for the moment that we didn't actually get THAT man's vote... rather, what I saw was that when Dr. Paul got aggressive against the terrorist and said he would use the powers of the Letter of Marqe and Reprisal (which currently is a tool of congress that Dr. Paul would like to see given to the President). He explained to the radio host in answer to how he would have responded to 911 that it would be a ferocious assault against the perpetrators. The host was taken aback by that, and after the interview kept bringing that up as though it had profoundly affected him. I honestly believe it did... though he probably already had his mind made up for Romney.

Ron Paul needs to talk tough on terror, tough on enemies, and doesn't have to violate the constitution in order to do so.

 

[idiom]

"The War is being fought with money from Social Security"

 

[KEEF]

"We're in this race to the end. The republican party has been hijacked, our country has been hijacked, and I feel it's my moral obligation to fight, inch by inch, for the nomination in all the way to september."

"The Texas Primary in March will be our greatest victory, when we pick up a larger chunk of delegates than any other state offers. "

Excellent post and great You Tube clip, it reminded me as to why I believed and then voted for Bush in 2000. What a stark contrast his administration is now compared to what he said then.

WE NEED RON PAUL!

 

[Zyphlin]

When Dr. Paul was interviewed by our local talk radio show host last week, he almost won him over and got his vote with his answer about how he would fight enemies who attacked us. Unfortunately however, our radio talk host went turncoat on us and voted Romney and encouraged others to do so.

The host had emailed me and I him... I don't think he ever intended to vote Ron Paul, so let's forget for the moment that we didn't actually get THAT man's vote... rather, what I saw was that when Dr. Paul got aggressive against the terrorist and said he would use the powers of the Letter of Marqe and Reprisal (which currently is a tool of congress that Dr. Paul would like to see given to the President). He explained to the radio host in answer to how he would have responded to 911 that it would be a ferocious assault against the perpetrators. The host was taken aback by that, and after the interview kept bringing that up as though it had profoundly affected him. I honestly believe it did... though he probably already had his mind made up for Romney.

Ron Paul needs to talk tough on terror, tough on enemies, and doesn't have to violate the constitution in order to do so.

One, debates tend to get the same kind of viewers over again. Debates don't tend to drag in thousands upon thousands of people that didn't likely watch some of the past ones. As well, at this point, Ron Paul's message in regards to Iraq is pretty much one of the few things ACTUALLY known about him in regards to the public. Goign on and on about it in a debate isn't needed.

Also you have to understand that an interview format with a radio show host is a LOT different than a 1 minute or 30 second response in a debate. You can get much more nuanced, and generally have people listening specifically because they want to hear YOU...not because they want to maybe hear someone else but are having to listen to you.

Talking about how he would go after terrorists is something I think would be GREAT for him to do. However, in the process of it, don't spend half the time drowning on about pulling out of Iraq immedietely, or how Bush is unconsitutitonal, or other such things...as that will take people away from concentrating on what he's actually saying.

I'm not advocating that he change his position, or even "hide" his position, but he needs to stop making "Pull out of Iraq" and "Bush wasn't constitutional" the center piece of every one of his answers in a debate because its not going to help him sawy undecideds.

 

[beachmaster]

Talking about how he would go after terrorists is something I think would be GREAT for him to do. However, in the process of it, don't spend half the time drowning on about pulling out of Iraq immedietely, or how Bush is unconsitutitonal, or other such things...as that will take people away from concentrating on what he's actually saying.

I'm not advocating that he change his position, or even "hide" his position, but he needs to stop making "Pull out of Iraq" and "Bush wasn't constitutional" the center piece of every one of his answers in a debate because its not going to help him sawy undecideds.

Amen! That's essentially what I am saying, with the exception that since he has already said he is for pulling out, he should elaborate just a little about how WE BEAT IRAQ... rah rah rah, etc. and then let it be known that we are not nation builders... let the UN build nations, we will defend our nation.

 

[kipload]

I've made no plans to surrender

"I was drafted in the 60's and proudly served in the Air Force during the Cold War. I was one of four, ONE OF FOUR, members of Congress to support Reagan in '76 when no one else would. I have been on the House Banking Committee my entire career so I understand monetary policy and economics better than any other candidate on this stage. I HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR CONSERVATISM AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR 20 YEARS. I've fought for my country all of my life, and I will never surrender."

 

[dreicher]

"I'm really just here to get practice debating democrats for the general election."

 

[kipload]

slam McCain to the ground

"I'm really just here to get practice debating democrats for the general election."

Take it a little further... "With all of these liberals on stage, this debate is pretty good practice for the general election..." [and then slam McCain to the ground]

 

[MrCobaltBlue]

Only soundbite I want to hear tonight is:

"Anderson, may I answer that?"

Dr. Paul needs to step up his debate performance, unless he asks to answer questions and goes over his time limit he'll just be kept quiet. He should see this as 90 minutes that the MSM is FORCED to have him on camera and should take advantage of every moment.

 

[beachmaster]

Only soundbite I want to hear tonight is:

"Anderson, may I answer that?"

Dr. Paul needs to step up his debate performance, unless he asks to answer questions and goes over his time limit he'll just be kept quiet. He should see this as 90 minutes that the MSM is FORCED to have him on camera and should take advantage of every moment.

Amen and Amen!

Paraphrase Reagan.... The American People are paying for this microphone!

 

[2young2vote]

HE should go all out. He should say "These men are liberals who want to control your lives and take your personal liberties away. These men have not even addressed the rights of you the people. They continue to raise taxes and install more fees in your daily lives which are practically a way to force you to pay for civil liberties if they can even be called that. Under a Ron Paul presidency i promise that you will live better lives than you are now and i promise to never raise taxes. These men have no idea how the economy works. They will lie to you saying they have experience but you all know the truth. we have had the same president for the last 50 years. He continues to raise taxes and lower the rights of YOU THE PEOPLE. I am the only different person up here. If any of these men get elected you should expect higher taxes, less freedom, more wars, and inexperienced people running YOUR LIVES. I will not run your lives. Every other man up here will."

He just needs to say something that is SO out there that it will not be forgotten by the end of it.

 

[Theocrat]

The "Ron Paul Headshake"!

I would just love to see Congressman Paul do this to McCain like he did in the CNN/YouTube Debate last year:

 

[beachmaster]

I would just love to see Congressman Paul do this to McCain like he did in the CNN/YouTube Debate last year:

That's not a soundbyte.. it's more like an "videobyte", albeit a very good one!

 

[zbus12]

"yeah go ahead and laugh buddy!"

 

[Thomas Paine]

"Senator McCain, what in God's name is that ever-growing bulge on the side of your head?"

 

[Thomas Paine]

"Governor Romney, I hear there is an opening on the Men's Gymnastic team for the 2008 Summer Olympics. You should do quite well given your amazing ability to do political backflips on major policies."

 

[Thomas Paine]

"Governor Huckabee, please name the one original idea you came up with on your own since Kindergarten."