Where are Paul's advisers?

[Badger for Paul]

Unfortunately I have to agree that tonight's performance was bad. Looks like those days in Texas weren't spent on debate prep. I doubt he lost supporters, but doubt he gained any either with this debate. It's frustrating to see these missed opportunities.

 

[Shellshock1918]

If you're looking for a "tweak" to Ron Paul's foreign policy answers here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine

The Weinberger doctrine:

The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

 

[JimInNY]

He said we need to address the drug war, but never said to legalize drugs, which I thought was interesting.

His brain was going faster than his mouth (I suffer from that sometimes) and he forgot to say it.

 

[RaptorNtc]

We're not saying he should change his views. We're saying his delivery needs to get better. If I were watching this objectively, his answer would not have convinced me.

 

[Back In Black]

I just don't get how he can explain his economic policy so clearly but not his foreign policy. It makes no sense to me.

 

[coffeewithchess]

I just don't get how he can explain his economic policy so clearly but not his foreign policy. It makes no sense to me.

Yea, especially if you read his book A Foreign Policy of Freedom, with speeches/writings from the 80s and 90s. The book is a great source, and shows how consistent he has been, as well as a multitude of YouTube videos...but a debate coach to simply help target the message at the audience would help greatly (unless they are a terrible debate coach/don't understand the neocon mindset).

 

[Back In Black]

Presentation almost always wins over actual substance. Newt can sell the country a shit sandwich if he's strong enough with the sales pitch.

 

[socal]

The whole concept of a war on terror makes no sense since terror is just a tactic. It'd be like saying WWII was a war against mechanized troops, infantry, etc. But there are certain things that RP can't bring up because the public is so brainwashed with anti-Muslim hysteria. This conflict between what is true and what RP can discuss could be what's causing his message to get muddled.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Presentation almost always wins over actual substance. Newt can sell the country a shit sandwich if he's strong enough with the sales pitch.

Ain't that the truth... the old saying, "it's not what you say, but how you say it" so rings true, especially with the zombized public of today.

 

[jemuf]

Paul's getting wrecked on foreign policy tonight. These are all old questions. Are Paul's advisers, or anyone for that matter letting him know he needs to strengthen his answers? It just seems that if they know these questions are coming, why not have clear answers prepared? Even with the audience being as fucked up as they are, I believe they would have booed less had Paul responded clearly with strong and condensed answers.

They need to fix this FAST!

I agree 100%. Rick Perry made himself a non-factor with bad debate performances. Everybody gets ONE!

Whatever the reasons (hostile crowd, moderators, podium position, etc) for the bad performance he has to do better for the remainder of the campaign because there are too many undecideds.

Politico made his debate performance a story. I'm surprised the rest of the media establishment and Fox "News" didn't.

 

[Back In Black]

Surprisingly, Fox's coverage has been pretty fair from what I've seen. Most of the Paul clips they played were the ones that got applause. But commentators have pointed out the loose ended responses that Paul delivered. He needs to stop giving them this kind of ammo.

 

[eugenekop]

I think his delivery was great. For him it is crucial that others understand the "blowback" principle. He cares a lot less about practical issues here such as no money for wars. He wants people to understand how flawed is their understanding of the "other side".

 

[Antwan15]

Please Dr. Paul, call me and let's smooth out these answers!

Dont take this the wrong way.....but GET OVER YOURSELF....who do you think you are!

I am all for giving constructive critism guys, but please keep in mind we are talking about Dr. Ron Paul...this guy has forgoten more about foriegn policy than you, or any of the republican candidates will ever know. Yes, he could have fashioned a better response, but ill take a slip up on delivery with an virtouse message, over a perfectly executed war mongering answer based on pandering and propaganda. Just my two cents...

Its not just you tennman, I am just trying to make a point.

NOBP!!!

 

[Back In Black]

A slip-up delivery won't help him win the nomination. He can't assume people know what it is he's talking about the way we do. His answers need to be clear and detailed, even dumbed down if need be so people get it. I'm not talking about changing the message, just the delivery.

 

[Matthanuf06]

The whole concept of a war on terror makes no sense since terror is just a tactic. It'd be like saying WWII was a war against mechanized troops, infantry, etc. But there are certain things that RP can't bring up because the public is so brainwashed with anti-Muslim hysteria. This conflict between what is true and what RP can discuss could be what's causing his message to get muddled.

Okay, call it a war on terrorists. Honestly you have to have your head in the sand to realize that we aren't in a "war" (however you wish to define it) with these extremists. We are without a doubt fighting a distinct group of people. Now how to fight them, how to do it constitutionally, how to win, and understanding what caused this war (blowback) should all be valid discussion points. But the fact that there is a group out there that really wants to kill Americans should not be up for debate, it is fact. Now also thinking if we just implemented a non-interventionalist fp that this group will suddenly become peaceful towards us is a bit pie in the sky as well, but it is possible.

Either way, the American public doesn't think Ron Paul will sufficiently defend the country.

 

[BKom]

I'm all for blaming war-mongering neocons, but Paul did not defend his case well.

Why is it members of Paul's team can defend his foreign policy better than he can?

Because Ron's major fault is that he won't take direction. There are people in this campaign who could help him refine his answers on defense, but he stubbornly refuses to let them. And he's always been this way. Everyone has flaws. Sadly, this is one of Ron's.

 

[doctorfunk]

Because Ron's major fault is that he won't take direction. There are people in this campaign who could help him refine his answers on defense, but he stubbornly refuses to let them. And he's always been this way. Everyone has flaws. Sadly, this is one of Ron's.

What I and many others see is that it may be a big enough flaw to cost him the nomination. He really needs to focus his message without changing anything about his stance. It's like he's not even trying to win. It's disheartening to watch great opportunities slip away when he doesn't get that many on a national stage to begin with.

 

[BKom]

What I and many others see is that it may be a big enough flaw to cost him the nomination. He really needs to focus his message without changing anything about his stance. It's like he's not even trying to win. It's disheartening to watch great opportunities slip away when he doesn't get that many on a national stage to begin with.

It is disheartening. I've supported Ron in three elections now for president. It's time for Ron to take some direction and show that he supports me.

 

[Captain Shays]

I still think that what could bring it all home for Dr Paul is him outlining what he WILL do to keep us safe from whatever threatmight come down the line. A Constitutional foreign policy includes war as well as peace. I for one want a mighty badass war machine that can wipe ANY enemy off the face of the earth if necessary. So does every other American.....I think. We want a badass as our president. Maybe a badass statesman, negotiator, peace maker, diplomate but still a badass no other country dares mess with.

 

[Back In Black]

I still think that what could bring it all home for Dr Paul is him outlining what he WILL do to keep us safe from whatever threatmight come down the line. A Constitutional foreign policy includes war as well as peace. I for one want a mighty badass war machine that can wipe ANY enemy off the face of the earth if necessary. So does every other American.....I think. We want a badass as our president. Maybe a badass statesman, negotiator, peace maker, diplomate but still a badass no other country dares mess with.

Absolutely. And I don't think that's too much to ask for. We need someone who is respected and even feared to some extent. You don't have to be a war monger to be strong militarily. Unfortunately, Paul doesn't have that badass personality.