RP CPAC Speech
Now that I have your attention(and likely your ire) please read on.
The Ideas are great, presentation is far below optimum.
Before going further, I do not really think the speech S**KED, it was a very good speech for the choir and to the politically savvy opposing the choir. The point here is to suggest the ideas presented can be presented in a much more easily digestable fashion for general audiences with very little effort.
Critical Critique of this speech
No one is a greater fan of RP than I am, many equal but none greater. Despite that, I am critical of this speech and RP speeches generally. I am not critical of the ideas, only how those ideas are presented.
1. We are the choir/early adopters, we get it mostly because we have more than average background knowledge of what RP addresses in his comments.
2. The people we hope to reach do not have the same type background we have and have been conditioned to only handle dumbed down, simple messages, pounded repeatedly into their heads.
The ideas RP presents are excellent; I believe they can be delivered more effectively to general audiences by:
a. Continually tying what he says to what the Founders said-people can easily attack RP, they cannot easily attack Washington, Jefferson, Franklin,...
The message is the Constitution, the Founders are the revered crafters of the Constitution and wrote extensively about why it is written the way it is written and how to use what was written. By presenting the message as championing these revered originators of the message, rather than leaving it gray as RPs' message or other recent Republicans message, forces any detractors to attack the Founders and it is more acceptable/adoptable by non-Republicans because the Founders are not modern day party partisans.
b. Introduce a simple concept and support it simply. Repeat that with the top most important concepts. Sound Money/Economy-What that is, what the Founders said about it, why they said it, simple examples TODAY that demonstrate how/why unSound Money is creating huge PERSONAL problems for the average US citizen. Repeat with Non-Intervention, the FED. Three concepts max for a long speech, one for a short speech.
Keep it simple, make it personal to the receiver and make it the message of the originators.
c. RPs' speeches in delivery are different from those that are praised for their delivery-Reagan, Clinton and Obama as recent examples of those that connect well with current audiences. RPs' ideas and concepts are the best; he/we would benefit by making an effort to have those great concepts delivered in a fashion more like the great communicators/connectors of our time. Have a quality speech writer work on refining the message into general audience presentation format and have RP with professional assistance work on mimicking the best message deliverers of our time.
Do the letters FO mean anything to you?
Now that I got your attention - just kidding. But really, until you do at least as much as Ron to promote liberty (and I'm sorry, just posting to a website once in a while doesn't really count for much), then can you really criticize what he does and says to educate and open up neocon-brainwashed eyes? I mean, really.
I like that he's not 'glitzy'; I like that he doesn't seem to .
. . . 'care' about "image". Besides the nice white shirt and tie, he is completely and totally not absorbed in how he appears.
I like that, and I think many honest Americans like that. I am sick of politicians/leaders/speakers who have been groomed to stand a certain way, dress a certain way, talk a certain way, do a certain 'thing' with their hair--
it's disgusting and false.
So--
I have to disagree. Yes, I'm awake, so I would like him anyway. I like the way he gets 'annoyed'. I like the way he gives it to people STRAIGHT.
I wouldn't change Ron Paul for anything--
*we* don't need the pretty men with the forked tongues--
!
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
To paraphrase
To paraphrase a previous remark:
If you know so much, why don't you just do it and become the next spokesman for the Liberty movement.
In the meantime, just admit that Ron Paul, more than anyone else, has proved that he is entitled to be our standard bearer, as-is.
I don't believe that anyone here has what it takes to outdo Ron Paul as our spokesman.
We watched in delight as RP's speech flipped the young Neocon's.
Sitting all around us at CPAC were countless young Neocons. Many were there to hear his message and learn more about our favorite, quirky, yet charismatic congressman. His message was carefully crafted and directed largely at the issue that separates us from most other alleged "Conservatives", a noninterventionist foreign policy. We watched in delight as some that we spoke to before Ron came on, applauded with fervor. He flipped at least two within reach of us. One even said, "I get it now." How many more he touched...only time will tell.
Rob P.
www.RonPaulButtons.com
www.trueworldhistory.info
www.RonPaul2012.com
I agree. Dr. Paul is doing the best he can with his talents
And those talents do not include soundbites and simplyfiying such complicted issues for the masses.
That doesn't mean we should re-package his message in a form that is more easily digestible by those masses.
This is exactly what Thomas Paine did with "Common Sense."
Soundbites are so "80's and 90's" We need this to be patterned more like a web 2.0 style of writing.
Make it VERY simple, without any fluff. This is the same sort of approach used to write for Newspapers. Every "article" should answer the basic questions: Who, What, When, & Where. The "article" should give the basic one line answers first, then revisit each one in more depth, then add answers to "Why" and after another round of more in depth, answer "How" we are going to fix this. (and the "How" needs its own set of "who, what when where & why" from a solution perspective)
This is the way to educate people on complex topics.
You start with something simple, and something they know, and work your way in deeper. Then when you are confident you have given enough information to comprehend, you present the solution in the same fashion.
Preaching to the choir is nice. But if we never learn how to speak to joe-six pack, we will not get far enough to effect any solution.
gmason08
You are obviously from the generation raised on fast food, cartoons and video games.
Its about listening. And America is just beginning to wake-up and HEAR for the first time in a long time.
It's about comprehension. And zombies don't comprehend well.
Bushama has done well waking up cartoon-head zombies with pain and they are beginning to hear and comprehend.
You want sugar on the message.
Ron Paul hasn't done too bad. He's raised up a whole generation of revolutionaries without one bit of sugar.
Wake up gmason08.
"GINO" = Government In Name Only
Your critiques are moronic
Now that I have your attention I don't actually think your critiques are moronic, just poorly presented, and... ALREADY PRACTICED by the good doctor!
Digestibility. His words are a sizzling hot smorgesbord of digestible liberty delights
1. It was supposed to be for the choir, to show the neocons that these concepts draw large support, thus forcing them to take notice and realize the neocon rhetoric is no longer popular.
2. Like you said, the people we're trying to reach need these ideas pounded into their dumbed down heads until they start looking into it for themselves. Keep hammering away Ron!
A. He ties everything that he says to the founders and the constitution.
B. He states everything simply, and then he gives a brief in depth history lesson and offers both the ideal and pragmatic transition solution.
C. As far as getting a speech writer and reading off a teleprompter, are you kidding me?!? Half the draw of Ron is that he is real and genuinly knows what he's talking about. He's quick and can shoot from the hip. You don't need flowery words when you're spitting freedom. Such straightforward truth and honesty is what draws and inspires the people to rally around him and the ideas he's teaching.
I don't think your critique was moronic, just sub optimal. Generally I respect and appreciate your posts, just not this one, so no hard feelings. Could Dr Paul improve his delivery, perhaps, but not in the ways you have suggested. If you don't think Ron Paul is getting the job done and waking the masses sufficiently, by all means get out there and start making national speeches that do, or throw more support behind the people you feel that do. It would be far more effective than this dead end excercise.
Good critical critique of my critique poq
but not great. It is true my communication skills are far from optimum; have said so often including below.
Please re-read what I have written above and my replies to comments. I ask you to do this because I hope it will help clarify the ideas I am attempting to communicate with my less than optimum skill.
Also, please note, I never said anything about RP using a teleprompter. I am not suggesting he ever do so. I am suggesting/recommending that now that he has the attention of larger and more "mainstream" audiences that he consider ordering his comments. The concepts are complicated for many because they have had little or no exposure to those concepts and our opponents strive to muddle the message. I am suggesting that consideration is given to getting a greater impact with each exposure to the message because the exposure to our message for most will be far less than their exposure to the competing messages.
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
Fair enough
I agree a little more structure and ordering wouldn't hurt. However, I believe reading it in any way, be it teleprompter, paper, index cards or hand-o-prompter, would be less effective, especially in that kind of forum and in that political atmosphere. We needed a rousing fiery speech and Ron delivered.
That's not to say he can't deliver a well thought out prepared speech. He does so often on the house floor, great persuasive and thought provoking speaches like the "what if" speech and many others. He is definitely capable of doing It. However I believe at cpac type events he comes across far more powerful and personal when speaking directly to the audience, and not fumbling around with notes or trying to remember talking points.
Also, CPAC is more a pep rally and a popularity contest. It's not so much a place for learning and exploring ideas as it is a weathervane for conservatives to determine the direction of the movement. If the attendance and support at Ron's speech and all the liberty rhetoric being spewed by the Johnny come latlies is any indicator of which way the wind is blowing I would say it's gusting our way. just my opinion, and I thought Ron did great.
I'm sure you're well meaning and want Ron to do the best he can, we all do. Perhaps a little more structuring will cut down on the occasional rambling, sure. Perhaps the difficult concepts could be broken down even more. Maybe throw a few more one liners and zingers for the press and bumper sticker crowd. But overall I think Dr Paul's message and presentation skills are right on. 2 years into following him and watching every video he puts out I still can't get enough. Listening to most other politicians and talking heads, despite/because of their well polished rhetoric and presentation, makes me want to puke. I like Ron's rawness, anything else would be off putting, it's not him. So I wouldn't meddle with it too much. I also don't think it's really fair at his age for us to ask him to improve his speaking delivery. He has his way of doing things and he's doing the best he can.
That's why I think the best solution is just more voices. If Ron Paul can't get through to them someone else with a better approach might. Perhaps Rand will be the one to get through to them, or Debra or Peter or Jake or harris or kokesh etc etc
The message will get through somehow. It's only a matter of time multiplied by our efforts. I don't mean to discourage you or anyone from looking for ways to improve, I just didn't agree with your main post or the headline even if it was just for attention. I'm sure good solutions will be generated from this thead and I take back my comment about it being a "dead end excercise". There's always room for improvement.
A Good Start
While I may disagree with some of your points, I applaud them all thus far. It is good to see you exercising your rhetorical skills. In addition to writing I hope you are also practicing your verbal talents. You may well have hit the mark by referring to your communication skills as "far from optimum" (we all are imperfect and could profit from drill), but to state later that they are "less than optimum" is meaningless. An optimum is neither maximum nor minimum, but a carefully balanced multitude of countervailing factors. I point this out not (just) to show off my expensive education, but to encourage all of my tovarischi to put the best possible (aka, the optimum) effort into our campaign.
Shalom
LXXI BC: Ego sum Spartacus // MDCCCLVII: I am Dred Scott // MCMVL: Ich bin Anne Frank // MMX: Je suis Assange // MMXI: Ik ben von NotHaus
I appreciate your reply
Re: my use of optimum. I mean in the sense that I often fail to achieve an optimum result in my attempts to convey what I wish to convey, the intended idea as it actually exists, to the greatest number of receivers. My encodes often are not well and broadly decoded from what I can ascertain from the feedback loop.
This meaning of OPTIMUM- greatest degree attained or attainable under implied or specified conditions
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
I'm biased but I think his
I'm biased but I think his speaking ability is awe inspiring. I'm sick of polished speakers and image groomed politicians. I hear the message and you're shooting the messenger. PLEASE don't ask him to dumb down his presentation. His audiences are growing. His popularity has never waned. The young will get smart enough to hear (and understand) his message. I'm not so sure if the current collection of Republicans will ever be enlightened. They are so indoctrinated with POLITICAL thinking...yyuucchh! I think Dr. Paul had more than one agenda and target audience for his speech and I hope all heard it, was educated, enlightened, inspired to delve into his points with more savvy. Please don't ask him to change his presentation to suit a platform that he does not represent.People are waking up...maybe not politicians and paid hack commentators but people are. More power to the people.
It was less a speech than a stern "talking to"
I have described it as "Ron Paul laid down the law".
Explore Orthodox Christianity
How well do you think what was said,
in the way it was said, is understandable by a typical sheeple?
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
the sheeple will be shorn--
*they* don't "listen" to speeches anyway--
they just hear what the newscasters tell them they have heard.
I feel sorry for sheeple. I know and love quite a few sheeple--
but I won't ask Ron Paul to change what he does in order to, somehow, reach sheeple who won't be reached until they feel the pain themselves--
some kind of . . . change in their lives that opens their eyes; usually that 'does' it--
I don't want to see Ron Paul change.
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
one thing
I noticed was that he used the term "Republican" way to often.
If You want to win some Dems over, they instantly fall into the We-and-them mode.
Since RP is not really appreciated in the main stream Republican world, he should not associate himself with them too much.
Just my opinion.
Otherwise, I think it is a bit boring since we agree with him,
when I heard RP the first time in 08 it was not at all boring to me.
He knows what he's doing.
The Good Doctor has been successfully exploiting the GOP for decades, and is encouraging CPAC to help him to use Republicans to advance the r3volution.
LXXI BC: Ego sum Spartacus // MDCCCLVII: I am Dred Scott // MCMVL: Ich bin Anne Frank // MMX: Je suis Assange // MMXI: Ik ben von NotHaus
Fact is -
It wasn't a 'speech'.
It was a one-way casual conversation with his supporters, neocons, and passive conservatives.
We KNOW what a Ron Paul speech is like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHfdSi-GDo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vLV4jn8BMU
Used the term commonly used in other posts to describe it but
you make a good point. RP can and does speak from a prepared "speech" at times; sticking to a prepared "script". He does this quite well when he does so. Part of my critical but meant to be constructive criticism critique is that he should consider speaking from a prepared text when addressing a mixed audience. Mixed in this context would be groups that include on or more of the non-choir/current supporters or if it is reasonable to assume his remarks will later be heard by non-supporters.
If your main point is that RP can and does deliver excellently delivered speeches, I agree.
The ideas are always great; I believe they deserve great presentation as the rule. I believe the ideas are so great that the only things holding it back now are the numbers hearing it and having those numbers hear it in a form they can readily understand.
Make sense? If not, I am not surprised as I know from long experience that I am very poor at expressing the ideas I am wishing to express.
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
...yea, that makes sense to
...yea, that makes sense to me. But I'm not sure if a prepared speech would have really fit well at CPAC. While I certainly agree that it wasn't polished in delivery, I think it was fitting for the moment. CPAC is a junction where various conservative paths meet. The casual tone of his speech was effective because had to act like he was amongst friends. This is of high importance because he can no longer look like an outsider to the republican party. He's made his way into the halls of republican history, had a profound impact on the party, and people have begun to accept this. The fact that C4L, YAL, and other affiliated groups have had such a large presence at CPAC this year only reaffirms this fact.
He also spoke from a position of authority. His casual remarks like "believe me.." and "it's OK for a conservative to..." are sure signs that he is in a position to be taken seriously. He also spoke in a soft, yet condemning tone toward the neoconservatives and passive conservatives who let the party slip away without a fight. He is the figure calling them back, as he is the only one who never faultered. He has the Constitution on his side, and the more he speaks with authority - such as "..That is NOT the American tradition!", the more he will sound to the 'non-choir' like the leader you and I know he is.
You should edit your title.
You should edit your title.
...
If
If the poster of this title or anyone else were a better exponent of liberty in our day and age, then he or she would be the leader of our Movement. Ron Paul has risen to the top because is the best there is, overall.
I agree with/support Ron Paul 100% but...
He's not a polished speaker, that's for sure.... Honestly, my fear is that unless you're familiar with the issues he talks about, he just sort of sounds like he's ranting/rambling.
There's very little transition between the topics he chooses to talk about... ultimately, there's a serious lack of structure to his speeches, so that you really can't even call them speeches... they're just rants.
He also seems to stutter/stumble over his words often...
You want a polished speaker...
go listen to Obama.
I want the man with the best ideas and with a record that proves
he will act on those ideas to rise to a position of authority best for the most rapid and lasting implementation of those ideas. If it requires more "polish" to get through to enough people to make the preceding reality then I am for more polish on the ideas.
P.S. I do not want to listen to Obama but I am forced to because he is POTUS. The main reason he is POTUS(and Clinton, Reagan before him) because he is a polished speaker.
We must win converts to gain ultimate victory. If what has so far occurred was all that was needed for ultimate victory we would now be enjoying those fruits.
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
I agree with everything you
I agree with everything you wrote.
If only he had used a teleprompter!!!
I thought it was awesome. Maybe I'm biased, but this guy would mop the floor w/ Obama in a debate. C'mon 2012!!
Follow me on Twitter!
We don't need window
dressing on Dr. Paul...he is perfect as is and has done more for liberty without the car salesman veneer you are looking for than anyone I have ever heard speak.
_____________________________
Defend Liberty, for Liberty
Vote for President Ron Paul 2012
http://ksa4liberty.com
Not looking for car salesman here
more like that very rare teacher who can reach the entire class; not just the ones who live and breathe the subject.
We are not very good judges of how effective the message is being delivered because it is a message we have already completely adopted.
I suspect most of us are pleased because of the points covered,how forcefully and yet invitingly. Great.
Try to imagine yourself as a voter that has little to no knowledge of economics, world affairs, current events, etc.
That would be the typical US voter. Would you have been able to grasp the ideas presented to the degree necessary to realize how crucial they are to your personal wellbeing?
"You are a den of vipers and thieves."
I mean to rout you out!
-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us
-The door is wide open, anything can slither in
Ya know,I've had the same thoughts about
many postings and replies on this site.
I mean that people forget that there are visitors and newcomers here at all times. I feel that is a place of learning AND teaching and that not all
folks have extensive vocabularies and
college degrees. I don't imagine too
many of our forefathers had much book l'ernin', but they were the backbone
and had a few patient heads to explain things to them.
Some people use vocabulary and writing skills to intimidate others and/or to
appear intelligent. There ARE many
intelligent folks that don't communicate well or don't care to.
Anyway,I think messages,points,
teachings and opinions would be more
clearly understood and accepted if the
vocabulary, philosophy, psychology,etc were toned down to average reading and comprehension skills. My use and understanding of vocabulary is decent
but I've seen some words that were unknown to me. A few days ago someone wrote " an example of elementism is"
and I was stumped.
A while back my 17 year old nephew was here and was looking over my shoulder while I was on this site. He's average in most ways- B's in class-into sports but not a jock. He understood
little of some postings and replies.
Most were ok,but the ones that had
real meaning and thought in them went over his head .
I thought--jeez,aren't these "kids" the ones who REALLY need to know what's going on? Some of you will now rail against the educational system or his parents, or me. Those things are moot. He(they) are what we have NOW to work with. They need re-education in many areas. Right NOW we get not all we want from the schools for our kids.
So,I'm doing it myself with my family members and ask that everyone here speak as if to a young or ignorant adult. The young ARE our future !