A Critique of Ron Paul at the SC Republican Debate
This is my first post on these forums. I have been a Ron Paul fan for awhile now. I believe that America desperately needs an honest man in the White House.
I just watched the 8 parts of the Republican debate which are posted on this site here http://www.dailypaul.com/node/24381
I then watched the debate in its entirety here: http://researchris.blogspot.com/2007/05/democrat-republican-...
After watching these videos I felt I had to post. I can’t help being left wanting after watching many Ron Paul interviews and this debate pushed me to put down my thoughts.
This is what I thought about Ron Paul’s performance in each clip.
Part 1
Ron Paul was given a question here that is right up his alley yet he doesn’t quite perform as well as he could have:
Q: Do you support a government program to stimulate the economy?
Ron Paul starts off quite nicely by saying that government spending is not the answer. Tax breaks and fiscal conservatism are the way to go. But then he immediately starts down an unclear path talking about the great depression, predicting the recession, a boom period and easy credit, a bubble, and get this; “The importance of Austrian theory of the business cycle”.
It’s too much for 90% of the American public to digest. What needs to be done in that 1:30 is to pick a couple key points and make them clear. Not try to cover the gambit of economic theory.
Part 2
Ron Paul was asked if he would divorce himself from the 9/11 truthers.
Without alienating anyone he said that the 9/11 truth movement has nothing to do with his candidacy and politely asks to get back to the real issues.
He then goes on to talk about how the Republicans have gotten off the path of conservatism.
Clear and well done.
Part 3
The question here is: What if the recent Iranian speed boat incident happens again?
Ron Paul starts off nicely by illustrating the huge disparity between the power of our forces and those of Iran. Great. Then he starts talking about a rush to go to war, the current administration, and basically has another of Ron Paul’s stream of consciousness moments.
At this point he was somewhat rudely told that the other candidates all supported the commander’s passive strategy. I don’t know what happens here but the crowd starts applauding and one of the candidates is cackling into his mic. At the same time Ron Paul could not hear what the presenter was saying. This was unfortunate for Ron Paul and beyond his control. He did his best to recover.
I will say this though, the rambling gave Brett Hume a chance to interrupt Paul. If Ron Paul were making an eloquent point I don’t think Hume would have felt comfortable chiming in there.
Part 4
Q: You have said that the US should not be trying to broker peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Should the President even be there today, sir?
He starts off by saying that the Israelis can take care of themselves and that we may be getting in the way. Sounded good. He then went on to talk about Saddam, Kuwait, economics, the empires of the world ending, foreign aid, and more. He finishes with, Blowback.
I am a big fan Of Ron Paul’s views on our support of Israel. That Israel is capable of standing on its own two feet is right on. That the US is getting in the way is right on. That Israel would be more motivated to solve their problems if they weren’t on our nipple is right on. So why not just stick to these points. They are all clearly related and the expounding of these ideas would make a great minute and a half talking point. Instead Ron Paul kind of rambles on.
Part 5
Here McCain makes a joke about Burkas and one-way tickets with respect to al qaeda, and Ron Paul replies.
Ron Paul starts talking about Saddam, arming Sunnis then he goes into war in Afghanistan then that the war is not over. More rambling, IMO.
What Ron Paul needs to do here is say something like, “With all due respect to Senator McCain, I do not believe that this is a laughing matter. This is about lives. What you need to understand, Senator, is that I’m not talking about trading with al qaeda. I’m talking about not invading countries and not building military bases in their back yards. This idea not only avoids stirring up the hornets’ nest but also prevents that nest from ever developing.”
Paul tries to pull out the recent McCain gaff of “we should be there for 100 years”. In my opinion this was a waste of a good attack. He insinuates that McCain made this gaff but doesn’t really state it as fact. He said “he thinks” rather than “he said”.
Part 6
This is a 30-second response to Huckbee saying he would support Israel as an ally.
Paul again, as in part 4, makes some good points. But he keep rambling. He needs some time awareness. He needs to know that he has one minute to respond. Within that one minute one needs to have a start, middle, and end. You can’t just keep saying whatever comes to mind (whether it’s true or not).
Part 7
The question is basically, “Do you have any electability?”
The question was rudely asked and Ron Paul slapped them good.
Ron Paul brilliantly doesn’t let Fox news off the hook for asking the question. When he replies to them he lets them know that they are responsible for suggesting that someone who believes in the constitution, conservatism, and civil liberties is not electable.
After sticking it to Fox he then moves on to what I consider the highlight of the debate. He talks about borrowing money from China, giving it to a dictator (Musharraf), then going to war for democracy.
The reason this was so brilliant is that it was conveyed very logically, very clearly, and quite patiently. He had the audience captivated for the 15 seconds that it took him to clearly spell out the absurdity of our foreign policy. It ended with an eruption of applause.
But then he makes the usual Ron Paul mistakes. Just as the applause start to die down he starts talking quickly, slurring a word here or there and getting off track. He has 15 seconds left and he brings up the idea of cutting back on the department of education.
This pisses me off because it’s ridiculous. You just hit a home run and now you are going to trip over the bases. The American people DO NOT think that cutting the Department of Education is a good thing. Go do a poll and you will likely find that if you asked Americans about cutting the Department of Education’s budget, 90% of them would think that it’s a BAD thing.
If you want to convince the American people that it is a good thing then you better make sure you have more than 15 seconds to do so. You better make sure that you have a captivated audience so that you can outline the idea of letting individual states decide what to do about education. You better have time to illustrate that with more money in each individual’s pocket he or she will have the freedom to decide what is best for his or her child. What you DO NOT do is muddy the waters after just making such an amazing crystal clear point.
I have seen Ron Paul do this on countless other occasions. He has to realize that his views are revolutionary and as such they require careful presentation.
Part 8
Q: Is denying the path to citizenship for people now in the country illegally important enough that Republicans are willing to concede the Hispanic vote to Democrats in November?”
Ron Paul does a pretty good job here. He says “follow the law”. He says that we encourage illegals to come here. Then he brings it back to Iraq (smart move) by saying that our border guards are over there.
I thought that his answer could have been a bit clearer. He could have had an answer that sounded more like a plan rather than a general observation (no matter how accurate that observation was).
Almost there, but missing a major point.
It was nice to see Dr. Paul take the gloves come off some, but the answers he gave had one small problem: too long. These debates are Short-Attention-Apan Theater, and his answers should reflect that. WE know what he's referring to, but others do not. He needs to break out the KISS principle.
As for the other candidates, he needs to call them out and HUMILIATE THEM in front of everybody. If Judy Annie or Insane McCain start laughing at him, he needs to stop what he's saying, turn to them, and ask them, "Are you done acting like a petulant child?" If the moderators ask a stupid question, he needs to tell them it's a stupid question. He needs to go after those punks on their biases and their records, and put them into their places as the boys amongst the MAN.
That said, here are the little boys' weak spots:
Judy Annie: NYFD, 9/11, the command center, and the radios. Plus the free speech zones from the 2004 convention.
McCain: Amnesty, McCain-Feingold, Hundred-Years-War in Iraq
Huckabee: Running for President, not Preacher, Arkansas Taxes, pardons, and record.
Romney: Record in MA as governor, trustability
Thompson: playing a role, lobbyist past, insider
He needs to hit their weak spots and HARD.
He also needs to change the answers to the theme of "When I'm elected President, I'll..." and present his solutions to the problems.
And of course, it's the economy, stupid!
"Welcome to 2008: The Year of Ron Paul!"
I hope HQ reads these good Monday Morning Quarterback Threads
I have seen a number of great coach sessions like this today regarding last night's debate.
RP hit a few home runs last night, especially that borrow from China line which is becoming a classic of his that gets better with practice.
These threads are constructive criticism designed to inspire another couple of home runs in the next debate.
Here is my attempt at advice, entitled "How to Convert a Pro-War Republican in Minutes":
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/24702#comment-208509
NIce
That's actually some very practical information.
julie annie is clever
Julie annie is clever in his attempt to put words into Ron Paul's mouth.
JA "I don't believe Israel is the US's stepchild"
This has the implication that Ron Paul called Israel, our stepchild, which obviously isn't true, but less observant viewers will miss this point. JA also did
Ron Paul should have asked to responded with something like "let me be clear, I want to respect Israel's sovernty. Do you Julie Annie believe we should tell Israel when, where, and with how much force they should defend themselves or should we let them decide for themselves?
Another opportunity I would have loved to of seen Ron Paul pounce on was with Huckabee.
"Governor, you claim to have improved your schools in your state, which I'll take you at your word that you did. I have two questions for you. One, did the federal government help you in any way? and two, do you believe the federal government should interfere with governor's trying to improve their state's schools, or whether local control for improvement is a better way to go?"
Note to others: We only play armchair quarterback it hopes to improve RP's performance in the future, not to criticize him.
Interesting
"Julie annie is clever in his attempt to put words into Ron Paul's mouth."
I wonder if that is a trick from Julie Annie's prosecuter days. Make a statement as if you heard something that wasn't said to create the impression the opponent said something they didn't. Pretty slick.
On the mark again
and very well written. There are really a few minor adjustments that he needs to make. But he does need to make them.
Good observations
Compared to recent debates, Dr. Paul expressed his points more clearly, was more assertive, and got into the thick of the debate (he actually made the highlights), but his instinct to ramble keeps cropping up and causes people to tune out.
This is not just an issue in debates, it happens in interviews and in stump speeches too.
al qaeda wants the US in Iraq
I think Ron Paul is missing a chance by not bring this up. He can not afford to look week on terrorism.
Al Qaeda is using economic warfare to try and bring down our great nation. They want us to stay indefinitely to bankrupt us. If Al Qaeda trumpets victory when we leave, it is only propaganda. Withdrawing our forces from Iraq would be a devastating blow to their cause.
Thanks
Well I am certainly glad that I decided to write this up today (my first post here). So many interesting points have been brought up and it's always nice to hear people appreciate an idea, especially when they themselves have something to add in improvement.
A feeling I got while reading the posts on this thread is that we are really talking about two things, a message, a mode of delivery. Ron Paul is a humble man and whenever he is asked about his popularity he always says it's the message. He has known for years that this is an important message and he must be incredibly excited that the masses are catching on to that message. I would guess that everyone here agrees with the message.
Then we have the delivery of that message, and in particular the vessel that has carried it all this time, Ron Paul. Is he the perfect vessel? Well what is a "perfect vessel"?
Is it a tall, young, good-looking man who charms the pants off of everyone and eloquently has his listeners eating from the bowl of change? Actually, no. That would be hard to believe.
The perfect vessel is actually more likely a grandfather obstetrician who has served in the military, has perhaps the most consistent voting record in congress, believes what he says and says what he believes. And he says these things in such a way that the masses understand the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments. He is able to appeal to their common sense.
Ron Paul doesn't actually have far to go.
MrTom Ron Paul won this
MrTom
Ron Paul won this debate and if he stumbled along the way or allowed his justifiable anger and frustration to trip him up on a detail or two who could not relate? which other candidate got questions from the far left field? His recoveries were spellbinding.
Who else tied econmics to the insane international policies of the corporate controlled Bush administration, borrow from China? give to dictator in Pakistan? then go to war?
Ron Paul offers us meat and potatos and a bowl of fruit, the corporate candidates offer a tread mill with a dangling apple on a string. Thank god he's not just another polished politician.
MrTom
Little off topic...
Okay, I realize this is a little off topic but I believe it is related to the spirit of this post. I think I've finally figured out the problem... why people aren't flocking to Dr. Paul in huge numbers.
I watched the entire Faux post debate charade and not once... NOT ONCE... while critiqing the performance of the candidates did they discuss the validity or logical nature of any of their viewpoints. They talk about the debate like it was a play! This includes the infamous Frank and his gaggle of "informed Republican voters."
Watch it for yourself... ridiculous. A lot of these Americans are lucky to have somebody like Dr. Paul fighting for their freedoms and our country's sanity... even though it is apparently unappreciated.
NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.
hahahahahaha
Even if I agreee with "something" in your post...
I don't know who you are... you are no one important... you are not the debate king..
FACT IS RON WAS RIGHT LAST NIGHT...
100% right
This may be true but...
...somehow you and I discovered Ron Paul in spite of these 'short-comings.' Should we not assume that others are not as smart as us to see that he's saying something different than the others - something that seems to make sense?
We're all entitled to our opinions, but Ron Paul is Ron Paul. I sometimes think we're way too critical of him, HQ, etc. They've admitted that they're not perfect in their strategies. And while how it's presented matters, it's supposed to be about the message.
And who has a better message?
Yes, we discovered Paul
Yes, we discoved Paul. But Ron sounded far better in the first debates than these latter ones.
Now I think Ron assumes the people know his message. He should not.
Also, for the general public, he needs to dumb things down.
C'mon...Austrian economic policy?
Are ya kidding me?
What normal person who casually follows politics is that going to impact?
NO ONE.
Ron Paul is completely UNPOLISHED
Ron doesn't need to be "polished" like Romney. However we've heard better answers in the past to a lot of these questions.
"I" know what he's talking about because I've seen 500 speeches from Ron Paul by now. But he doesn't need to get MY vote.
He needs to persuade others. And the way he answered last night was all over the map in my opinion. So he needs to be COACHED as how to answer these questions so it doesn't appear to be rampbling. A debate isn't trying to cram as much information as you can in an answer. It is to clearly, and concisely state your position.
Ron tries to cram too much and then he can tend to go off on a tangent. He needs to PRACTICE DEBATE against someone. Until his answers come out CLEAR and CONCISE.
Wow
500 speeches? Mind elaborating on the history of that? You must have followed him for awhile.
It's just another argument as to why
It's just another reason why the Chairman, Kent Snyder and Lew Moore, campaign manager, needs to be replaced.
Their teary eyed love for Ron is getting in the way of subjectively helping him win the nomination.
Do they not believe in constructive criticism?
I do not understand why they can not hire an outside consultant for Ron Paul.
good, helpful feedback
In Dr. Paul's most recent e-mail he says that he is glad to hear ideas from supporters. Marlz' constructive feedback is respectful and helpful. Others have also offered strong support of this nature that strengthens Dr. Paul's campaign skills with constructive critique.
Gwen Kraft
Gwen Kraft
"Personal Liberty & Personal Responsibility" -- Dr. Ron Paul
"A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom." -- Bob Dylan
Needs a debate coach.
I think he needs a (better) debate coach. His debating skills have always been his achille's heel. He takes his excellent stump speech and tries to summarize a five minute point into thirty seconds, which doesn't work. He's gotten better, but we pick him for his message and principles, not his political skills.
His big problem in the debates is that he always trys to tie everything back to his core issue of economics. If he manages a quick, good answer without econ, he still tacks it on at the end. It's what makes him seem like he's crazy and rambling. Econ is the glue that ties his policies together, he needs to stop using it as paint.
Does he need a hearing aid? It seems like he's often at a loss to hear people speak over applause.
--
Here's how I think he should have answered some of the questions (I'll try to keep my own views out).
1 Q: Do you support a government program to stimulate the economy?
A: The best way to stimulate the economy is to stop giving out so much of our money to foreign countries. Develop domestically produced renewable energy sources, and stop footing the entire bill for the world's defense. After we do that we can try to get rid of all the pencil-pusher jobs in Washington.
2 Q: Ron Paul was asked if he would divorce himself from the 9/11 truthers.
A: The delusional 911 truthers support me because they know I would expose anyone in the government who was complicit, but I DO NOT BELIEVE that anyone in our government aided in those attacks. But these truthers are Americans who earned their money fairly, and I'll happily take their donations.
3 Q: What if the recent Iranian speed boat incident happens again?
A: The commanders handled everything fine. If the Iranians actually fire on us or get too close, then I believe the Navy's chainguns have a 'puree' setting. But I'm not going to start WW3 just because five speedboats are taunting our billion dollar destroyer. Some in Washington are itching for any excuse to invade Iran, I am not.
4 Q: You have said that the US should not be trying to broker peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Should the President even be there today, sir?
A: We should stop propping up Israel's enemies with three times the cash that we send to Israel, who we should also stop propping up. Because we don't need to. They have air superiority and hundreds of nuclear weapons that could wipe out the entire middle east in a few hours. The only reason the president is there is because we require both sides to work through us instead of letting them do it themselves. The whole thing is against our best interests because we spend our money to position ourselves right between their firing lines.
7 Q: Do you have any electability?
A: I'm the most conservative person here. I've won more straw polls across the nation than anyone here. I'm at the top of every online poll. I raised 19.5 million dollars last quarter, which is more than anyone else here and almost as much as Hillary Clinton. My only competition is Mitt who can buy the election by writing fifty more ten million dollar checks to his own campaign. [Ron needs to be willing to go on the offense]
8 Q: Is denying the path to citizenship for people now in the country illegally important enough that Republicans are willing to concede the Hispanic vote to Democrats in November?”
[I think I disagree with his (unclear) position on immigration so the following is what *I* think we should be doing about illegal immigration.]
We should make illegals get into the same line for citizenship as everyone else. But the existing demand for their labor proves that we need to have a massive guest worker program for Mexicans. One that lets them come work and go home as they please, but requires them to return to Mexico at least once a year. One that requires them to pay the same income taxes as everyone else. One that requires them to identify themselves as they come in the front door instead of jumping over the fence. One that requires them to use their own identity. One that will allow us to biometrically screen out the criminals that we don't want in our country. One that allow us to treat Mexicans as human beings instead of dogs begging for scraps at our dinner table. [Here's where I let Ron Paul be true to himself] But we also need to recognize that part of the reason they want to come is because we give out a bit too much free stuff. Free school, free healthcare, subsidized food and housing. As long as this continues to be a country where you can barely work and still live comfortably, we're going to have a long line of freeloaders trying to get in. And we do want more hardworking immigrants like the ones who built this country, but we don't want to swell the ranks with more welfare recipients.
Awesome
Totally awesome.
marlz critique
Here's a copy of the email I sent as promised (with the site name deleted for fear of increasing their traffic beyond capacity). I hope it will get passed along.
"Here is a link to an unusually well-thought-out and well-expressed critique. I feel it is highly worthy of attention from the RP campaign. I’m not assuming that there is a lack of attention to this subject already ongoing at the highest levels of the campaign, but this critique stands out for its attention to detail and especially for its high level of articulation and what in my opinion are the accuracy of its observations and cogency of its suggestions. This is the grassroots at its best. I know * has a special relationship to Dr. Paul, and hope you will think this post and its points especially worth calling to his attention. "
He may not be polished like Romney...
but more importantly, he is authentic and I BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS.
He's a statesman, the others are politicians.
I want someone with a brain to run this country... look at what we've got now.
R3VOLUTION - Secret Crowds
Ron Paul is a Hero
Ron Paul is who he is, and he is a hero for putting himself out there like he has. Think about it. He could've spent the last year chilling with his awesome family back in TX. Instead, this 72 year old man has endured a lot in an effort to save this great country. He is a hero.
Think about this. Goldwater Sr. was abrasive and perceived as arrogant, and he was easily pigeon holed by his enemies as an extremist. Ronald Reagan became a Republican thanks to Barry Goldwater Sr, and revolutionized the Republican Party espousing many of the same ideals.
There is a young Ronald Reagan type out there right now listening to Ron Paul. Someone with the charisma and persona of Reagan, but the principles and knowledge of Ron Paul. If Ron Paul doesn't win the presidency this year, he wins anyway by laying the groundwork for freedom. We are a part of that rEVOLution, and Ron Paul is the spark that got it going!
You can critique Dr. Paul
You can critique Dr. Paul until the cows come home. He's still easily the best debater I have ever seen. The way he makes his opponents look like idiots is priceless.
I agree
I agree with about 90% of what you have noticed. We are all human, Ron Paul included. He has his faults, and they will be noticed by all of us. The other candidates have their faults too. And when I weigh all the candidates I'm struck by two things, Pauls faults are far fewer and far less severe than the others, and his strengths are far greater that the other candidates.
Hammer the Top 3 Issues on a Personal Level
As I have said before, we need the top 3 issues addressed on a personal level.
1. Terrorism / Iraq - What is RP's position and how will it affect me?
2. Economy - What is RP's position and how will it affect me?
3. Health Care - What is RP's position and how will it affect me?
That's it. Direct and to the point.
Hammer the top 3.
btw Ron Paul Rocks!
Truth always wins
"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe
"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe
Ron Paul needs to improve on presentation
I love Ron Paul, and he needs to do some work on his presentation. Ron Paul does not need to give weak sound bytes, but must speak strongly, firmly, and clearly. Mitt Romney is an utter idiot in my opinion, not to mention corporate warmonger fascist cult member, but MItt Romney communicates Mitt Romney's stupid ideas very clearly and eloquently. Ron Paul's ideas are brilliant, but Ron Paul sputters his ideas out in an off kilter, waivering tone of voice that makes Ron Paul seem unsure and unstable.
Remember though also, that it is Ron Paul versus the military industrial welfare corporate fascist state, whereas all of the other candidates have the corporate fascist state on their side. Because the media is constantly trying to make Ron Paul look bad rather than being in Ron Paul's corner, Ron Paul has a much much tougher row to hoe. However, I still believe Ron Paul could do a better job of clearly communicating his brilliant ideas. Having said all this, Ron Paul may not be 100% perfect, but he is still the closest thing to perfect we have ever seen in a presidential candidate during our lifetime. I doubt anyone can realistically disagree with that. I mean has there ever been a candidate with ideas greater than Ron Paul since Thomas Jefferson himself? I think not. So I think we ought to congratulate Ron Paul, for being the brilliant and honest person that he is.
marlz critique of Ron Paul
Thank you so much for the thoughtfulness and clarity of your critique and for the effort and time you put into your analysis. Also, and not least important, for the level of civil discourse you maintain throughout your replies, which is absolutely crucial if our movement is going to hold together. I don't know if it will have an effect, but I am going to forward a link to your critique to a blog where I have some reason to think the blogger has a close personal connection to Dr. Paul. It deserves to be heard at the highest levels of the campaign.
Well, thank you very much
Thanks for the nice comments and also for forwarding this on.
Also
If anyone has tried to contact me or would like to contact me via this site, I just turned the contact function on.
Thanks