Our Boy Needs A speech writer!!

but an analysis of what is working in the campaign and what isn't.

Not working: debates, advertising, publicity

working: $$, grassroots support, new media

Dr. Paul truly needs someone to help him polish up what he says during the debates. His personal convistions are never mentioned and the constant reference to "sound money", while relevant, is not getting the job done.
The messages of the advertising (I think obviously) are not the right ones nor are they framed correctly. Voters are consumers and need to be presented a clear choice.

The campaign should have hired a PR firm, as many suggested, months ago. The old media is there to be manipulated and used.

I almost want to flag this topic as offensive...

But you all want him to sound more like a politician? I'm about 95% sure that the movement has seen this much growth because he doesn't sound like a scriptted phony. Even when Huckabee says something that sounds similar to Dr. Paul's ideas (have you noticed that everyone is starting to use some of his ideas?) he comes across as a politician...gee whiz, Romney really sounds like a politician. Remember when Romney's speech writers were whispering in his earpiece during one of the last debates? Would you really like Dr. Paul to start relying on others to tell him what to say? The Founding Fathers would totally disagree with you all about a speech writer. Jefferson would probably challenge you all to a duel. Trust me, Dr. Paul knows exactly what he's doing.

one of his biggest assets is the fact that he doesn't sound like a politician. i'm sure it's why most of us started listening to him in the first place. and if you read the article from the mtv Q&A last night, a mccain supporter mentions how floored he was by the honesty and straight forward tone ron paul uses. that he speaks the truth without fear of not winning the popular position. that he doesn't sound like a sell-out like the rest of the field - dem or repub.

true, he doesn't get in many media "worthy" soundbites, save for the "it's silly" comment from the cnn debate. but ron paul is clearly not for sale. a speechwriter may only serve to undermine his honesty.

Why doesn't Ron Paul talk about his history more often?

In the last CA debate, when Romney was talking about his business experience and McCain was talking about his military experience, why didn't Paul talk about HIS time serving on House financial commities and the Air Force?

When talking about foreign policy, why hasn't he empasized that he has actually served our military IN Ethiopia, TURKEY, SOUTH KOREA, and IRAN?

A month-and-a-half ago everyone seemed to be talking about bombing Iran, yet I'm pretty sure Paul's the only one who's actually BEEN there. On top of that, Paul gets like three times as many donations from soldiers as McCain does, yet I've only heard him mention this twice.

When Huckabee woos the hearts of values voters, why doesn't Paul remind the American people that he grew up Lutheran and almost became a minister in that church, and that he is now currently a Baptist. Let's also not forget he's just celebrated his 51st wedding anniversery and he was recently endorsed by the former Jane Roe.

And why is Paul so pro-life? He's an OB/GYN! He's a doctor and knows more about the health care system than any candidate in either major party!

(Note: I've also posted this at http://www.dailypaul.com/node/33254)

Tuesday morning.
An audience of thousands.
Somewhere in America.
Softly over speakers, the unmistakable theme to the movie braveheart plays, sending chills of warmth down a cold audience.
Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul takes the stage.

"Men and women of America, my brothers and sisters.
I see in your eyes the same fear that would rip the heart from me.
Fear of oppressive taxation, burdensome regulation, and intrusive government in your private matters. Fear your children may be ripped from their mothers breast in the middle of the night and indocrinated in federal run schools. Fear that your most sensitive overtures of love, passion, devotion will be monitered by the eye of the empire in the name of security. Fear that you will die alone, unloved by those you cherished, torn from all sense of familial bond by the cold calculations of government.
Left to rot subsisting on the scraps thrown from the table of your globalist masters. Indeed this day may come,...BUT IT IS NOT THIS DAY, An hour of despair when we will betray the constitution and the memory of the founders, bowing before the oppressive feet of the federal government. BUT IT IS NOT THIS DAY! This day, WE FIGHT! For all that you would hold precious in this existance,faith, hope, love, FREEDOM! I BID YOU STAND! LOVERS OF LIBERTY!

I guess I'm on both sides of the fence on this issue.

For those who would say "Leave him be, he speaks from the heart and hits you in the gut", I would have to agree.

But there is a majority in this country who are already under the impression that Dr Paul is on the fringe of crazy. It's not due to his ability to deliver a message - it's in their INABILITY to accept it.

He speaks on the economic situation in this country at every opportunity - but he does it with terminology that the average citizen can't understand. It sounds like jibberish to them.

Tell the average person that the decline in the dollar is due to "The improper and illegal course of the federal reserve in it's continued insistance on creating money out of thin air" and you may as well be saying "Blah blah blah blah blabbady blah blah".

They don't get it. They dont understand it. They can't comprehend what is being said, because they dont want the technical answers - they want the easy ones.

To many of us, what RP says when he speaks is easy to understand. That is mostly because we are informed enough to understand it, we are intelligent enough to comprehend what it means, and we are not interested in listening to the typical "I'm the best candidate because everyone gets free milk and cookies" rhetoric that comes from other candidates.

The 'people' have been groomed to expect, and demand, simple answers to any question. They sit in their homes and offices, and when the topic of politics comes up they want it straight, to the point, without any need for research or grabbing a dictionary - and they want it NOW.

When RP speaks, he doesn't project the answers to those who dont understand the finer points of economics, foreign policy or freedom.

To many people 'freedom' means "I get to live in the United States, pay my taxes, and not worry about going to jail if I follow the rules".

They dont have the desire, or care, to investigate the possibilities that what they consider 'freedom' isn't what they truly deserve.

Other candidates have writers working for them that know exactly what the people want to hear. Even if the words coming from the candidates mouths are total fabrications, lies or severely stretched truths, the people respond to those words.

Other candidates talk about how they are going to give every citizen more money, how they are going to fix the dollar, how they are going to end the war, how they are going to fix healthcare. But they dont explain how they intend to do this... or, when they do 'explain' it, they talk about how much money they'll throw at the problem - and leave that as the explanation, without following up on how they plan to get that money.

RP's greatest comment thus far, in my opinion, was about foreign policy. He stated that we need to stay out of other country's business because all that does is anger them, cause them to want to fight against us, and that brings terrorism".

That wasn't his exact words, but that's basically what he said - and it was easy for the average person to understand what he meant.

When he is asked a question about the war, and starts a rant on the economy, the average person looks at it like he is changing the subject.

WE know he isn't changing the subject - but Mr & Mrs undecided voter don't hear 'war fix', they hear 'economy', and that's not what was asked.

I've witnessed it myself. Watching people watch or listen to Dr Paul speak - they lose track of what he's talking about, they dont understand why he's talking about the economy and not 'answering the question' about foreign policy. They dont understand why he is discussing the federal reserve and eliminating income taxes, when the question was about health care.

The average person is incapable of 'connecting the dots', so to speak. They want the answer to the question, short, sweet, and without a need for deep thought to figure out whether the answer was sufficient.

WE, those of us already committed to this Revolution, do not need to be convinced. If we did, we wouldn't be here.

Those out there who still dont know who they'll vote for - or if they'll vote at all - get their info from MSM which, as we know, doesn't exactly give Dr Paul equal time to get his message out to those people who ONLY get their information from MSM.

So, in my opinion, a speechwriter might be exactly what Dr Paul needs.
For those short interviews and the 'few and far between' opportunities that he is given 20 or 30 seconds of MSM air time - he needs to be able to say something that hits home, is easy to understand, and gets the idea planted in the heads of the uncommitted.

Only that will cause people to want to learn more. They'll go to the internet, or wherever they find their information, and start to look up more information on Dr Paul. That's when they can be hooked and reeled in with the longer 'versions' of the message.

Trying to use the obvious, yet 'off mainstream' bits of information wont get these people involved, or even interested. THey've been told Dr Paul is a kook, a crazy, a fanatic, a leader of loonies.. so that's what they expect to see.

If, for a change, they could see him for the brief moments he appears in MSM as someone with sound ideas that don't need a reference library to understand, they might just give him a chance to make his case.

But, thats my opinion. He doesn't need to 'sell' us.. we're sold. It's all those 'buyers' out there that aren't planning to spend their vote at all, who still believe an election is choosing between the lesser of two evils, who need to be reached.

My opinioin, of course.
CF

in front of his supporters but his responses to the questions by the media during the debates often fail to deliver his message. The basic reason for that is that he continues to regard the duty of speaking his mind as more important than the necessity of communicating what is going on in his mind.

Some observations which might be useful for him.

1. Earlier it seemed he was always trying to convince the interviewer. That was too high a goal for the limited airtime that he got. Now he tries to summarize all his beliefs in the answer to any question. That takes a lot of time, too many 'threads' are started but none gets communicated. It might be OK when he is speaking to older folk but I was shocked to see that he tried to do the same thing with the MTV audience!. To communicate to the younger folk ( who are not already his supporters) he has to assume the role of a wise teacher and leader.

Specifically he needs to appreciate that:

a. There is a huge difference between the attention span of his generation and the current one. It has shortened considerably.
b. Years of standardized didactics have taught people to think in ‘points’ or ‘bullets’, not in paragraphs. Long unpunctuated sentences are a complete no no.

The interviewer’s question should be used as a cue to speak to the audience. The audience cannot be convinced in a 30 seconds or even 10 minutes. The audience can though be informed and attracted. To do that you should simply state his conclusions/positions in response to the first question. He can then give the justification in the form of points in favor of his argument.

If he wants to address a different question then he can go on a tangent (like McWar and everyone else does) but then stick to the topic he has arrived at and not change course within the sentence by using 'but' and 'no'.

Some other observations:

1. People do not appreciate the nuances of these issues:

a. The difference between his individual positions on issues and powers as President. They believe that whatever he believes in will happen the day he becomes President.

b. What is meant by a strict constitutionalist. Does it mean that only the original constitution is valid or you can only do things that are sanctioned by the constitution (which can be amended). Even Tim Russert was not clear on that.

c. "Printing money": I am amazed that he uses those words in every answer to any question that he is asked but chooses to ignore adding "not backed by anything".

Anyways, I am sure people on this forum will say that this is a negative approach and not regard it as constructive criticism. "We need to ignore the negatives and concentrate on the positives", much in the same 'moral' way the republican party defends Bush.