A Critique of Ron Paul at the SC Republican Debate

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 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/...

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.

and very well written. There are really a few minor adjustments that he needs to make. But he does need to make them.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

...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?

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.

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

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.

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. "

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.

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 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 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.

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

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.

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.

He did great even though they are always trying to make him look incompetent.
He cannot help it if the majority of Americans are ignorant. Right now there are more people outside of the US that support him; what does that tell us.
I cannot stand ignorant people and those who just do not want to know anything, it makes me SICK.
Our government is killing us and the American people are letting them. This is very SAD :(

There have been 2 moments in this campaign that will always be remembered as TIDE TURNER moments.

The first was when Paul took on Guliani and taught him about blowback and got everybody in this nation awake about US foreign policy. This started conversation in this country and it was a GREAT THING.

The second moment was last night when Paul was asked about electability. This was ELECTRIC. All over america people saw the striking contrast before their eyes of this statesman compared to all the wannabees. He made so much sense and was so clear. He brought everyone back to asking the question..."Who is this Ron Paul guy, I like him, he makes sense to me, I think I am going to check him out and vote for him. All these other guys don't seem real to me but that Paul guy does."......

This one comment is the topic of watercooler conversation all over america today. Can you hear it? I certainly can.

I feel about 90% the way you do but I think Ron really nailed this debate. Could he have done better? Sure. But he did well and I was standing up cheering and yelling in my living room for him for finally sticking up for himself and calling out fox on their complete and utter bias.

that Dr. Paul must perform. They are [1] to be a president, and [2] to be a candidate. And the two jobs are not directly related to each other. It is very often observed about candidates that they would make great leaders, if only they could get elected. Isn't that frustrating??? A great leader could be eliminated form selection because he lacks the capability to be a salesman??!! I have always found this to be perplexing, but such is the state of our system - we must work within the context of it.

So, we all are confident that Dr. Paul will make a fine leader - no problem there. We and he need to get down to the business of getting him elected. So how does one go about doing that? All of the ingrediants have already been mentioned throughout this thread.

Practicing and getting coaching with respect to public speeking will go a long way (I have been a toastmasters member for a while and it helps).

Having canned responses to frequently asked questions/attacks is also good. Being prepared is always prudent.

Gearing the responses to the audience is crucial. As the author of this thread illuded to, the response you give must be tailored to the audience. That Austrian Economics gaff is a prime example of what NOT to do, unfortunately.

And something I have posted on before is to expand responses beyond mechanical, step by step solutions. I believe that some of that "speaking from the heart" kind of fluffy stuff will score big with those in the voting public who are not as analytical as perhaps the typical RP supporter is. This, IMHO, is why Barrack is getting such traction currently, and it is just about the ONLY thing giving the Huckster a longer lease in this campaign.

My two worthless deflated cents. Thanks.

Liberty is not free, It must be earned!

Ron Paul is not the best at speaking slowly and patiently and can sometimes come off as confusing, and I'll be the first to admit it. Still, he is good at turning around questions in his favor and using them against those asking the questions. I know not all that you said here was negative, but I wonder how many congressional races you've won? And I wonder how well you'd do in a situation when don't have hours to review the questions but just seconds. I think this does nothing for us. Ron Paul did really well last night and I don't think we need spend hours discussing what he did well and what he didn't.

We should simply applaud Ron Paul for having the courage to enter a controlled, biased, rehearsed venue that is very hostile to him over and over. These debates and MSM interviews have become witch hunts on Paul. The fact that he didn't say anything crazy and hit some homeruns is amazing.

Anyway, the reason Ron Paul did so well this year is because there was another venue: the internet. We MUST keep the internet a place where ideas can be freely expressed.

What we should focus on is replacing the venue so it is no longer controlled. Of course, we can try to manipulate and infiltrate the TV/radio venue, but that will only happen to a certain extent. We must concentrate our efforts on door-to-door selling and the internet. The internet is great for keeping the MSM accountable, organizing people, and for spreading the word.

Also, we need to focus on the political process...namely, delegates and voter fraud.

with your analysis. I get the impression that Dr. Paul has so much to say and realizes not much time to say it, and he ends up rambling a bit and talking too fast.
I don't know how many more debates there are, and without a rise in the polls or some significant voting numbers in the upcoming primaries, I fear Dr. Paul's invites to future debates might be cut off. He only has limited chances to shine, and I hope he has the opportunity to consider your points.
Thanks for a good post.

The man is 72 years old. Now is not the time to criticize his public speaking ability. Have you ever tried to make a point to a person that is completely ignorant? It's pretty much darn near impossible to do without rambling, getting off topic, and giving way more background than a one minute answer will allow.

But, yeah, I agree with your observations for the most part. It seems like sometimes he gets a softball question thrown right over the plate, and the best he can do is bunt. Other times, he's thrown a knuckleball, and he manages to hit a homerun.

I remember a question from a previous debate where he was asked what departments he would eliminate. He didn't mention the IRS and allowed Huckabee to do so to thunderous applause. Paul's answer was the department of education, which is something the average American does not understand. They would incorrectly interpret that as meaning that Ron Paul is anti-education, which we all know is not the case.

Personally, I think he should just be like all of the other candidates and say that he is for change and that the campaign is personal for him.

the best "One Liner" or the best "Sound Byte". But don't discount the intelligence level of many out there who heard Ron Paul's message for the first time. Now is the time when MOST voters start paying attention to what is going on. We have a chance to really expand our support base in the coming weeks.

Regardless of how great the message is, the candidate also needs to be a candidate. Ron Paul is okay, but let's not focus on the message and ignore the vehicle for that message - namely, the candidate. The candidate needs to be clearly and concisely, stay on his point, and present the message through a filter that ensures the most people possible accept it. I know that's tough to think about when you're in a "revolution" mindset, but we need to remember that this is a presidential campaign FIRST. After this campaign ends, we need to look for another person to speak the message next time around, and that person had better be a damn fine candidate,

And watch again. Watch their hands.

"I have found an honest man."

Diogenes of Sinope

Dr. Paul has been hoping that finally now, with 15% of the vote and $23 million dollars, the media will start treating him like a regular candidate. He seems to have been counting on that. It's not going to happen. The more credibility he musters the harder they will ridicule him. All the other candidates in the debate were simply running down the list of AIPAC talking points. They are competing to see who is going to get the war chest money. That is the entire substance of the debate, that's it.

I've been against the Iraq war since 1991 and since that time, everyone in my family has treated me like I am worthy only of contempt and ridicule. That is why I am so committed to Ron Paul. He is the little guy's hero. Ron Paul does not know how to debate. But being a debator and being a good president are two very different skills. I prefer his gentlemanly style to solve our foreign relations issues than the usual US bullying behavior.

We have to realize that the media owners don't want Ron Paul to win. They are going to keep lying and misleading people like they always do.

If there is anything we can do to involve Ron Paul in a real, formal old-fashioned two person debate, with set time limits that are equal and adequate for actually clarifying a position, we should try to set that up.

We have to start defending Ron Paul's name and tell people not to make fun of an honest man standing up and being himself on national TV. He is not a slick politician that tells people what they want to hear. He is a thinker. Quick comebacks are not his style. It is precisely BECAUSE he is so awkward in the spotlight and so egoless about his presidency that we trust him and only him to represent our economic interests when dealing with other heads of state.

...Dr. Paul is more like a statesman than a politician and this whole campaign is more about politics than message. That dude has some stones though for even showing up in what could have been a much more hostile environment...remember an earlier debate, maybe it was September when according to his wife they (Fox) "stacked the deck" in terms of getting an audience to boo him? The other clowns were laughing as one does when they don't get a joke because they are too stupid; they think they should be laughing to show their intelligence but they JUST DON'T GET IT.
But hopefully you will concede that Dr. Paul is making some improvements from debate to debate and seemingly all on his own as he likely doesn't have a "coach." Your analysis is good and hopefully someone at the main campaign has actually heard of thedailypaul.com so that they can convey your thoughts to the man. Have you sent your statement to HQ?