*Ron Paul’s failings show superficiality of race*
Posted February 15th, 2008 by xciteful
output
Ron Paul’s failings show superficiality of race
LANCE McNEIL
Contributor
By now, almost every American has heard of Congressman Ron Paul. Widely known as “Dr. No” for his longstanding practice as an OB-GYN and his refusal to vote for legislation unless it is expressly permitted by the Constitution, Paul has attracted a dedicated mass.
Few will argue that the Republican Party has fallen on hard times and all but the most committed Republicans will concede that George W. Bush’s presidency has, in many respects, been thoroughly disappointing. Many frustrated Republicans who have been recently experiencing a mild case of disillusionment with their party were likely pleasantly surprised when they learned of Paul’s unique blend of libertarian and conservative ideals.
For conservatives nationwide, Bush’s presidency has been anything but conservative: during it, we have seen a 23 percent increase in domestic discretionary spending, participation in an undeclared war costing taxpayers nearly $2 billion a week according to a 2006 Congressional analysis, and countless other big government adventures. What was once the party of limited government and protection of individual liberties has slowly drifted from its distinctive time-honored principles into uncharted territory. Some, likely hardcore Libertarians, will even go so far to say that the past eight years have been an unmitigated disaster.
Paul offers these disenfranchised voters an enticing alternative. Refreshingly respectful of the Constitution and the federal government’s intended role in the lives of its citizenry, Paul has largely earned his fame because he communicates steadfastness and restraint in a day and age in which inconsistency and compromised principles are becoming the norm in politics.
They also point to his integrity as reason enough to support him. Paul, for example, refuses to enroll in the federal pension plan that every member of Congress is entitled to. Out of 535 members of Congress, Paul is the only to decline his participation in this program. Many of these 535 share his limited government beliefs and have respectable conservative records, but as Paul has shown, it is one thing to preach about consistent conservative ideals but quite another to actually live them.
His biggest fans are seemingly attracted to the fact that he is unscripted and unpolished. At times, he is prone to looking disheveled; early in his campaign he was seen as reactive. Some Democrats admire Paul’s courage in distancing himself from the original 12 candidates in 2007’s Republican presidential debates but still consider him a political laughingstock. Meanwhile, some Republicans have voiced their contempt for Paul by calling him a “crazy old man,” “simply nuts” and “totally unpresidential.”
The first two comments obviously indicate narrow-minded naiveté about Paul, but the last one is seemingly legitimate. If Paul is indeed thoroughly unpresidential, the question to ask is, why?
More than anything else, the reason why Paul is deemed “unpresidential” is not because of his credentials or personal qualities. He owns an M.D. from Duke Medical School, is a distinguished Air Force veteran, and is a longstanding and respected member of Congress. His writings on monetary policy and economics suggest an understanding of these subjects that rival that of PhD candidate. But unfortunately, despite these scarce talents, Paul will never be considered presidential material by the masses until he stops doing precisely what has made him such a hit with his small rabid following.
People respect and appreciate honesty especially when they’d like to hear otherwise. I do not accuse any other candidates of dishonesty. Paul, however, has done the best at frankly communicating to the American public — or to those willing to listen, anyways — the state of our nation.
Ask any Paul fan why they like him and you’re bound to hear about his insistence on discussing and tackling seemingly forgotten issues. Sexy issues for political debate obviously include the ongoing Iraq War, our anemic economy, and illegal immigration. Paul never shrugs off these looming problems. What differentiates him from other candidates is his willingness to bring up uncomfortable truths about the problems facing America, such as the grim facts about our military involvement in Iraq and the importance of addressing monetary policy when discussing economics.
I had the honor of serving as Paul’s media sign holder immediately after the Republican presidential debates on Jan. 30, and had the opportunity to ask him a few questions. In particular, I commented that he was rarely given an opportunity to speak earlier that evening, which was really a glorified tennis match between John McCain and Mitt Romney. Perhaps his answer to my comment best sums up why some voters simply cannot get behind him: some people, he said, simply don’t want to hear the truth.
To an extent, Paul’s assertion that some voters do not want to hear the truth is quite true. But perhaps more precisely, what many voters want to hear is a more aspirational version of the truth. Frank Luntz, the legendary political communications guru and author of “Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear,” has cited that most people want a president to be self-defined and aspirational. Paul is undoubtedly self-defined, but is he aspirational? No — or at least it seems that way.
Though his campaign slogan of “Hope For America” is perhaps as aspirational as you can get, Paul’s problem is that he frames his goals negatively. He has an excellent command of the issues confronting America, but is prone to emphasizing the stark negative consequences of our domestic and foreign policies instead of touting the rewards we would reap if we changed our ways.
Paul can help his case for the presidency by framing his ideas more positively and by communicating his future goals more than listing the current problems plaguing our country. While many politicians seemingly need to become less trite, more realistic, and more focused on problem-solving, it seems to me that Paul would reach more voters by communicating his policy stances in a more aspirational manner, perhaps by beefing up his “Prescription for Prosperity” campaign or by expanding it to a comprehensive “Prescription For America.”
But back to our responsibility as voters: until the American public redefines its concept of the word “presidential” and realizes that character, merit, and a thorough comprehension of even the minutest issues facing our country ought to count more than celebrity endorsements, speaking skill and physical appearance, we will have, at worst, helped select the wrong president. At best, we will have selected the right president — but for the wrong reasons.
Ron Paul, unfortunately, will not be elected president in 2008. Until he changes his campaign approach to a more aspirational and goal-oriented one, and until the American voting public changes their approach in selecting a president to a more substantive one, it is unlikely Paul will ever occupy the Oval Office. In my mind, this is perhaps the ultimate political tragedy.
Submitted 02-14-2008
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Politicians we deserve?
That's the old saying. "A nation gets the politicians it deserves."
People are making choices about candidates for superficial reasons.
Obama is "presidential." Everything he says is designed to inspire. But what "change" is he really proposing?
Ron Pauls is so unlike a typical politician:
1. He speaks the truth straight from his heart and brain.
2. He walks the walk.
3. He assesses information, he doesn't spin it.
4. 5. 6.... (add your own long list here)
In our conversations with people we need to start emphasising that one significant reason that we support Ron Paul so whole heartedly, is that he is NOT a typical politician.
More of a focus on a "how do you choose a candidate?" message.
Perhaps we can start branding all the others with a derogatory "typical politician" tag.
Well-deserved Bump
This deserves some serious study and review!
this campaign
This campaign and Dr. Ron Paul's success and failure are important.
The reason for the success is because
His success. A. He is the one excellent congressman standing up for the constitution.
His unsuccess B. He has been mentioned on the news (according to CNN) broadcasts only once for """each""" "100 thousand times" that (not collectively but "each" CFR candidate which is ) McCain and the other candidates still in the race.
C. If each candidate (CFR) paid cash for each of those mention's the dollar value to Mc, & Huck, & Ob, & Hil would be astronomical.
Again his success is:
1. He understands the issues,
2. He is realistic in his outlook,
3. He is not a pretender,
4. He is honest,
5. Unlike most of the people in this nation he understands what has been happening to this nation that he loves,
6. and who is doing it and why,
7. He now understands that the internet has grown up to the extent that communications not available in the past are now in place.
8. He believes that winning is still possible, but will require all the collective support that has developed in the last year needs to continue.
9. He understands that the media blackout is still with us and that it could stop his winning,
10. His supporters need to become precinct leaders and participate in phoning, their own precinct, or help the person that is the Ron Paul precinct leader where they live to win that precinct.
11. He understands that "over 150,000 people" have donated to his campaign, and that most people never in their life ever donate and that is most encouraging.
12. This out pouring of donations gives him hope and the willingness to go on in spite of the media blackout.
13. His supporters are inspiring to him and if we let a few negative people stop us from helping Ron Paul to save this republic then we are no better that (the CFR&) those trying to destroy this campaign.
14. For more information go to the campaign web site and click on the daily dose you will see what to do in posted there..
Aspirations are for wannabes
Ron Paul wants to be a political mechanic. He does not want to be a poetic leader into nowhere.
I am so sick and tired of cult of personality mentality. I used to think people were brainwashed but I realize it's worse. The people who want aspirations want the candidate to be the president they believe they can't be.
Pure unadulterated selfishness. President America by proxy.
SCREW THAT!
You want to see change, RUN FOR OFFICE, BE A TEACHER OR A COACH, TAKE A LEAP OF FAITH AND PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.
It's the people who need to be goal oriented. The president needs to pave the way for America to express itself.
One of the best posts
I've read in a long time. Not only does he describe Dr. Paul's strengths accurately, he also describes ways that he could improve his campaign/image to make him more electable. I love Ron Paul just the way he is, and there IS a negative correlation between being a good statesman and a good campaigner. In fact, that is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in today. However, we need to wise up and realize that the voting public is not going to change. WE need to adapt to their preferences as much as possible WITHOUT COMPROMISING OUR PRINCIPLES. It can be done. Jazzing up our speeches, videos, ads, to be more inspirational and positive rather than scary and intimidating would be a start. The "Morning in America" junk that got Reagan reelected may not have had much substance, but unfortunately, people are going to gravitate toward candidates that make them feel more hopeful. There is no reason why Ron Paul, or his successors can't be one of them. (Even the harshest medicines can be sugar-coated. Sorry, I'm a doctor too.) This is another must read article for anyone who is concerned about turning this movement into a viable longterm force for good.
Whoa! "Morning in America" junk?! I think not!
Well, corny maybe. BUT... remember the Carter administration? malaise? anyone?
Iran hostages? 20% inflation? (even by government measuring)!
No, he WAS offering "Morning in America". To paraphrase the Beatle: "You have to admit, it got better, a little better".
Now we need to accomplish the revolution that Reagan promised but failed to deliver.
And that means votes from people NOT LIKE US.
LET THEM EAT BREAD AND WATER
thats what america deserves nothing more. they can all sit around ruined and talk about how they could have elected an honest man who understood the problem instead of a politician with sound bites. fuck frank luntz.
If Ron Paul wanted to be president
He would respond to Mr Lance McNeil's article, because this article is so fair and balanced, so well written, it is the greatest swoard presented today to vut Ron Paul OUT. Who can not read this, identify the TRUTH in it? Me thinks Mr. McNeil was a Ron Paul supporter (who like many supporters watched the last debate and got a little angry with Ron Paul for fidgitting while Huckabee wound up being the one with the guts to say, "Hey Ove here!". Ron Pual should, and he won't respond to this article, and I'd say, McNeil has beat Ron Paul, finished him (except for those who think Ron Paul can be the eleventh term congressman he really wants to be. Who else has snubbed a rEVOLution for a friggin congressional seat? Deep sigh. Ron Paul was suprized. I'm sorry to learn that. I hoped he would have been inspired to be president, not a congressman who no one eats lunch with or hears on the floor.
Agreed... But it will not happen.
But it will not happen. Dr. Paul will NOT read that article (well, maybe a year from now when it won't matter anymore), and the campaign staff (fan-boys one-and-all) will do their darnedest to make certain he never DOES read it.
Truth is I don't believe he was ever seriously running this campaign (or wanting to be President ... which, BTW, proves his sanity) -- he let other people use his name for the attempt, and allowed them to run with it, agreeing to a certain (minimal) amount of campaigning on his own part (mainly in NH, and then otherwise only in educational rallies and speeches to college students and others at universities).
Sad, but all to true I fear.
BTW, the "positive" campaign that Mr. McNeil envisions DOES exist -- but only in the crude form of the Man Of Common Sense flyers & ads -- alas though a few copies *were* downloaded by HQ staffers, they weren't smart enough to take the idea and run with it. (In fact, they most likely didn't even understand the need for it, since the main attitude of the central campaign staff is one of sycophantic "worship" they just don't comprehend why the whole world hasn't fallen in as part of their fan-boy cult. And they have entirely closed themselves off from any real criticism -- it's safer and easier for them to simple blame the "vast MSM conspiracy" for all the campaign's failures to gain traction.)
Man of Common Sense
EXCELLENT, Inspirational and a mighty sword indeed. Lets use it.
Why can't a copy be sent to Meetups now?
Not sure I follow... over 3000 downloads
I'm not sure I follow what you want...
There have been over 3000 downloads of the flyers and ads from around the nation since the website went live in mid January.
Many local meetups and individual supporters already have the MoCS stuff, and are running the ads (or the flyers as inserts) in local papers, as well as personally or in groups reproducing thousands and tens of thousands of copies as handouts in canvassing and other campaigning activities.
And the downloads are completely free of charge -- the vote dates and payment attribution are editable by supporters... so not sure what you want to see done with this. From what I know of for responses from people (and posts in forums, etc) the grassroots are already using these materials to their limits.
Certainly if they were at all interested, the campaign COULD pick up the themes, have them polished by a profession advertising or PR firm and go to town with them.
But the grassroots supporters do not have control of the remaining $5 Million (give or take a few hundred thou) in campaign funds -- that was placed in the hands of Snyder, Moore & Co. And no one from HQ is receptive to such suggestions, nor are they giving any hints as to what they are doing (or planning on doing) with those funds; so not much of anything to do there.
It's the first I've seen it
And I think you for sharing it with me. From the beginning, the campaign was no where near NorCal (which does not include SF because we are a vast rural area, which SF is not, so we have different issues). Those of us who reached out to the campaign got bit.
I think the rEVOLution caught on with folks like me as we began making our own signs and banners, and as the campaign grew, we appreciated our own stuff by comparison to the campaign because the campaign kept making BS...like signs that said RON PAUL Hope for America..we tagged, "For President". Slim Jims that didn't work for our area..and then I think many of us have had our differences with the campaign.
And as you point out, I also think many of us were flush with campaign items (much that was independent as yours). I would have liked to see this whole thing transform into a Independent run, for I believe many of us have a vision we did not have until Ron Paul made his run.
I hope the rEVOLution can find an Independent candidate and I think your copy is excellent. I appreciate it. And I again, THANK YOU!
See and we were being fed B.S. that the campaign was ALL over
the odd (less contended) areas of California.
Oh, and not everyone actually liked the MoCS flyers.
Got every complaint from "where's the End the IRS" to a host of other even more absurd bullet point type things that were on slim-jims. (Which in my opinion was more of a "turn off" to the majority of the voters as it was a "turn on" to a small segment of people, mainly previous non-voters.)
Plus others seemed to think the text should read more like a newspaper article and no have so many "odd" words being capitalized and bolded, etc. (in other words, they have no concept of how ads and "trigger" words work, etc.)
Anyway, surprised you didn't see these before -- the links were all over DP and RPF a few weeks back. (Though, of course, since the site also contains some things critical of the "official" campaign, it was blacklisted from DP front page and from the "major" RP blog sites.)
Wow, do you miss the point!!!
With still singe digits nationwide, we know this campaign is far from over - but NOT OVER. So take that pessimism elsewhere.
Ron Paul MUST retain his congressional seat - period! Because, if Texas rejects him as a congressman, how would that reflect his candidacy for president.
Gheez - don't people use common sense anymore?
Also, if he looses the Presidency, it will be partly because of remarks such as yours all over the country, and the laze faire of support!
With the above comments, I believe you to be here just to cause trouble and dissent, and NOT a supporter of Ron Paul.
So, either way, he can use THIS r3VOLution to our advantage in the future, by continuing to direct us towards a bloodless r3VOLution!
If Ron Paul loses, it's because of Ron Paul
Collectivists refuse to take responsibility for their choices and blame others. I would appreciate it if you would not employ collectives Trotsky terminology with me. I don't buy it. I'm sorry you do.
Just a couple of the Forum rules
that the dailypaul webmaster as recently as a couple of days ago reminded us of.
1) Even though this is an unofficial site, you are still representing Dr. Paul in the eyes of the public. Please don't write anything that Dr. Paul himself wouldn't say or wouldn't approve of, or that would reflect badly on Dr. Paul or the campaign. Therefore, don't trash other candidates, don't use bad words, etc. Keep your focus on the good and the positive and on hope.
I really doubt that Ron Paul would even suggest "unfortunately I am not going to be elected in 2008."
Also, see rule #3 regarding copying and pasting whole articles. A paragraph or two, then a link to the URL may have been more appropriate.
This is in response to those that questioned why I suggested flagging the post. And perhaps it will serve as a reminder of why we should uphold rule #1 in particular.
I'm representing myself
I am a sovreign citizen who claims the RIGHT to represent MYSELF. I am paying Dr Paul's campaign (among many projects) to help him represent ME as a president of the USA in our mutual agreement that the federal government needs to be reduced dramatically. I;ve been doing this for almost a year. Everyone said I was nuts.
I would be NUTS if I believed I was ever representing anyone other than myself. I suggest that asking people to represent others is COERSION, it's a ugly form of collectivism that "herds" people and there's NOTHING FREE about it.
Ron Paul says: FREEDOM IS POPULAR he does not say: BE LIKE ME. Get a clue. Grow up and be yourself. Be honest. And don't fear the gag police who have to say what they want you to hear, that the majority, which sovreign citizens like me, are not.
My hats is off to Nystrom, and I'm sorry he did not win blogger of the year, with two major bumps this past year, it's been a real blast to be part of, but this ship is going to sink fast if we're now being told that we need to represent Dr. Paul and not ourselves. I guess that's how the name "Paulbot" was coined. Well, I'm a slow learner when it comes to crap..I ignored it, because I can censor myself, and prefer that to someone else "saving" me. Are you being paid? I think YOU deserve a flag, but I don't do that...stupid statements should stand as representation of the sovreign citizen who wrote them. Would Ron paul disagree with me? No Just look at what someone wrote in his name, racist statements.
I don't know why
respecting the webmaster's wishes would be such a problem to some.
The article posted goes against rule #1.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Maybe Ruke Number One should change?
Maybe Rule Number One should be TELL THE TRUTH!. When this forum began (I think it was up a few months before I found it and had three dozen people, tops), it was not about "representing Ron Paul", it was a great place to get inspiration for our Meetup Groups and to connect with the campaign (Paul's family) informally.
Before the Nov. Money bomb, I didn't see any censorship. I took it that because the site experienced growing pains, that some censorship started as there were people who would come to spam (started with Fred Heads as I recall), but that changed. It was as if, "censoring Trolls" became the "thing" here. People come on site to "Bump" posts (a feature Nystrom should repair), and search for "trolls" to flag them. Complaints about the campaign and Ron Paul wind up going to MSM instead of being worked out on the inside. People take it elsewhere you bet.
Lance McNeil is telling a truth that perhaps some Ron Paul supporters do not want to hear, as many Neocons don't want to hear we have lost the UN Resolution 1441 pre-emptive attack on Iraq with a coalation of the willing? But it is a TRUTH that MSM is spreading, so why hide from it? Do you think it will go away? It's in my face. I can face it as a truth, and I wish Ron Paul would address this letter.
I also wish we had a little money meter instead of a day count identifying us...I wish we could see who contributed what to this campaign AND rEVOLution. I'm sure I'm not the only one who spent way way too much...you know what my family got for Christmas? Ron Paul Christmas Cards, Books, Tee Shirts... And I LOVE my Ron Paul Tee Shirt Collection ..
If Nystrom expects me to represent Ron Paul and not myself, I should be banned from his site. My family and friends will LOVE you for it.
In my opinion............
this is precisely the ONLY reason that Barack Obama is getting any traction at all. He really doesn't say very much when he speaks, but he does create that "Vision Thing". Inspirational, positive speeches connect with people who think with their hearts more than their minds. And wether this group is willing to admit it or not, the vast majority of the voting public tends to think with their hearts rather than their minds. That is who we need to reach and recruit, and we will not do it with silly little things like FACTS!
Liberty is not free, It must be earned!
For those who are bashing
For those who are bashing his point of view, keep in mind that he is not referring to us. We are the 10-20% of the "early adapters" that exist in society, and our polling and voting results bear this out. He is referring to that vast majority of "middle adpaters" (60-70%) and "late adapters" (10-20%), who will only latch on to a message, a product, or a cause when it pleases them or shows a direct benefit to them, even if the benefit is given as safety from fear.
**************************************
How to support RP's cause every day:
1. Don't use credit cards
2. Stamp your cash with RP stamp before spending
3. Take cash out of ATM, stamp, put back in bank
4. Explain to teller why you did #3
5. Repeat
I don't know...
I don't like politicians. I never saw one I could trust. Now, I realize that RP's message could be put in a more positive light, but I think he really got my attention by speaking the truth. Now maybe, after speaking the truth, he should go into what would result if we followed his principles, to show a more positive side... BUT... I think the reason he got so much more attention this time (as opposed to 1988), is because of the condition our country is in... and he's not afraid to tell us about it.
Most politicians are pandering a-holes. When they get up on stage to speak, I can see right through them. That's why I rarely vote. Dr. Paul changed that. I'm addicted to his message, as many of us are, mainly because I've never heard it from anyone before. I like his style. I think America needs someone to grab them and wake them up, and I think his style achieves that goal. I guess it wouldn't hurt to tell people what would result from actually following the Constitution...but I think the most important message is what happens if you don't follow the rule of law.
I can watch Obama all day long with his "change"" rhetoric. But, I can also see that he's just a slick, polished, pandering, flip-flopping, "say whatever they want to hear" con artist. Just like Bill Clinton. He's just too slick for me. I can see right through it.
So who knows if a more positive message would help. I think his best speech was the CPAC speech, and it was a scolding, scathing rant compared to some of his speeches. When he gave that speech, I thought, "Man, now that's the Ron Paul I've been waiting for... give 'em hell, Ron!!"
No your right the truth is
No your right the truth is what made me notice what he was saying years ago.
However, it was only because he was saying THE TRUTH did I listen. Others haven't or don't realize this yet.
I would give anything for a
I would give anything for a candidate like Paul to bring in a dry erase board and explain things to people with real life examples. Like: Granny is on a fixed income of $50 a week. Because of inflation, bread, milk and eggs have gone way up. Granny's dollars are worth less than they were last week, but groceries cost more. How much money does Granny have left? Or how about a blown up Constitution and read it, and explain where we don't follow it.
Instead of saying we are broke and we are "going down," tell the people something they can understand.
This guy has it spot on...RP needed a real communications guy
To tell him these things. Touting the prosperity of an America without the IRS is more inspiring than focusing on the evils of the IRS.
Ron's constant history lessons also got lost on some people who arguably operate at a grade 8 level at best.
Anyone with above average intellect that hears Ron speak can figure out that he's legit but unfortunately wisdom and intelligence are fast becoming a foreign concepts in America.
-----------------DO YOU REALLY WANT RON TO WIN------------------
Ron needs more than just money. Send this strategy to mail@ronpaul2008.com and also to press@ronpaul2008.com if these ideas make sense to you
www.dailypaul.com/node/14...
Very well written piece.
99% correct -- the only 1% error is that he points to this as a failing of the man himself, when in reality most of the blame needs to be directed at an inept and incompetent campaign management team.
As many people here and other places pointed out -- they needed to hire professional quality advertising and PR people or firms, and come up with a refined and positive message. They didn't, end of story.
every time he gives an
every time he gives an interview and speech he should say this:
the Democrats promise to change America
McCain promises to lead America down the same disastrous path
I don't want to do either of those things...I want to RESTORE America
WOW!
That's GOOD!!! Send to Dan over at HQ! I'm serious!
Planting seeds of doubt
Everyone has a right to their opinion, but that is all that it is. To say all the good things about Ron Paul, but then follow it up with "will not be elected " and "unpresidential" is an insult. Ron Paul does not need lessons on how to frame issues, or be more polished, he is what he is and that makes him the soar over the others. The truth is the truth and does not need to be packaged, and tied with a pretty bow. If the masses are not ready for it now, who is to say that when they are personally effected by the changes that are coming down, that maybe truth might sound very appealing.
I agree with you, it was
I agree with you, it was nothing but a hit piece dressed in words to deceive the masses. Some people dont recognize propaganda when they see or hear it. Trust me, that author had nothing good to say about Ron Paul before, during or after that article.
The Author Speaks
"Trust me, that author had nothing good to say about Ron Paul before, during or after that article." -- RobertJ
Really? You said that? Why?
In case you’re tongue-tied, let me tell you a little about myself: I am an unabashed Ron Paul fan. I interned at the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) from May through July 2007, studied Ron Paul religiously since the now infamous Republican Presidential Debates on May 15, 2007, proudly placed my Ron Paul bumper sticker outside my cubicle in an office that jokingly but respectfully dismissed Paul's candidacy. I decided sometime in July 2007 that I would cast my vote for Dr. Paul in California’s February 2008 primary even if he had dropped out and I had to write him in. I have donated money to Paul's presidential bid on a college student's income and educated my extremely conservative parents about his decidedly Libertarian message (they eventually voted for him). I was Ron Paul’s sign holder after the January 30, 2008 Republican Presidential Debates and have his autographed sign, pen, water bottle, a nine-minute CNN.com clip and several photos to show for it. I have respectfully but firmly pointed to Dr. Paul's strengths for those unfamiliar with him. I regularly encourage other people to educate themselves about Paul, but more consequentially, to learn about the causes that he champions.
I am also a writer for Pepperdine University’s newspaper, The Graphic. Unfortunately, “puff pieces” aren’t allowed -- we’re supposed to write critical examinations of issues we care about. We can be passionate about our causes but we have to be realistic and objective.
I cordially invite you to check your facts about me, or if you don’t have access to any, to think twice before you speak or write about someone you don’t know. Your baseless and downright asinine attack isn’t hurting me -- it’s hurting yourself and the Ron Paul campaign.
RP '08
it is a sober assessment,
it is a sober assessment, not a pep rally speech. i think it is on the mark.
Ok if it is on the mark
then you are believing he is not going to be elected, and is unpresidential
because that is the authors final opinion and if so why would you support him? I don't think you can do one without the other, can you?
Think of it in semantical
Think of it in semantical terms.
unpresidential = unconventional
The popular meaning has changed.
Used to be someone was presidential if they had real substance. Today, you're presidential if you project the right sort of image. Sizzle has triumphed over the steak.
So to say RP isn't presidential in the modern sense of the term is just to acknowledge he doesn't put on airs.
That said, there is at least one trait that fits both the old and the new senses of "presidential," and that's projecting competence and leadership. Ron can do this, and occasionally has done so in campaign appearances we've all watched on YouTube. Remember the great lines from one of his speeches that ended with "The Founders would be ashamed of us for what we've allowed to happen!"? That's the no-nonsense preachin' we need most from him. It wouldn't hurt for him to do it more often. And it doesn't have to be all negative if he frames it as criticism of the wonderful things we have given up and can reclaim if we just pay attention and change our ways.
Maybe if you twist the meaning on that word
but
will not be elected=will not be elected no semantics there, and while we are on the subject of presidential, somebody supposedly voted for Bush twice, and I don't know if he is able to frame a picture without help let alone an issue, and does anyone think he comes across as polished, this whole argument about how and what Ron Paul should change, and questions about his image still come across as propoganda to me, maybe more directed as us, his supporters not like the author makes it out to be, the general public. It feels like seeds of doubt like I said, and I have to take a stand for our man.
RP supporters are an intellectual cut above the general public.
Ron Paul supporters are an intellectual cut above the general public. That’s a given. We know that what Ron Paul says, no matter how he delivers it, is smart economic talk
So how do we energize the 30 second sound-bite-advertising-marketing-couch potato-mindset that our general voting public has become?
Short and sweet? Sugar-coat it? “I can make it better, much better, and save you money”. I don’t hear that closure resonating from RP enough which is his Hope for America theme. Yes?
There seems to be moments in a Ron Paul speech or debate, that he hits a triple – does not knock it out of the park. (leaves the listener stuck on third) I think that the essence of this article is to recognize the intellectual limitations of the “modern” conditioned voter. Sad but true, IMO.
I am not saying that Ron Paul change his delivery but I think I understand what the author of this article is implying.
My disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Ron Paul “sound-bite” his message to attract voters. If someone is too lazy to think, well that’s their problem…but why not give them HOPE via a POSTIVE closure?
(This is a very historic election…perhaps it’s time to put on the boxing gloves and steal some of the verve from the Obama sound-bite camp…comments?)
The title alone of this article says it all.
Ron Paul hasn't failed, it is the people receiving his message that have failed.
They've failed to use their God given brain for the purpose it was given them.
To think, reason, and discern. A huge reason for this is unfortunately Americans love of TV, sensationalism, and slick advertising. What do you expect from a country of couch potatoes who believe everything they here from the "boob tube" Americans have become lazy, and don't care to pick up a book and read. They want there information spoon fed to them. It is part of the dumbing down of the nation as a whole. The public education system is as much to blame in this also. They don't teach your children how to reason. They just want to indoctrinate them. They are not allowed to question anything.
Anyway, great post. Shows us what we are really up against here. We all must put forth an effort to get our neighbors and fellow countrymen to think for themselves again. It is a daunting task.
Take a good look at this
Take a good look at this Nation, nearly three quarters of the people saying they are against the war and yet, both the Republicans and Democrats are choosing candidates who are either virulently Warmongers or de facto Warmongers. Dr. Paul and the Ron Paul Revolution has done more then most people ever dreamed of doing in this campaign. Most people, including Dr. Paul, didn't think that 1% of the people in this country would respond positively to the message and just look how many rallied to the cause of Liberty and to the Voice of Freedom.
Dr. Paul knew the cards would be stacked against him and the movement. He, unlike many of us, was always a realist even though never a negativist like many on this forum. The Revolutionary seeds have been planted on very fertile soil and they will grow and will do so in ways that none of us ever dreamed of thus far. There are many things that will face us and this Nation, in the coming years this Nation will weep and will look for solutions that the entrenchment candidates and politicians can not provide...
The Revolution must be ready with the answers to those problems when the people of this country realize that the status quo doesn't have the answers and their promises are empty.
I have and continue to place my faith in the abilities in the one man who has awakened more people in this country since the Founders! RON PAUL!!
That's hot...
Damnit... he called America out. It is a sad but true fact that this article is spot on. No matter how well a message is articulated it is still at the mercy of the interpreter.
With this little bit of insight we should be able to take a statement from the good Dr., i.e., "Our liberties are being robbed," and rephrase as, "We've yet to realize the greatness of our liberties."
We all get the point, lets be more positive. America needs positive, they want to be coddled like infants nestled to a supple breast. Hows that for a mental picture bright and early in the morning?
Fight the good fight Patriots!!
The man is right...
I'm a Paul fan also, but the man is right: we need Dr. Paul to outline not only the problem during his debates, but also his solutions. Something like simple bullet points of his plans, so that the average folk actually hear, and understand the gist of it. Most of them aren't going to pay attention to youtube interviews and the like, where Dr Paul is such a hit.
excuses..........
No we all know, he's just trying to get the word out, its just an article, the media the media the media, if they mention Ron Paul they roll there eyes,....what does that tell you? They are telling them, "ohhhh this crazy guy!?!?!?!" People think he's crazy yes, but ask them whats crazy about him, and they don't know. I have asked 9 people, and the same result, so, what do we do about that? I told them yes hes crazy, crazy to try to change our government to be honest, to give us our rights we are loosing....then some, about a third......said they are gonna look him up.
Where did that forum go...
lose, loose, losing, loosening... and someone thought it was unnecessary.
you had me until loosing ramnailz.
Fight the good fight Patriots, and take an extra English Literature or English Composition class. We need to communicate as well educated articulate individuals. WTF anyways, just talk the talk and walk the walk, what do I know.
F__K YOU FRANK!
THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.--Thomas Paine
negative..........
Ron Paul has no negativity. Your perception is your reality.
Reminds me of the fat lady in NH...
...who went to the media and her lawyer because her feelings got hurt when her doctor flatly told her that the reason she had numerous medical problems was because she was "fat." He didn't say, "You have a weight problem" or "It would help if you could drop some weight." Nope. He came right out and said, "You're fat." And this "American" actually went to the media to complain! And she wanted the doctor to apologize--and that poor bastard actually did!
So, yeah. This article couldn't be more right on--it is not Dr. Paul at all. It's us--it's our fellow "citizens". Do we actually think that the same citizenry that wants a pill to make them thin or undergoes gastric bypass surgery to force them to lose weight wants to hear the message from Dr. Paul that we're screwed if we don't turn things around now--and that it's going to be a long, hard crawl? A citizenry that can't stand to hear that it's "fat" ain't gonna go for Dr. Paul's straightforward, honest message of "People! We're screwed!" No way. Instead they do want that Marxist dope Obama to sing them happy songs and tell them everything's gonna be all right.
You nailed the heart of the matter
The America I knew was known for it's blunt honesty and directness. No beating around the bush. Mark Twain, John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda kind of directness. We were a country of problem solvers, innovators, and inventors. We have forgotten the trials and sacrifices of the past. So now we have to ALL suffer again like our parents and grandparents did in the Depression and War II. Even then most of the sheeple won't get it.
Visit my Ron Paul blog at A Northern New Yorker for Ron Paul
"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin
Political correctness is
Political correctness is code for stifled free speech. A world where every time a person gets riled up the people around he or she says "calm down" when we should be mad as hell. It' is a control that is both psychological that has also become physical.
We can have a better
We can have a better tomorrow. Today's better already!
It's a good article
It simply says that the American People are failing their own country.
Because the majority is about as shallow as the kiddie pool.
How do you wake up a country in this kind of stupor?