RSS 2.0 FeedRon Paul At Yesterday’s Presidential Debate & Debate Round-Up
by Doug MataconisA 7 minute montage of Ron Paul’s answers at yesterday’s debate:
I was able to watch the entire debate live yesterday, which was actually a first to me. On the whole, I wasn’t all that impressed with anyone. For one thing, CNBC/MSNBC billed the debate as one that would focus solely on the economy and yet, halfway through the debate they started talking about Iraq, Iran and foreign policy. Yea, I know the economics is the dry science, but they could’ve at least kept on topic for more than twenty minutes, don’t you agree ?
As for the candidates.
Paul: Quite honestly, I don’t think he did that well in this debate. Part of it was because he really didn’t get that many questions thrown at him (the seven minute video above pretty much constitutes everything he had to say yesterday during a two hour debate), and that’s the fault of the moderator and the panel. But even when he did get asked questions, I don’t get the impression that he really connected with the audience. The average American doesn’t care about the Gold Standard, and they’re not going to. They also aren’t going to read Ludwig von Mises anytime soon. Where was the talk about reducing taxes ? And why, pray tell, did Ron Paul sound like a Naderite populist yesterday ?
Thompson: This was Fred Thompson’s first appearance on a debate stage with the other candidates and while many media outlets and bloggers opined that he did well, I wasn’t all that impressed. Most of what he said is going to appeal to conservatives, and especially economic conservatives, but seemed to suffer from the same wooden delivery that has plagued him since his campaign started.
Romney: Outside of distinguishing himself as the man who would consult the American Bar Association about foreign policy before he’d talk to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I can’t say that there was anything memorable about Mitt’s performance, or that he came across to the crowd all that well.
Giuliani: I don’t like him, but it’s easy to see why he’s the Republican front-runner right now. What he’s saying are things are going to appeal to mainstream Republicans, whether its on taxes, spending, or government regulation. The problem is I can’t understand why any of those people actually think he’ll follow through with what he says.
McCain: The irony of John McCain trying to claim the mantle of the fiscal conservative was really quite amusing to watch. I doubt anyone bought it, though. I will say this, though, he did provide the most amusing moment of the debate when he suggested Ron Paul read The Wealth of Nations
Huckabee: Ummm, yea I can’t think of anything either.
Tancredo: Just like Ron Paul has a tendency to turn every question into an opportunity to mention the War in Iraq, Tom Tancredo turns every question into an immigrant-bashing opportunity. And to think he used to be considered somewhat libertarian.
Hunter: <sound of leaves rustling>
Brownback: Perhaps the most exciting thing to come out of Kansas since……….
It’s not shaping up to be a good year folks.
I’ve been complaining for quite a while about Ron Paul’s failure to hone his message. First of all, you can’t run on a 15-point platform. Ronald Reagan stressed three main issues in his campaign, and kept at those three points throughout. Secondly, as Doug points out, people don’t understand the gold standard or what the federal reserve actually does. The important thing about economic policy is what you intend to achieve, not how you intend to achieve it.
And while I appreciate Ron Paul’s harping on the Iraq War, it is not sufficient to say, “just get out.” The public wants to hear an exit strategy. They need to be convinced that it is reasonably safe to get out and that there is a well thought out way to go about it.
Ron Paul needs to distinguish between his political philosophy, which is what he would like in a perfect world, and his platform which is what he would hope to achieve in the world as it is.
Comment by Rob — October 10, 2007 @ 2:19 pmi was saying that RP needed to flesh out his platform when given the chance for the last 3 weeks. that he didn’t prepare to do this yesterday afternoon is a real downer. however, speakers sometimes do get thrown out of their rhythm when skipped over for so many main questions.
i don’t really understand the 15-point platform statement. how many main issues is RP running on? i don’t think so many, but hey maybe i’m not paying attention.
the next chance RP has to rectify his debate issues is 21 Oct FoxNews debate.
the chances he will be given a legitimate chance to speak comparable to others (AND without unprofessional bias via moderators or other network hijinks)… are pretty low.
Comment by oilnwater — October 10, 2007 @ 2:46 pmI think Rob pretty much nailed it. One of the common failings of political candidates is that they often try to be all things to all people. Like Rob said, the key is to pull two or three issues that resound with voters and focus on them. I think Iraq’s been a good one for Paul (because he’s the only anti-war guy on the Republican ticket) but it can be a divisive issue and he needs to highlight one two more policies that really stick out and possible give Republicans who are on the fence about Iraq a reason to vote for him as well. Harping on unfunded federal mandates, or the gold standard, or economics above the basic consumer level just isn’t going to do it…you start talking about taxes and the IRS, the voters generally find it boring and switch off (even though taxes and fiscal policy are usually the most important issues). In any case, when you discuss all policies equally, your most resounding policy platforms tend to get lost in the noise.
Health care’s been front and center in the race for the Dems, but nobody’s really brought forth a specific plan for free-market solutions to the issues (deregulation, especially) except to say that they hate socialized medicine (and, by extension, Hillary). Perhaps Paul can bring up an alternative to trump the Republican field on that issue. The drug legalization arguments seem to work for minority voters, but a lot of those voters aren’t going to be casting ballots in the Republican primary thanks to the current crop of “leaders” in the GOP (although it might be useful in the general election). He needs one really important topic to set himself and libertarianism out there to make it palatable to the GOP mainstream, but I’m not really sure what he could pick that would do it. Anyone else got thoughts?
Comment by UCrawford — October 10, 2007 @ 4:50 pmOh, and I take issue with your slur on Kansas, Doug. We gave you Eisenhower, after all, and he was smart enough win WWII and to end the Korean War. Not to mention that we’re the home to Koch Industries, the largest privately owned company in the world (who have been very generous to libertarianism over the years), and our state provided all the rest of you with Pizza Hut.
Comment by UCrawford — October 10, 2007 @ 4:55 pmSo which is it? Paul has too many talking points, or all he ever talks about is Iraq? Come on, people, make up your mind.
Ron Paul’s Three Point Plan: Freedom, Liberty, Peace. If that sounds too la-di-da, how about “follow the Constitution”.
He talks about those other things because they’re all part of the same thing. He’s doing pretty well for a dark horse candidate, so I’m guessing the criticisms that people keep directing at him are, in a word, wrong.
Comment by rho — October 10, 2007 @ 5:15 pmRho,
He has too few dominant talking points and it makes his policy platform all about Iraq (which alienates voters who may be somewhat supportive of or on the fence about Iraq). Focusing on one or two major policy platforms in addition to Iraq (while minimizing focus on most of the others) will both help clearly define his platform and keep from scaring off the mainstreamers who aren’t going to buy into a purely anti-war candidate.
The three point platform you list is rhetoric and non-specific. Everyone says they’re for liberty, freedom and peace…but how so in Paul’s case? What two or three specific issues he favors demonstrate and define his dedication to freedom and liberty?
Comment by UCrawford — October 10, 2007 @ 5:43 pmThe problem is that the single best thing you could do to improve the healthcare situation in this country is to tax healthcare benefits just as you would any other form of compensation. I’m not sure how he could sell that to the public without a lot of explaining.
Comment by Jeff Molby — October 10, 2007 @ 5:44 pmJeff,
I agree…actually Bush’s proposal back in the 2007 State of the Union address was the best proposal I’ve heard for health-care reform. And none of the other candidates seem to be pushing it (Bush himself certainly isn’t, he just sort of let it die). Why can’t Paul hijack that issue and claim it as his policy platform? It seemed to have some weight with conservative voters.
Health care is one of those issues that seems to favor slogans. Perhaps the ability to sell the Bush proposal to the public isn’t a matter of defining specifics (Paul can save those for the news shows and the general election), but in finding the right slogan/catchphrase/motto to sell it and distinguish it from socialized medicine. So far I haven’t seen that from any of the other Republicans…they just claim to be against “socialized medicine” but don’t ever expand on that.
“Health care reform that won’t cost you your life”, “Health care that puts the individual in charge”…something like that. Something that emphasizes the financial benefits while referencing the problems with the big-government approach. I realize those slogans aren’t great, but do you see my point?
Comment by UCrawford — October 10, 2007 @ 5:56 pmIf you check out the other sites, Thompson’s the only guy making even a half-assed attempt to mention health care reform. His policy is to “streamline” existing programs and make government more efficient…not serious reform. Romney isn’t even that specific, which is pretty wise considering that as governor of Massachusetts he forced everyone to buy health insurance (socialized medicine in a different form). McCain and Guiliani don’t even mention health care on their sites. It seems that there’s an issue there for the taking if Paul wants it.
Comment by UCrawford — October 10, 2007 @ 6:09 pmI was wondering the same thing. He missed an opportunity to invoke the economic principles of Milton Friedman.
Thompson: I was very underwhelmed.
Romney: Bragged about his government healthcare plan he passed as Gov. He really thinks this is something to be proud of?
McCain: I’m not a big fan but to his credit, he has been consitent on spending (though not much of a tax cutter). Citizens Against Government Waste give him very high marks.
Giuliani: I’m not sold on his commitment to fiscal responsibility.
Huckabee: He did bring up the Fair Tax and I think he did a good job of explaining it in the limited time he had.
Tancredo, Hunter, Brownback: Doesn’t matter. They are all on their way out of the race.
Comment by Stephen Littau — October 10, 2007 @ 7:00 pmI disagree with the idea that Ron Paul focuses too much on Iraq. A lot of that perception comes from the fact that most of the debate moderators skip over him on a lot of other questions of interest to conservatives, but never skip him on Iraq, because it’s good for ratings.
When Fox News served up a softball on taxes to the rest of the field in their last debate, they turned Ron Paul’s question into a personal attack on him with a laundry list of departments and functions he would defund, giving him no time to set the record straight point by point.
He does tend to steer economic questions back to foreign policy, but there’s a very good reason for that — it’s the biggest area of discretionary spending that could be lopped from the budget without hurting most Americans, amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
His non-debate speeches cover a lot more ground and are a lot more nuanced, but the debate format is to blame for that. 30 or 60-second answers can only convey so much.
Comment by Craig — October 10, 2007 @ 7:49 pmRon Paul was awesome. He met every question head-on and he is NEVER afraid to speak the truth. He meets every quality needed to be a president, according to “Meet the Press”
RONPAUL2008
Comment by MY — October 10, 2007 @ 8:48 pmThe reason Ron Paul Talks a lot about the War is because many of the issues are because of the war/foreign policy. The average american would care about the gold standard if they knew anything about it. The government, right now, is to secretive. I didn’t see anyone that did better than Paul. Admit it, or, eat your words when he’s elected president.
Comment by MY — October 10, 2007 @ 8:59 pmI find it funny that some people are commenting that he needs to “hone” his message. Why? So he can sound like every other politician?
When I watched the debate, I found myself thinking, “Slogan… platitude… slogan… soundbyte… platitude.” When Ron Paul spoke, there was substance and passion. The rest came off as shallow and, well… like politicians. With the exception of Ron Paul, they all reminded me of why I hate politicians.
Dr. Paul always brings it back to the Constitution. That’s his platform, and soooo many people are scared that we are losing the very fundamental ideas of what this country is – the foundation seems to be crumbling underneath our feet. That’s why I think his message is resonating. He’s fresh and real and he doesn’t come off like a politician.
Ron Paul is drawing large, enthusiastic crowds at campaign events, people are self-organizing for him across the country. Are ANY other Republicans experiencing this? Ron Paul is – because he is authentic, and his message is about restoration of the founding principles. I hope he never adopts the tired approach of sloganeering and pandering. If he does that, he’s finished.
Look at the opinion polls of both the Republican administration AND the Democratic Congress. People are fed up and they’re yearning for something different and better. I know I am.
Comment by James — October 10, 2007 @ 10:01 pmJames,
When you sound too different from other politicians you end up scaring the hell out of the swing voters by sounding like a crazy person (even if you’re really not). Those are the people candidates have to win over. These debates aren’t about reassuring the people who are already planning on voting for him, they’re about winning new voters and new voters, while possibly ready for a change, are rarely interested in electing somebody who they think is going to completely upend their lives.
Comment by UCrawford — October 10, 2007 @ 10:07 pmAlso keep in mind on the Congressional approval ratings that while everybody may hate Congress, most of them like their Congressman enough to keep voting for him/her unless they’re doing a crap job for their specific district. Polls that aren’t asking questions about specific politicians are too vague to be a useful guide for voting patterns in Congressional elections.
Comment by UCrawford — October 10, 2007 @ 10:10 pmMY,
The average American doesn’t care enough about the gold standard to learn anything about it. It’s a dead end campaign issue. They also don’t care about licensing laws or unfunded federal mandates, even though those have a significant effect on the quality of their lives because it’s often a hidden effect. People who aren’t obsessed with politics don’t care about specifics on complex issues, because they are usually busy enough with their own lives and politicians who go into too much detail often make people feel stupid or they bore them. That’s why politicians often couch their message with vagaries or slogans…because people don’t pay attention to non-obvious issues unless there’s a hook or a summary that breaks it down for them in easy to understand terms.
You can rail about how voters should be smarter if you want, but that’s the reality of it, it’s not going to change, and the Paul campaign needs to tailor itself to the uninformed voters too if they want to convince those voters to cast ballots for them. That’s why Paul needs to hone his message.
Comment by UCrawford — October 10, 2007 @ 10:20 pmUCrawford,
Actually, I think swing voters make up a fairly sizable contingent of Ron Paul’s support. The difficulty for Dr. Paul will be getting enough people who call themselves “conservatives” to vote for him. It seems like most conservatives have been brainwashed into believing conservatism = leftist utopianism and fear-mongered into a hostility toward the Constitution. I used to call myself “conservative”, but it’s a dirty word to me now.
Today, I’m an independent swing voter ;^)
“Upending people’s lives”:
I’ve seen Ron Paul explain about transition periods. When his support gets large enough that the MSM have to finally take him seriously, I expect he’ll get LOTS of questions about how we get from here to there. Social Security and Medicare will have to be dealt with really well, or, you’re right, it will scare people.
Comment by James — October 10, 2007 @ 10:40 pmJames,
I think Paul’s got a lot of common ground with the swing voters…potentially more than any other candidate. The problem is, though, that most of them don’t know who he is (which I hope will change when the TV ads start coming out) and most of them have only a passing knowledge of the issues without much desire to gain a more in-depth one. So Paul needs to put the message in terminology the disinterested voter will get otherwise it’ll scare them off and they’ll go for the more conventional choice and not even give Paul an opportunity to make his case. That’s all I was saying.
But I agree with what you’re saying about conservatives becoming the same as leftists (or the pigs becoming the same as men, as Orwell would put it). Frankly, politics is both more complex and more simple than most voters seem to get. It’s more complex because there’s a whole range of stuff outside the standard left-right/conservative-liberal terminology that the MSM often misses. It’s more simple because the only thing that matters about all those views is how they fit into the battle of statism vs. individualism.
Comment by UCrawford — October 10, 2007 @ 11:41 pmI thought Ron did great. They did not give him any time to talk about anything else even though he has the 3rd most money than anyone on the stage. His main issue is the war. He needs to bring it up as much as possible. Soon everyone will realize that he is the ONLY one that will bring the Troops home. Even the DEMS are going to continue with the WAR. It is going to be hard for a REP to give you a PLAN like the DEMs. Remember, REP are responsible and believe in limited Government, that means they are going to cut a lot of programs. You don’t want to start Pissing people off by telling them Once you are in office, they’re FIRED. He said often that he has to look at the programs because some he will not be able to cut altogether because too many people are dependent on them. THE DEMS can give you all the PLANS in the world because they are for BIG GOVERNMENT-HIGHER TAXES. That translate to YOU ARE SCREWED. Since they would be increasing Governments POWER, they can be as specific as they want to be; however, that’s not to say that there plan would work. You can’t give UNiversal Healthcare with an OPEN border. IT’s impossible. You’ll never control how many people you have; therefore, the amount you will have to spend to cover everyone will bankrupt you before the WAR will. Besides, many of use cant just go the the doctor whenever want. Some appointments may take up to a week. Imagine how long it will be if everyone is calling to make an appointment. Now you see why those you actually become sick in Cuba and Canada or as GOOD AS DEAD. They never make it to a doctor in time to prevent from getting worst. That’s FACT not Michael Moore FICTION. Don’t get to wrapped up in a specific plan. If you TRUST the candidate and he has a HISTORY of KEEPING HIS WORD, then whatever he is telling you he wants to do, he will do it. Focus more on the Vision and the Person. Remember, Bill Clinton told people that he was going to protect jobs– Hello NAFTA. George Bush was going to have a HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICY– Hello Big Oil and IRAQ. They all had a PlAN. They each had character flaws and scandal before they became President. All we got was more of the SAME. Remember that before you vote this time.
Comment by xo — October 11, 2007 @ 1:30 amI agree with much above but after Fred said there was no recession and then Ron says the money is all going to Wall St – that should have struck a cord with many in MI
Comment by a Patriot — October 11, 2007 @ 2:36 amThe comment is repeated several times above that no one cares about the gold standard issue. Why then, at every speech Ron Paul gives, is there loud and enthusiastic cheering when he discusses eliminating the Federal Reserve and returning to sound money. Counterfeiting is not so hard to understand nor is it hard to understand that it cheats the poor for the sake of bankers and politicians. Ron Paul HAS “honed” his message and he is wiser than the above commenters about how to campaign.
Comment by John Howard — October 11, 2007 @ 8:50 amWhile Ron Paul’s immigration policy does not fall into line with a number of libertarians it does seem to meet approval with many independents and conservatives. It is a possible issue that he can pick up other votes with if he pushes it more.
While he is right and extremely knowledgeable about the issue of the gold standard/fed reserve/abolish the IRS it is a fairly hard thing to explain at a debate. The problem is the voters just aren’t real knowledgeable about these very complex issues. It is not something on the forefront of their minds and is not something that will likely change their vote.
Healthcare is an issue that is pretty prominent right now. The problem is his views of likely getting the government out of the picture probably isn’t going to win him many new votes among the undecided unless he advocates for more incremental change to that end, which may be hard for him to do. I agree that Bush’s health care proposal may have been his best proposal of his entire presidency. The problem for Paul is that he is advocating getting rid of the IRS not using the current tax system for changes in health care. He could say, however, that though his preference is to get rid of the income tax, in the transition we should put everyone on equal footing with regards to taxes and health care and then outline his plan either similar to Bush’s or some other plan.
Comment by TerryP — October 11, 2007 @ 10:24 amThere were more people at the Ron Paul rally in Ann Arbor after the debate then there were at the actual debate. Iraq was but one of many issues championed by Dr. Paul. Many have said it was his best speech ever.
Comment by ManFaded — October 11, 2007 @ 11:21 amRon Paul simply kicked their butts, he is being forceful now!
Comment by RonPaul Supporter — October 11, 2007 @ 3:12 pmAny person who votes that votes for anyone other than Ron Paul is a fool…….period! In your life you have never come across a politician as honest as he is or even as smart as he is…….yeah, he doesn’t have the BS lines like the rest but the man means what he says and says what he means…….in any ONE of you think another person running will do better than Ron Paul, I think you need to take a very honest look at the world.
Comment by RonPaul Supporter — October 11, 2007 @ 3:16 pmGive me Liberty or give me Death!
Comment by RonPaul Supporter — October 11, 2007 @ 3:17 pmGiuliani is an Idiot! He hasn’t a clue; please would someone sendhim a dictionary.
Peace
Comment by Dave — October 11, 2007 @ 7:58 pmDoug Mataconis,
I’m sorry. I’ve been to your site a few times (it’s quite popular on digg, so kudos) but i have to finally say something. I’ve watched as you have spoken negatively about Ron Paul a few times now and i have to say a few things (respectfully of course):
1. The key to successful propaganda is to make sure the conversation stays within certain boundaries, in otherwords, it’s ok to argue over the little details, but not the direction. The presidential elections and acts of congress, in fact, the very DESIGN of congress is to make sure all energies are directed at the details, so as to circumvent any effort to change the direction. Remember, when you vote, you give your power away to elected officials who get lots of money from lobbyists to benefit corporate elites, and the remainder of the issues you have are completely silenced by the other members of congress who are voted down by the ‘purchased’ officials. This country is about to be amalgamated with mexico and canada. Amero’s are already minted, and the other 3 unions are coming to a close so as to amalgamate the four global unions under one government. This is fact, it is stated by the world leaders of each union and openly admitted to. These are facts. It’s written in hard copy in the form of signing statements, legislation, and executive orders.
The last true democratic society is being dismantled through erosion of sovreignty, and bankruptcy of the poor/middleclass.
2. Forget Ron Paul for a second. Forget that he is bringing up the issues he’s bringing up at all. Let the issues stand on their own for a moment. This country is broke because the entire budget has gone to fund a war that is being fought for oil, under false pretenses, and a at the discretion of a president that felt he didn’t need congressional approval. Congressional approval is SO important for the understated fact that by doing so constitutes that the american people have told their elected leaders to speak for them when making that decision to go in the first place. But when a president makes that decision despite the voice of congress, well, that’s standard issue dictatorship right there. Then think about how congress is bought lock, stock, and barrel, which constituted it’s willingness to go to war. Then think about our health-care system and why it isn’t working, and how the education system is falling apart, and how the wealth is being transferred from the poor/middle-class to the rich. Then think about the real ID card, and the abolishment of Habeus Corpus, and the patriot act, and the military commissions act, and the legalization of wiretapping, torture, and executive orders signed by this president that make dissent against HIS war a crime. Then think about how once the NAU becomes a reality how MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of mexicans will flood the US and Canada soaking up the welfare and education dollars ten-fold over what they’re taking out of it now. Then think about how the same people who are telling us that we need to fight for our freedom are also saying that social security will be there when you retire even though they’ve borrowed $249 billion from it last year, only to pay it back with….? They can’t, and won’t be able to because they can’t afford to pay back the $2.7 trillion dollars they owe china above and beyond the billions they owe the current deficit. Then think about the private interests that are benefitting from all this war. Then think about the military industrial complex that was warned about in Eisenhower’s farewell speech, and how it has taken a hold of this country. Then think about how a few private bankers created a monetary system that creats inflation by repudiation of debt, which is the OTHER system for transfer of wealth from the poor/middleclass to the rich. Then think about how the same people who are trying to form the NAU and other unions are the same people who control the media.
Then finally, realize that there’s a man, for the first time in well over a hundred years in congress, that is running for president, that is saying all these things that have been oppressed for the same amount of time.
The fact that you Doug, are still reprimanding Ron Paul for what he is saying, and more importantly his thorough, responsible, and moral understanding of these issues, backed by evidence ANYONE with brains could find and put together with what is available, tells me that you are not educated enough in the matters to truly understand and see the greater picture. If you were to take each issue he has brought forth, researched it in the detail with which he has already done so, this “Liberty Papers” site would maybe start living up to it’s name. History didn’t start sept 11th, 2001. It started with the instigation of a national bank, a military industrial complex, and a bunch of rich bastards that want to create a soviet-style, police-state dictatorship, only on a global scale. If you can’t see the blantant obviousness that is right there in front of your eyes, if you can put all that together, then you simply need to stop blogging until you’re informed enough.
So far, all i see, is a bunch of propaganda….or worse……you’re just one of the sheep arguing over the details of the insignificant…and remaining completely oblivious to the direction.
Thank god someone like Ron Paul is trying to come to power….so he can dismantle it.
One last thing. Before you decide to pick apart my arguement, just stop and realize that by not informing yourself better, and letting what is about to happen to occur……think about your children, and what you’re doing to their future by knocking the ONE AND ONLY person who is trying to save the country, instead of continue to propagate it’s destruction. These things ARE happening, and YOU sir….are helping them. Whether you know it or not. I truly hope you open your mind and your eyes, and then turn this site into something that will help, not hinder. We need to come together now more than ever, we can’t be bogged down in the details any longer. It’s time to attack the direction.
The most concerned citizen…
Comment by Virtual Revolution — October 11, 2007 @ 11:24 pm“”I don’t get the impression that he really connected with the audience. The average American doesn’t care about the Gold Standard, and they’re not going to. They also aren’t going to read Ludwig von Mises anytime soon. Where was the talk about reducing taxes ?”"
Wow! That just sum up to me that you really shouldn’t allow to give your opinion. So you only want people to tell you what you want to hear? Bush is a great president then.
Comment by lol — October 12, 2007 @ 6:16 amThe question is whether Ron Paul’s campaign is about educating the public or winning an election. I hate to say it, but the two goals are not particularly compatible. Despite all the claims about how people are rallying to Ron Paul, the fact is that he barely exceeds the margin of error in most national polls. And the Iowa Straw Poll clearly showed that the professional pollsters came a lot closer in their predictions of success in Iowa than those who depended upon anecdotal evidence of Paul’s strength.
If Paul wants to educate the public, then he will have accomplished a great deal if he just gets his poll numbers up to 8 or 9%. Because he will then have converted a significant percentage of the population to what, for them, is an entirely new philosophy, and that is a difficult thing to do.
But to try to convert 50% of the electorate to such a philosophy is an enormous task. If you’re going to insist, for example, on strict constitutionalism you have to educate the public on what the constitution says. Even Hillary and Obama with their huge war chests, do not try to do it.
So if you get bogged down in questions about why you want to abolish the CIA or the Dept of Education, you never get to discuss the things you would do that you can actually accomplish and that would make a difference. Let’s face it. The President cannot abolish the CIA or the Dept of Education, or the Federal Reserve or the IRS. Congress has to do those things and it isn’t very likely that they will even if RP is elected President.
So what RP needs to do is concentrate on a few main issues, explain those issues, and show why the country will benefit from them. I’m not talking about just the debates. Admittedly, he usually only gets asked questions about the War in these debates. But he’s giving speeches all over the country, and he will probably soon begin to start advertising, and at that point he needs to communicate his PRIORITIES. He can’t do all the things he advocates once he’s in the White House so he needs to communicate what he will DO, not what he THINKS. Otherwise, let’s accept that this is an educational campaign, RP is going nowhere in the election and any electoral fruits of this effort will have to wait for the future as RP supporters continue to spread the message.
Comment by Rob — October 12, 2007 @ 7:06 pmRob,
Exactly…you nailed it.
Comment by UCrawford — October 12, 2007 @ 7:17 pmPretending that “national polls” are “scientific” and that Ron Paul’s growing popularity may be dismissed is just the right thing for his silly opponents to do. That way they will be caught unaware when it is too late.
Comment by John Howard — October 14, 2007 @ 11:52 am