There’s a big difference between expecting a mere mortal to perform miracles and giving someone a free pass. When Ron Paul makes an outright mistake it should be acknowledged, just as anyone else’s should. But when Ron Paul is getting gigged for being Ron Paul and not someone else, the fault lies with the person making the criticism.

Hell, if he had been anyone but the quirky doctor from Texas, he probably wouldn’t have made it this far. More importantly, the message might not have made it this far. There’s a certain congeniality about the man that makes the message seem more genuine than when it comes from a more polished politician like Bob Barr, and that resonated for a while early last year. Unfortunately, a few misplaced gaffes allowed the media and his opponents to paint Dr. Paul as an absolute whackjob.

Therein lies the danger of placing our message in the hands of a single messenger. Discredit the messenger you discredit the message. The message of human liberty, and the dignity and sanctity of each human being, has to be bigger than a single messenger.

If you’re worried about the effectiveness of Ron Paul at spreading the message of liberty, keep your eyes and ears open for those who can pick up the torch and run farther and faster with it.

Now that you’re “philosophically aware” who are you looking to change the nation in 5 minutes.

I would classify myself a fairly ardent Ron Paul supporter, but do not for a moment consider him to be flawless. He doesn’t consider himself that way either. Congressman Paul is a 10 term Republican Representative that has an amazingly consistent record of voting in line with a constructionist view of the U. S. Constitution, which also happens to coincide with many libertarian views. He is not all things to all people.

Quincy made an excellent point that several voices of different styles would be far better than any one voice, and I also strongly agree with Stephen’s repudiation of friendly fire.

Constructive criticism of liberty’s champions is not the same as constant, unyielding attack. I like to save the latter venom for the statists.

And therein lies the danger of handing out free passes or deifying a figure in the movement for human liberty.

@all, I find it funny that if I make the comment, I am “pissing” on Ron Paul, but if Peter Schiff makes the comment, no one blinks. I suppose that’s one deity speaking to another…

oilnwater, if you want to challenge me, do it without the strawman arguments.

that’s the thing about people in these circles. you piss on someone relentlessly. and then, because you act in the same manner as a mentally ill person, you keep pissing on them in perpetuity when a mentally healthy person would have instead 1) pissed on someone and 2) MOVED ON and forgotten about that person. that’s respect.

I think you might need to emotionally detach from the discussion.

We’re on the same page. Libertarians spend far too much time letting perfect be the enemy of good.

I totally agree with your general argument.

I simply don’t believe (as some in the movement do believe) that Ron Paul doesn’t poop and probably walks on water and I also don’t believe that being a better speaker means selling one’s soul out to the devil (or Bilderbirgers or CFR or folks-who-believe-that-Neil-Armstrong’s-moon-landing-was-staged-in-a studio).

I’m tired of the fratricide. Let’s move on and make America a freer place.

In my book, the most effective thing for Ron Paul to do is to keep being Ron Paul. The most effective thing for the pro-liberty movement to do is to find some other speakers with different voices and take some of the heat off Dr. Paul. We need speakers of many types to take our message of individual liberty forward. Someone like Daniel Hannan will connect with certain segments of the population, while a smooth-talking baby-kisser will connect with others, while Dr. Paul will reach still more. Expecting one person to communicate well across the spectrum is a strategic error. There are some who can, but it should never be planned on.

At one time, I could flip on C-SPAN at midnight most given nights to see the good doctor giving a speech to himself, too.

I’d prefer to see Dr. Paul spending more of his time crafting legislation which can actually pass which also makes the country a freer place. That requires a whole lot more work than giving some speech to make the folks at LRC and RonPaulForums happy, though.

I’ve been hearing politicians talk the talk all my life. While Paul’s talks (the substance, obviously not the style) can be refreshing at times, it would be nicer to see him working on driving winnable freedom-oriented legislation.

Of note is that the Campaign for Liberty is also doing a whole lot more talking than walking.

While I’m glad he is in Congress, I really hope he DOES NOT run for President in 2012. If he does, and Lew Moore and Jesse Benton are anywhere near the campaign, I won’t donate $1 to it. RP’s 2008 Presidential campaign was nothing more than a huge failure. The grassroots are what got RP’s name out and actually recognizable, RP’s campaign was a failure and I’m still waiting on an apology for the money they wasted.

I really had never considered Ron Paul’s point. Interesting…

Please note, though, that one can hold the floor like Danial Hannan, staying on message in limited time.

If you check out Danial hannan’s youtube channel, you will note that he is very disciplined, delivering blistering takedowns in the space of 1 minute.

Peter Schiff suggested to Congressman Paul: “…try to keep your questions very short and poignant so you can have a chance to rebut them…”

Paul responded: “There’s two arguments on that. I get a lot of criticism for not doing that, but over the years I have found that when I do that – ask a short question and expect an answer – it’s very hard to keep them short. Sometimes he gets more time than I do. And I get a total of 5 minutes and that’s it. It’s a judgment call. And I just think that when they get 4 out of my 5, or 3 minutes out of my 5, that doesn’t work very well.

I agree with both oilnwater and tarran that, while it’s highly unlikely that the respondent will issue a theatrical confession after 5 minutes of being expertly grilled on the stand, there is a small chance the questioner can catch the respondent in a contradiction. That would indeed be a powerful sound bite. It would probably be explained afterwards as “I misspoke, here’s what I mean….”, but if the respondent doesn’t recover well, it could indeed snowball into controversy.

Five minutes is a short time, but it’s on camera, and may actually be watched by a very small segment of the general population. What does one fit in those five minutes? I can see Congressman Paul’s point that he prefers to have those five minutes represent his point of view, rather than be consumed by more expostulation or evasion from the other side.

Truly, if you find yourself able to craft that perfect silver bullet cross examination question, perhaps you should post it here, or send it to Congressman Paul so he can use it on the next attempt.

Part of the problem may be that he doesnt realize he has a new audience.