Replies

Not watching the debates because frankly they're getting ridiculous. Did hear Dr. Paul's 'just come home' and the applause. I'll agree his problem is he's trying to teach the Constitution to masses that don't understand it in a forum that it doesn't work in. But I think there's something you may be missing. His supporters are coming out and off the internet. Look at some of his recent campaign stops since the St. Rudy flareup in May. And applause for 'just come home'?

You're right, this type of forum doesn't work well for him. But the message is still getting out. And being accepted by a growing number of supporters. At the very least there is now a middle tier. Romney, Giuliani in the top, Rep. Paul and McCain (with McCain getting ready to fall out) in the middle, and the rest in the third tier. As for Fred coming in, it may be too late.

Paul is not in the middle tier.

The cameras panned to the audience after Ron Paul stated his cut and walk away position with “illegal war”
thrown into the mix.

It was a small part of the crowd that applauded with very few in the center section applauding his line.

Ron Paul loses me on that position, he is apparently ignorant of Al Quida’s presence in Iraq and championing DUmmy talking points does not win points with me at all.

I'll agree his problem is he's trying to teach the Constitution to masses that don't understand it in a forum that it doesn't work in. But I think there's something you may be missing. His supporters are coming out and off the internet. Look at some of his recent campaign stops since the St. Rudy flareup in May. And applause for 'just come home'?

If you review it, there was almost as much booing as applause for "just come home". Stands to reason because so many supporters of the pro-war candidates were there.

Ron Paul is great at the rallies, not so good at debate with political animals, many of whom are lawyers or have extensive debate experience.

I think we see him performing more strongly in debates on issues like Iraq because he does talk about those when he campaigns. But there are a lot of policy issues he isn't addressing every day. And it shows in these debates. He really needs to expand his policy topics list. For instance, it's fine to talk about sound money but when they recently polled Wall Streeters (a young financial crowd), most of them couldn't even properly define the gold standard. While many of us agree with von Mises and Austrian economic theory, that isn't the same thing as having a set of policies or some kind of track record on how to prioritize bridge replacements, etc.

I'm saying he has to move from fundamental economics positions and non-interventionism to actual working solutions on legitimate federal issues. Certainly, the Founders built a lot of bridges in the early Congresses.

RP has to move to a broad policy agenda. And a modern American president is a creature of the television. You simply have to be good at putting your message across on TV, at talking over the press as well as the other candidates.

RP did well in pointing out that Cheney is regarded in D.C. on all sides as more powerful than Bush and he identified Cheney and the neocons as the motive force in nationbuilding and called for a return to traditional conservative values. I'd say that describes what he's against but not what he's for.

I've said hundreds or thousands of times on this forum that you have to give people something to vote for. Ron Paul needs to work on that. He had some opportunities today he could have done a lot more with. Let's face it, some glibness in fielding random questions can have some advantages politically.

You're right, this type of forum doesn't work well for him. But the message is still getting out. And being accepted by a growing number of supporters. At the very least there is now a middle tier. Romney, Giuliani in the top, Rep. Paul and McCain (with McCain getting ready to fall out) in the middle, and the rest in the third tier. As for Fred coming in, it may be too late.

Fred is missing chances to build state organization. His supporters are frustrated here at the forum and everywhere else. With this much prep time, he'd better come out of the box like the 800-lb. gorilla or he will fall flat, I think. The game of high expectations has started to work against him.

As for RP's growing support, it's all good and quite surprising. But you have to move past a campaign that often sounds like a class in civics or on economic theory and actually put forward your positions on day-to-day policy.

Abolition of IRS by returning to a 2000 federal budget is a great argument to make. But he didn't make it today. Advocating a sounder currency is excellent but a president can't do that without broad support from Congress.

I'm not abandoning Ron Paul by any means. I'm just saying he has to speak to broader issues so he's better prepared to perform more strongly in these debates.

RP does well when he has 5-10 minutes to present his positions. But, repeatedly, he can't put them across in 30 seconds. It simply has to improve or his standing in the race can't improve. I'm talking about political limiting factors here, something that is completely about the candidate, not the policies he advocates.

I also noticed a number of small lines, like McStain's vow to veto Bridge To Nowhere and expose porkbarrel earmarks, were taking a page out of the old conservative playbook. Those are perfect issues for RP but we're just not hearing them enough. Those of us who support him know those positions well but the average viewer of this debate would have no clue where he stands on those issues.

Policy, however sound, has to be articulated by the candidate and communicated steadily.

You should understand that I would critique some of the other candidates as well but I'm not as concerned with them, most will just implode after Ames. Ron Paul won't because we have a campaign warchest and organization.

Ron Paul did get one very solid statement in on the war in Iraq, the false threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq, the false claims of WMD, how we would invade and it would all be a nice little democracy in three months with lots of oil flowing, etc. That was when Romney tried to interrupt with his "Have you forgotten about 9/11?" remark which Ron deflected. It was RP's best moment and the booers were far less than the cheerers. The crowd responded strongly enough that when McCain followed RP on that and was forced to back down to admitting to supporting (while criticizing) the war that was "badly mismanaged for nearly the first four years". He then went on to the usual but-now-we're-winning and the troops are happy, etc.

So RP did score a few points there. Enough to turn some votes toward him at Ames? That's a good question.

However you slice policy issues, you have to have a candidate that can come across in sound bites, in 30-60 second slots in debate. In a less well-known candidate (Paul, Tancredo, Hunter, etc.), it's absolutely essential.

Look, I've got a good friend who likes to run for office. It's become a hobby. He has good conservative positions. But failure to communicate those effectively in debate or interviews hamstrings his chances to ever be elected. Ron Paul does well at interviews and rallies. But this debate performance simply cannot win if it doesn't improve. You can't come from behind if the biggest opportunities you can get are in your weakest area of performance.