Fox 19 WXIX, in Cincinnati. It's the evening news.

I noticed there was another Republican debate tonight. There seem to have been an awful lot of those so far. I can't help but ask: why? How many debates do these people need to have? They're not changing their positions--and if they did, they'd be labeled as "flip-floppers" (because God forbid anyone ever change their mind about anything) and driven out of the race. Besides which, it's not even an election year yet.

Here's the real question: don't these people have their own, current jobs to worry about?

The Cid wrote:I noticed there was another Republican debate tonight. There seem to have been an awful lot of those so far. I can't help but ask: why? How many debates do these people need to have? They're not changing their positions--and if they did, they'd be labeled as "flip-floppers" (because God forbid anyone ever change their mind about anything) and driven out of the race.

You need to have an awful lot of debates when each candidate is only given five minutes a night. Really, the debate format is designed to be useless by only producing short soundbites that might boost ratings, but definitely tell the voters nothing, and it is hampered by the inherent difficulty of having a debate of reasonable length and depth with more than two or three candidates.

Technically, they have so many because they want to debate different issues, but that can't be the case. They find out who isn't going to toe the party line (usually Paul) and give them virtually no time, so we can hear from all the other candidates who are trying to find the best way to say "tougher sanctions on Iran" and instigate the most fear of terrorists. Or attempt to placate the Tea Party by promising some trimming around the edges while the Leviathan continues to grow exponentially.

What we really need to understand the candidates (through the media) is for a news anchor to sit down with them individually for a few hours, give them actually tough questions, while representing their positions fairly and making them clear to the viewers. Since that will never happen, we have to make do with looking at their websites and their opponents critiques of the stated positions (by opponent, I mean anyone who supports another candidate or philosophy).

Besides which, it's not even an election year yet.

The primary system is all about who can be the earliest, thereby making the most uninformed decisions - and the earlier they make it, the earlier the "debating" starts. Seriously, it is all about being first, so you can supposedly influence the others, but in reality just picking on the first few rounds of information. Hence, all the focus on Iowa and New Hampshire. It's like all the states turn into "that guy" who posts nothing but "FIRST!" in the comments section of articles.

Here's the real question: don't these people have their own, current jobs to worry about?

Not really. Everyone knows that Congress is mostly irrelevant (and becoming more so by the day), states are handled by federal bureaucracies, and many of them have "the speaking circuit" as their job. I wish I could say that they don't have to do much in their current jobs because the government itself doesn't do much, but in reality, it's because bureaucrats pretty much run the country now.

collegestudent22 wrote:ratings

This is the word that hit the nail on the head. We have so many debates because it's all about ratings, and the news outlets don't really have anything else right now to boost those ratings.

collegestudent22 wrote:Not really. Everyone knows that Congress is mostly irrelevant (and becoming more so by the day), states are handled by federal bureaucracies, and many of them have "the speaking circuit" as their job.

I don't know. If they're going to spend this long campaigning, it's hard for me to believe they'll do more with their presidency than simply continue campaigning. So in other words, not entirely different from President Obama, who has been campaigning for presidential elections nonstop since 2004.

I agree, but I would put a disclaimer on that with Congressman Paul. Something tells me that he would be giving much the same rhetoric on the House floor if he were there, but it would be even less effective preaching to the idiots in Congress. As the lone contrary voice, he doesn't have much effect, much as I wish it were different. However, he has put up quite a few bills that have since been ignored in committee over the last year or two.

I think, for him at least, it is better for him to get his message out there, and if he was elected, I have faith that he would actually do something. Partially, this is because he detailed his budget plan very specifically already, and also because I think most of his job as President would be vetoing bad legislation - which actually requires him to do very little, because almost everything coming out of Congress is bad legislation.

collegestudent22 wrote:I agree, but I would put a disclaimer on that with Congressman Paul. Something tells me that he would be giving much the same rhetoric on the House floor if he were there, but it would be even less effective preaching to the idiots in Congress. As the lone contrary voice, he doesn't have much effect, much as I wish it were different. However, he has put up quite a few bills that have since been ignored in committee over the last year or two.

I think, for him at least, it is better for him to get his message out there, and if he was elected, I have http://www.keep.li/that he would actually do something. Partially, this is because he detailed his budget plan very specifically already, and also because I think most of his job as President would be vetoing bad legislation - which actually requires him to do very little, because almost everything coming out of Congress is bad legislation.

Hi.

I've been reading your post and found myself wondering about this word rhetoric you use. You know when you say 'Something tells me that he would be giving much the same rhetoric on the House floor if he were there'. What is Rhetoric to you ? Is it the art of 'drowning' a subject in big words or the art of changing the subject ?

On "choosing the lesser of two evils":

Sure, if supporters of Paul or other primary candidates do not decide to support the final Republican nominee for President, Obama might win. But if the alternative is viewed to be just as bad for the country, but in a different way, does that actually matter? Choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil. If we don't like a President like Obama violating the Constitution and demonizing the free market, why should we be OK with a candidate that, like Bush, will do the same thing with an 'R' after his name? If I don't like Obama killing American citizens overseas by drone without a trial for treason, why would I be OK with Romney or Cain doing it?

And if Obama wins because the Republicans choose a poor candidate, with little principle, this could be better in the long run - this could introduce some principle back into the party. McCain lost because he was essentially "Obama Lite", and we should be OK with running another watered-down version of a leftist? The idea of the system is to present two differing views (and I wish it was much more) to the people to choose between - not two views that are much the same, excepting small differences in approach or promise that, more often than not, disappear entirely once the election is over.

Voting should be based on principles held by the individual, or it is not going to properly hold government accountable to the people. Making a decision based on "electability" (an entirely subjective measurement that primarily involves following the dictates of press coverage) or party loyalty is to let someone else vote for you. Ron Paul's reluctance to support another Republican candidate should they win the primary is not due to spite or ambition. It springs from a strong belief in his understanding of the principles of liberty, self-reliance, and minimal government, and a lack of similar principles (or often ANY principles) in the other candidates - when even those candidates that claim to support shrinking government seem to balk at actually doing it.

The Cid wrote:They're not changing their positions

That's because they already did:

--and if they did, they'd be labeled as "flip-floppers" (because God forbid anyone ever change their mind about anything) and driven out of the race.

Well, hang on. I have no problem with them changing their views because they honestly reevaluate the facts and come to different conclusions. What I do have a problem with is changing their rhetoric without acknowledging they have done so, to deceive the electorate into voting for them. If they come out and say something like "I have changed my mind on this issue" and then continue on to describe in detail the new position and why they have changed it, perhaps I won't agree (and therefore not vote for them), but I won't want them driven out of the race, either. And perhaps it would actually bring them more in line with my philosophy of government and actually cause me to consider voting for them.

Hey, but at least the establishment is starting to recognize Congressman Paul as a threat - Karl Rove even admitted he could win Iowa on Hannity tonight.

collegestudent22 wrote:Well, hang on. I have no problem with them changing their views because they honestly reevaluate the facts and come to different conclusions.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about you in specific. That's how a change of mind is played: "he changed his mind, so he must waffle on everything!" When, in reality, we kind of need open-minded leadership in the off chance that they might not be all-knowing.

collegestudent22 wrote:Hey, but at least the establishment is starting to recognize Congressman Paul as a threat

He needs to get better at the dirty game that we despise. Otherwise he stands virtually zero chance of ever being elected, and the odds are heavily in favor of his entire platform being marginalized as a fad for the jaded minority.

Of course I have an anecdote to back this up. Someone very close to me is a politically motivated person, and a staunch Democrat. We have our share of political conversations. In 2008, this person dismissed Ron Paul as "crazy" immediately in all conversation. This was not something she thought up, but something that the talking heads she preferred to watch like to hammer in as a talking point. For whatever reason, calling a Libertarian platform crazy is a very effective way of dismissing it. (Another friend of mine--a party-line Republican if I've ever met one--said much the same thing about Dr. Paul in our conversations. "He's just the crazy old guy though, he's not really going anywhere.") Flash forward to last week, when the Democrat says this out of nowhere: "I sat down to watch the Republican debate the other day. I have to say, I can't believe it really but I think that Ron Paul makes a lot of sense."

Now, could she have figured that out by talking to me a few years ago and actually thinking about it? Absolutely. Not much has changed. But to do that, this person (who I care about deeply and who I feel is typically a reasonable and intelligent person) would have had to be willing to accept a political viewpoint besides her own, which (and I'm not making fun right now) can be very difficult for a person to do. After all, we do hold dearly to our beliefs, and those of us who really put some time into thinking about those beliefs tend to believe we're smart and our opinions are closer to the money than most. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it makes it difficult to keep open-minded about these things. This all gives us the illusion that we really have some stake in a given opinion, when really the only thing that should interest any of us is finding the plan most likely to work. Listening to supporters of a president--not just President Obama, but any president--defend that president's less popular qualities drives this home to me, because they sound much the way I sound when I talk about my favorite sports franchises. ("Sure, President Clinton lied to the entire country in a particularly arrogant and condescending way, but..." "Okay, tell me you wouldn't enjoy having a beer with someone like President Bush...") It makes the whole thing messy and personal when there's really nothing personal about it.

It sucks, but that's the game of it. Congressman Doctor Obstetrician "Ron" Paul appeals to reason, logic, and letting cool heads prevail in a crisis. Today's politics are all about emotional appeals and a belief in the magic of one person giving an impassioned speech that saves the world. ("If I can change, you can change.") They're about making opponents look like supervillains and how "likable" a candidate is. Just watch as the Romney campaign turns into something resembling an Eddie Bauer ad--commercials with Mitt playing fetch with his dog and being a family man--and Michelle Bachmann becomes more symbol than person. Newt Gingrich will play it like a televangelist warning people about the end times, Rick Perry will run as the likable good ol' boy that doesn't take crap, and President Obama is already working on his "no more Mr. Nice Guy" 2012 campaign that anybody who spent so much as ten seconds in a marketing class sees coming. Those are all effective strategies for getting elected. Much as I lament this, speaking softly and carrying some big ideas won't be enough to so much as compete with these clowns.

What we need is a grandstanding, emotional, smooth-talking young person to take Dr. Congressman Paul's ideas and run with them. The old guy that makes sense is too easy for the political machines to tear apart.

The Cid wrote:

collegestudent22 wrote:Hey, but at least the establishment is starting to recognize Congressman Paul as a threat

He needs to get better at the dirty game that we despise. Otherwise he stands virtually zero chance of ever being elected, and the odds are heavily in favor of his entire platform being marginalized as a fad for the jaded minority.

I disagree to an extent. And of course, I also have an anecdote to back this up. First, keep in mind that active minorities are often the determining factor in primary elections, and definitely in caucuses. And then take this as you will. I had a long, and very frustrating, debate at Thanksgiving. It started with a comment something to the effect of "I think most supporters of Congressman Paul will vote for him even if he doesn't get the nomination." My grandfather, both parents, and my younger brother were all trying to convince me (and by proxy, the libertarian supporters of Paul, I think) that it would be better to vote for the Republican as "the lesser of two evils" because Obama would be worse. But through that debate, I came to a conclusion - the Republican base will support anyone with an 'R' after their name, because, at least to them, tyrannyical government power is only bad if it's "the other side" in charge.

But I also agree. Winning the primary depends on a lot more than reason and logical debate, as sad as that may be.

It sucks, but that's the game of it. Congressman Doctor Obstetrician "Ron" Paul appeals to reason, logic, and letting cool heads prevail in a crisis. Today's politics are all about emotional appeals and a belief in the magic of one person giving an impassioned speech that saves the world. ("If I can change, you can change.") They're about making opponents look like supervillains and how "likable" a candidate is. Just watch as the Romney campaign turns into something resembling an Eddie Bauer ad--commercials with Mitt playing fetch with his dog and being a family man--and Michelle Bachmann becomes more symbol than person. Newt Gingrich will play it like a televangelist warning people about the end times, Rick Perry will run as the likable good ol' boy that doesn't take crap, and President Obama is already working on his "no more Mr. Nice Guy" 2012 campaign that anybody who spent so much as ten seconds in a marketing class sees coming. Those are all effective strategies for getting elected. Much as I lament this, speaking softly and carrying some big ideas won't be enough to so much as compete with these clowns.

While I see that coming, I think ads like this can be very effective. Note that Paul plays to the "flip-flopper" attack here, but it is entirely legitimate in this case - Gingrich really does change his mind frequently, for the sole purpose of gaining power and money. Just look at his statements on Obama's action in Libya. Prior to us going in, he urged it and decried Obama holding back. Obama does go in, and then it's all "I wouldn't have done that".



And Paul can appeal to emotion, when he feels it is appropriate. Take this pro-life ad, for example:

What we need is a grandstanding, emotional, smooth-talking young person to take Dr. Congressman Paul's ideas and run with them. The old guy that makes sense is too easy for the political machines to tear apart.

I think the problem with that is Paul's ideas. Specifically, it is very difficult to take reasoned, complex ideas, and boil them down to soundbytes and grandstanding. Though, while I may not be as well-versed in marketing as you, I think ads like these come pretty close to doing it:

collegestudent22 wrote:Though, while I may not be as well-versed in marketing as you, I think ads like these come pretty close to doing it:

What the Hell was that?! Is Max Headroom running for president? Max has aged like shit, by the way.

A noble effort, but I can't get over CGI Ron Paul. Is the G-Man from Half-Life going to be his running mate?

EDIT: Actually, screw it. I'm not done. I like Representative Paul, but that ad is just ridiculous. I need to make more jokes about it.

-"Ron Paul in 2012: Get your money for nothin' and your chicks for free."
-And now, thanks to this ad, Dr. Paul has risen to the top of the "scariest obstetricians in the world" list. Maybe you have to own the equipment, so to speak, but I'm pretty sure RoboPaul is the last thing any woman wants looking at that.
-"This ad paid for by the committee to elect an extra from The Walking Dead to the presidency."
-Maybe it won't be so bad if I watch it again. ...AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! No, definitely still bad, and now my nightmares have a new protagonist: the candidate for president that I support.
-I hope this creates a trend. I can't wait to see Mitt Romney's claymation ad ("Romney and Goliath") and President Obama's sing-a-long cartoon.

collegestudent22 wrote:Specifically, it is very difficult to take reasoned, complex ideas, and boil them down to soundbytes and grandstanding.

Then leave the ideas out of it. It's not like the other candidates are going to run on their stances. Come on. Mitt Romney's going to be Ward Cleaver For President: morally squeaky-clean, family man, successful in business, likes to throw a stick for his dog. President Obama will just run as a new-and-improved version of the guy that won everybody's hearts in 2008. These aren't platforms built on issues and stances, are they?

Here, let me show you a way of making Representative Obstetrician Paul look more like a traditional candidate:

My Fake Ron Paul Pitch wrote:Ron Paul is the hardest working man in Washington. For decades, Dr. Paul has fought hard for what he believes in, no matter how much of an uphill battle. (This is where we show Representative Paul's opposition to military actions and controversial legislation.) Never a party mouthpiece (Pow! Quote from a newspaper about how Paul's message is not always in-step with the Republicans), Ron Paul is a true change from politics as usual. (Smash cut to Dr. Paul. Not Pixar Ron Paul, but the real one, wearing the presidential blue suit with a red or blue tie--and Hell, let's have him wear both and send the blue tie to places like California and Massachusetts while the red tie goes to Texas and other "red" states--in a doctor's office, hopefully his own. He gives us a short line or two about how Washington's broken and he's the guy willing to look for a real solution instead of just the easy way out. Oh, and how he approves of the message. And isn't generated by a computer. Seriousy, that CGI ad was freaking creepy.)

I agree that the ad would have been better with the effects applied to real video of Paul speaking, but I didn't think the CGI was that bad, at least for a non-official ad.

Then leave the ideas out of it. It's not like the other candidates are going to run on their stances. Come on. Mitt Romney's going to be Ward Cleaver For President: morally squeaky-clean, family man, successful in business, likes to throw a stick for his dog. President Obama will just run as a new-and-improved version of the guy that won everybody's hearts in 2008. These aren't platforms built on issues and stances, are they?

All true, but I still think he needs to be able to win on the issues. I look at it this way. If you support the libertarian view of liberty here, you would be for Paul getting elected. That much is obvious, and, at first glance, any way to get him into office would be what we want.

But if he gets elected on a emotional, but substance-free, push, nothing will change. You will have a bit of a respite from war and government interference, which would be great, but as soon as his term (or, hopefully, two) were up, we would be back to where we are now, as the people would still be cozy in their liberal or conservative indoctrination. They won't understand that many of the problems in the Middle East stem from things like Operation Ajax in 1953, or our support of Iraq (the aggressor) in the Iraq-Iran War in the 80's, including our destruction of a civilian Iranian airliner that, according to neutral sources (the Dubai airport, for example) had identified itself and was ascending and leaving the area, while US Admirals eventually admitted the warship that shot it down was in Iranian waters. Or our support of dictators like Mubarak and Qaddafi, before we decided our interests were better served by letting them be killed (causing both supporters and rebels under these regimes to dislike us).

They won't understand how the Federal Reserve creates massive amounts of inflation and the bubbles that keep bursting every 10 years or so. They won't understand the dangerous power being given to the President to detain anyone, including US civilians, merely be declaring that evidence does exist (but it's top secret evidence, so we can release it or national security will be threatened) that the individual is a "terrorist". Etc.

And knowing that the transition to these "new" ideas, especially those involving the monetary system, will, by necessity, be rough (and slow, due to push back from the power hungry individuals that will still remain in government) - just as drug withdrawal is rough, but necessary - it will be likely that Americans will blame Paul for these hardships, and push back, attempting to (and possibly succeeding) in restoring the broken system we currently have, and that is further exacerbated if they didn't understand what they were really voting for when they elected him.

collegestudent22 wrote:I agree that the ad would have been better with the effects applied to real video of Paul speaking, but I didn't think the CGI was that bad, at least for a non-official ad.

Oh come on, the whole thing was ridiculous. CGI stand-ins are a bad idea in political ads. You don't want your political candidate hanging out in the uncanny valley. Beyond that, no ad is worth putting out there if you get a different message when you watch it with the sound off. With the sound off in this ad, Ron Paul looks like the man who will bring about the end times. Where's the dog? Where are the adorable grandkids? Where's the smiling hero we're supposed to rush to the polls and vote for? If we're talking about the presidency and not just the Republican nomination, he's going to have to go up against a photogenic family man who cutely promises his children a puppy if he wins the election. You're not beating Mr. Sunshine with fire and flooding. Maybe a "there's a tough road ahead, but together we will all come out stronger" kind of message, but not The RonPaulcalypse in that commercial.

You're thinking in terms of checkers. The rest of the candidates are playing full contact gridiron football. And they will make you king them at the end anyway. Can't fight fire with logic.

Besides: those jokes were worth making. I don't care that it's the candidate I like. He's as open to ridicule as anyone else, and you know I'd be ripping CyberNewt until I couldn't breathe from the laughter.

collegestudent22 wrote:But if he gets elected on a emotional, but substance-free, push, nothing will change. You will have a bit of a respite from war and government interference, which would be great, but as soon as his term (or, hopefully, two) were up, we would be back to where we are now, as the people would still be cozy in their liberal or conservative indoctrination.

Well that's where libertarian indoctrination comes into play. Those eight years get spent bringing conservatives and liberals together over the one philosophy that can: a socially-forward yet fiscally prudent one, brought forth by an old doctor that should be spending the early days of this campaign making himself look like America's grandfather. Ron Paul could do for our civil cold war what Rocky did for the original. Tintin's grandfather in that commercial you posted, however, can't.

Well, you have a point there, I suppose.

Congressman Doctor Obstetrician "Ron" Paul

I prefer to call him Doctor Obstetrician/Gynecologist Captain Flight Surgeon Congressman Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul. Just throw in all his possible titles, his full name, and his nickname all at once.

It seems a large amount of the Cain supporters are heading to the Paul camp now that he is out of the race. I cannot understand why anyone would believe the media spin about this race. Gingrich is NOT an "anti-Romney", he will not get much of a boost from former Cain supporters, and as a result, this race could very well go to Paul.