Ron Paul
One criticism I've had of Ron Paul is his failure to take complex ideas and boil them down to something that resonates with the American people in 30 seconds (which is what they are often given in these debates).
It's not really his fault in the sense that it's a bit absurd to think a person can spend a lifetime studying economics, philosophy, politics and that what takes a lifetime to learn can be condensed down to 30 seconds of wisdom that reasonates with the masses.
So I was happy to see his campaign using video to bridge this gap. In a recent video he's countered one of his most misunderstood stances - the anti-war stance. He's got a good tag line, Mutually Assured Respect. It's something that will resonate in 30 seconds and which the media will take an interest in and give him interviews to flush out what exactly he means by MAR.
It's sort of mind boggling when you think about the fact that in the year 2011 there is only one candidate, Democrat or Republican, who is an anti-war candidate.
I think the video Paul made will lose him as much as it gains him though - as there are so many people who believe that war is necessary, that we are in an 'existential battle' for our lives - but that's what I like about this guy, he doesn't play to win at any cost. In fact, it's not really winning if you have to sacrifice your beliefs to win (that's just a watered down version of losing).
Anyway, this was a good PR move by Paul. Double down on your beliefs, stand up to those who mock your anti-war stance and appear presidential - at least this way if you lose you can say you did your best.
It's funny, I had written Paul off, but if he keeps doing things like the video above, I think he may get himself back in the race (the question is whether American's want someone that makes sense or if they just want someone that uses the same old campaign lingo).
Barack Obama
Ironically, a story broke today that I think will help Obama out a little as well. Apparently Obama tried to dissolve Citigroup but Geithner wasn't able to get it done in time.
In a book coming out about Obama, the author writes:
Suskind reportedly writes that "the Citibank incident, and others like it, reflected a more pernicious and personal dilemma emerging from inside the administration: that the young president's authority was being systematically undermined or hedged by his seasoned advisers."
I mean, yikes!
We all know the president has limitations, and some would go so far as to say the presidency is merely a puppet-position beholden to a variety of interests, but the notion that the people closest to the president would treat him like a child and undermine his authority is a pretty serious accusation.
It definitely makes you wonder just how much of the Obama administration has been Obama, and how much of it has been guys like Bernanke, Geithner, and other banker / Wall Street types.
James Carvill was on CNN recently saying Obama needs to start firing people and start throwing bankers in jail.
It should be interesting to see what happens with Obama's brand in the coming months. With approval dropping like a stone he's got nothing left to lose at this point - if he has in fact been handcuffed by his own people over the past three years, then it's time he breaks out of those handcuffs and starts being the President and not just a spokesperson for the White House.
He's been telegraphing an us versus them, rich versus poor campaign theme for a month or so now. It's the wrong way to go. What he should be telegraphing is a time for justice campaign theme. That would satisfy the populous rage out there without tearing America apart at the seems.
Rich people are NOT bad... corrupt rich people though are. Getting rich via corruption is bad, getting rich through hard work is not.
Anyway, we'll see what happens, this are getting interesting already =)
One criticism I've had of Ron Paul is his failure to take complex ideas and boil them down to something that resonates with the American people in 30 seconds (which is what they are often given in these debates).
It's not really his fault in the sense that it's a bit absurd to think a person can spend a lifetime studying economics, philosophy, politics and that what takes a lifetime to learn can be condensed down to 30 seconds of wisdom that reasonates with the masses.
So I was happy to see his campaign using video to bridge this gap. In a recent video he's countered one of his most misunderstood stances - the anti-war stance. He's got a good tag line, Mutually Assured Respect. It's something that will resonate in 30 seconds and which the media will take an interest in and give him interviews to flush out what exactly he means by MAR.
It's sort of mind boggling when you think about the fact that in the year 2011 there is only one candidate, Democrat or Republican, who is an anti-war candidate.
I think the video Paul made will lose him as much as it gains him though - as there are so many people who believe that war is necessary, that we are in an 'existential battle' for our lives - but that's what I like about this guy, he doesn't play to win at any cost. In fact, it's not really winning if you have to sacrifice your beliefs to win (that's just a watered down version of losing).
Anyway, this was a good PR move by Paul. Double down on your beliefs, stand up to those who mock your anti-war stance and appear presidential - at least this way if you lose you can say you did your best.
It's funny, I had written Paul off, but if he keeps doing things like the video above, I think he may get himself back in the race (the question is whether American's want someone that makes sense or if they just want someone that uses the same old campaign lingo).
Barack Obama
In a book coming out about Obama, the author writes:
Suskind reportedly writes that "the Citibank incident, and others like it, reflected a more pernicious and personal dilemma emerging from inside the administration: that the young president's authority was being systematically undermined or hedged by his seasoned advisers."
I mean, yikes!
We all know the president has limitations, and some would go so far as to say the presidency is merely a puppet-position beholden to a variety of interests, but the notion that the people closest to the president would treat him like a child and undermine his authority is a pretty serious accusation.
It definitely makes you wonder just how much of the Obama administration has been Obama, and how much of it has been guys like Bernanke, Geithner, and other banker / Wall Street types.
James Carvill was on CNN recently saying Obama needs to start firing people and start throwing bankers in jail.
It should be interesting to see what happens with Obama's brand in the coming months. With approval dropping like a stone he's got nothing left to lose at this point - if he has in fact been handcuffed by his own people over the past three years, then it's time he breaks out of those handcuffs and starts being the President and not just a spokesperson for the White House.
He's been telegraphing an us versus them, rich versus poor campaign theme for a month or so now. It's the wrong way to go. What he should be telegraphing is a time for justice campaign theme. That would satisfy the populous rage out there without tearing America apart at the seems.
Rich people are NOT bad... corrupt rich people though are. Getting rich via corruption is bad, getting rich through hard work is not.
Anyway, we'll see what happens, this are getting interesting already =)
Comments
Post a Comment