Not often you see something like this...
During the GOP debate on CNN tonight the Tea Party didn't just tank their brand, they nuked it. While they had a brand that was a mix of positives (liberty, no deficit spending and small government) and negatives (uncompromising and extremist) after tonight they solidified their brand as being outright nuts.
Blitzer asked Ron Paul how would a private healthcare system treat someone who didn't buy health insurance and got sick and required six months of care. Who would pay for it? Would he just be left to die if he couldn't pay?
At which point a number of people in the crowd cheered "YES".
Part of me wondered why CNN would pair up with the Tea Party to hold a debate, it seemed a bit odd (CNN leans to the left and the Tea Party is far far right). But when I heard that question it made sense. While the question was fair, it's pretty obvious that it was also designed to get a reaction out of the extreme elements in the crowd that night - to show just how crazy the Tea Party really was.
While Ron Paul responded 'No' (you don't just let someone die) and most of the audience was silent, the five or six people who cheered 'YES" created the impression that the Tea Party was more than happy to let people in need simply die.
If I was a casual viewer who was disappointed in Obama, that disappointment would pale in comparison to the fear I'd have over an insane Tea Party that was willing to let people die.
Ron Paul didn't answer the question that well either. What he was trying to say was you can't run a country by making rules based around the most irresponsible people (if you did then every car would have to come with a breathalizer for instance, even if you didn't drink you'd have to pay to get one installed if you wanted to drive - mandatory for all), it didn't come off that way. He came off as somewhat uncaring (which as the only anti-war candidate he isn't).
What he should have simply said was 'Opting out of health insurance, while a right, means that should you get sick and require care, when you are better, you'll find yourself with a giant medical bill that you will have to pay off - you won't get to freeload that bill on to tax payers. Buy the insurance and it will cover you if you get sick and you won't be in that bind. The choice is yours."
Unfortunately I think Paul is getting a bit too old (he's 76) for these debates, he simply can't respond on the spot with a concise message like he use to be able to do. He still hits a few out of the park, but he often stumbles for a minute in formulating his responses.
The PR lesson from this debate? Control the frame.
What I mean by this is that as a candidate, if you find yourself in a situation where something blows up in your face (or someone puts a loaded question in front of you), you have to know how you are going to bring it back under control. You have to have at your fingertips core talking point that you can use to launch your response from. And such talking points should be crafted such that they are bulletproof and can be used in response to the most dangerous or 'gotcha' crafted questions imagineable.
Paul should have chastized the audience members who cheered. He would have won points for that. He should have also explained that no one 'dies' under a free market system, but you do pay greater consequences if you act irresponsibly (such as getting stuck with a giant medical bill because you didn't want to pay for insurance). These are all things he knows, but he got disoriented in the moment (hence I think he's just getting too old to be doing this).
Paul later got boo'd by the crowd when he tried to explain that 9/11 was the result of American involvement in the affairs of the middle east. Kudos to Paul, he keeps trying to get people to understand how wars get started but no one wants to hear that America could have any role in motivating the attacks of 9/11 as a result of past foreign policy.
So there you have it, the Tea Party just shot itself in the foot.
To be fair, the people hurt most by this are the Tea Party themselves, wherein a small vocal minority have re-branded the movement as nutjob extremists.
Damage Control?
Unless the Tea Party comes out with a major response clarifying that they do not endorse letting people die who opt out of health insurance, they will let those five or six people who cheered redefine their brand for good.
As for Paul, he as well should come out with a video blog wherein he clarifies how he would handle people who act irresponsibly and don't get health insurance under a free market system, you can't let the notion that people would 'die' exist, it's unacceptable to 99 per cent of the voter public.
During the GOP debate on CNN tonight the Tea Party didn't just tank their brand, they nuked it. While they had a brand that was a mix of positives (liberty, no deficit spending and small government) and negatives (uncompromising and extremist) after tonight they solidified their brand as being outright nuts.
Blitzer asked Ron Paul how would a private healthcare system treat someone who didn't buy health insurance and got sick and required six months of care. Who would pay for it? Would he just be left to die if he couldn't pay?
At which point a number of people in the crowd cheered "YES".
Part of me wondered why CNN would pair up with the Tea Party to hold a debate, it seemed a bit odd (CNN leans to the left and the Tea Party is far far right). But when I heard that question it made sense. While the question was fair, it's pretty obvious that it was also designed to get a reaction out of the extreme elements in the crowd that night - to show just how crazy the Tea Party really was.
While Ron Paul responded 'No' (you don't just let someone die) and most of the audience was silent, the five or six people who cheered 'YES" created the impression that the Tea Party was more than happy to let people in need simply die.
If I was a casual viewer who was disappointed in Obama, that disappointment would pale in comparison to the fear I'd have over an insane Tea Party that was willing to let people die.
Ron Paul didn't answer the question that well either. What he was trying to say was you can't run a country by making rules based around the most irresponsible people (if you did then every car would have to come with a breathalizer for instance, even if you didn't drink you'd have to pay to get one installed if you wanted to drive - mandatory for all), it didn't come off that way. He came off as somewhat uncaring (which as the only anti-war candidate he isn't).
What he should have simply said was 'Opting out of health insurance, while a right, means that should you get sick and require care, when you are better, you'll find yourself with a giant medical bill that you will have to pay off - you won't get to freeload that bill on to tax payers. Buy the insurance and it will cover you if you get sick and you won't be in that bind. The choice is yours."
Unfortunately I think Paul is getting a bit too old (he's 76) for these debates, he simply can't respond on the spot with a concise message like he use to be able to do. He still hits a few out of the park, but he often stumbles for a minute in formulating his responses.
The PR lesson from this debate? Control the frame.
Paul should have chastized the audience members who cheered. He would have won points for that. He should have also explained that no one 'dies' under a free market system, but you do pay greater consequences if you act irresponsibly (such as getting stuck with a giant medical bill because you didn't want to pay for insurance). These are all things he knows, but he got disoriented in the moment (hence I think he's just getting too old to be doing this).
Paul later got boo'd by the crowd when he tried to explain that 9/11 was the result of American involvement in the affairs of the middle east. Kudos to Paul, he keeps trying to get people to understand how wars get started but no one wants to hear that America could have any role in motivating the attacks of 9/11 as a result of past foreign policy.
So there you have it, the Tea Party just shot itself in the foot.
To be fair, the people hurt most by this are the Tea Party themselves, wherein a small vocal minority have re-branded the movement as nutjob extremists.
Damage Control?
Unless the Tea Party comes out with a major response clarifying that they do not endorse letting people die who opt out of health insurance, they will let those five or six people who cheered redefine their brand for good.
As for Paul, he as well should come out with a video blog wherein he clarifies how he would handle people who act irresponsibly and don't get health insurance under a free market system, you can't let the notion that people would 'die' exist, it's unacceptable to 99 per cent of the voter public.
It is really such a nice and good post by you. We can get the more information about the nose from here. If the any one want to change the shape of nose then we can go for the nose job treatment.Which is so much reliable and succesful.
ReplyDeletenose job