Friday, June 15, 2007

Comedy Central hit squad called in on Ron Paul

I noticed from the get-go what was being done by having Ron Paul appear on the Daily Show and Colbert Report, helping to poison the liberal leaning audience typical of these show’s viewers against Paul's message of small government. Both John Stewart and Colbert made a point of mentioning all the govt agencies that he would like to do away with, to the detriment of substantive discussion of monetary policy and how it effects the average American’s pocketbook; the issue that I would like to see Paul stress, as I feel it forms a potent message and has the potential to sweep him into the white house. When someone says, “Let’s do away with the dept of education” and isn’t afforded the opportunity to explain why, it’s hard for Middle America to take that message seriously. How can this guy be against education?

This free market news network writer is on to it here, and recommends Paul switch up his strategy when he finds himself baited in such a way. Both John and Stephen seemed to be working from the same talking points during their interviews. Small talk, a little campaign banter, “So how’s Iowa” etc... Then launch right in to the list of seemingly well intentioned government agencies this kook would have us go without. Then as soon as that occurs, a handshake and a “Thanks for coming on the show”. Paul should have brought one of his books as a gift to these hosts, say “A foreign Policy of Freedom” and then used that intro as a way to introduce substantive discourse into the appearance. Instead the hosts of these shows do all the talking and the viewer is left wondering exactly what if anything the guest had to say. Contrast this with Al Gore’s recent appearance on the daily show, he was allowed to do all the talking, set the tone and pace of the discussion and wasn’t led into making statements lacking sufficient justification and detail.

.....But to do so, I believe he should continue to position himself not just as "Dr. No" - someone against the $3 trillion obscenity that is the US Federal government, but also as Dr. Yes - as in 'Yes, I am an American,' and "Yes, here's what doing away with these wasteful programs means to you."

In watching him on the Colbert Report, I could not help but see how far he had come in terms of a humorous and warm public persona. But his message still relied on negatives - programs he would do away with. I could almost hear the average American wincing as Ron Paul ticked off program after program that he would "disappear" - as the media often seems to be doing to the good doctor's appearances themselves.

Instead of just talking about what would "go" - Dr. Paul should be emphasizing what the disappearance of so many government "services" would mean to the individual American. How much more money he or she would have in his or her own pocket - the freedom of choice such a return of capital would entail.

He defined himself on the Colbert Report at one point as a "constitutionalist" - but I would much rather hear him define himself as an "American."

Ron Paul is an Amercian - the best kind of American. He believes in the resilience of the American spirit, in Yankee Ingenuity, in the private enterprise that made America great. He believes that the America that once was - the America of free-markets and limited government - can arise again. With the help of the Internet, that is occurring even now. So Ron Paul is not wrong about it, and his candidacy is not a hopeless case at all.

But from what I saw - and I know a bit about marketing - Ron Paul has got to go on a "charm offensive" if he is truly "break through." When he's asked a question, he has to be positive, put it into terms that the voter can understand from a "what's in it for me" perspective.

If he can push his message in that direction, he'll be even more effective. Instead of "sending a message" he may well win enough votes to send a real "shot across the bow" of the monetary and power elite that are hoping both the Internet and pols like Ron Paul go away. Not a chance. Now all the good doctor has to do is "make 'em believe."

School's out. Give 'em red meat and they'll line up at the door. The message is right. It just needs a bit more in the way of vitamins. Go to it, doctor! -Anthony Wile

Read the rest of the story here.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Anyone who watches the Daily Show or the Colbert Report on a reqular basis knows that these shows get their laughs by making guests look like crackpots. Ron Paul has enough controversial views that Colbert and Stewart could have had a field day. Instead, they treated him in a very favorable way.

Stewart and Colbert must be closet Libertarians!

I do agree witht the FMNN piece regarding Ron Paul delivery of the small government message. But you certainly can't blame Stewart or Colbert for giving Ron Paul the dream shot.

Mattb79 said...

I know, it could have gone much worse. I think both appearances were carefully tailored to subtly turn off liberal minded viewers. They both focused on aspects of his campaign distasteful to the core crowd watching the daily show and Colbert. I do agree he was treated respectfully however.

Colbert could have gone all Lou Dobbs on him and asked, So, Congressman Paul, if elected, how big of a fence would you build between Mexico and the US, 50 feet? 100 feet??. I can see it now.

I just wish Paul would really take charge of his campaign, sometimes he seems as though he's just along for the ride.