Attack Ads????

[MrZach]

I don't like this idea. In fact, I detest this idea.

It doesn't represent Dr. Paul, and it does not represent his platform or principals.

People are turned off by it and it can backfire... Can anyone say "blowback"?

We lost Ron Paul supporters in Illinois because of "attack ads" run in Illinois against Obama (paid for by other Ron Paul supporters)... Part of they reason they loved Ron Paul so much is because he didn't get into the dirty politics. As soon as we got into it, they said "Guess we were wrong about Ron Paul's candidacy." - I don't agree with the decision, but that's what happened.

In fact, that is part of the reason *I* love Ron Paul so much... he doesn't get dirty... why would I want to join in on what I dislike so much about the whole process?

Why don't we just suspend habius corpus and start torturing detainees while we're at it... all in the name of "winning" right???

[morerocklesstalk]

I don't like attack ads but I don't mind contrasts of stances. No scare tatics just facts.

[Lord Xar]

hmm.

"IF" you are showing the truth, how is that an Attack Ad?

Is that what you mean, or are you speaking about 'fabrications'?

because speaking the truth is not a problem, is it? How does that go against Ron Paul's positions?

[coffeewithchess]

Many people say they don't like attack ads, but the truth is they work. If we do them, I don't think we do them as Ron Paul supporters, but as concerned citizens trying to get out the truth.

[Elijah]

What would Ron Paul do?

[coffeewithchess]

What would Ron Paul do?

Ron Paul used an attack type ad on one of his opponents running against him for Congress...:D:D:D

[nodope0695]

If we're telling the truth, and not nessessarily affiliating ourselves with Ron Paul's campaign, why not? People need to know what a slimeball McFuck really is.

[MrZach]

hmm.

"IF" you are showing the truth, how is that an Attack Ad?

Is that what you mean, or are you speaking about 'fabrications'?

because speaking the truth is not a problem, is it? How does that go against Ron Paul's positions?

Ron Paul sticks to the issues and doesn't talk about other candidates. If he does, he is VERY careful about it, and it only comes up when he is discussing an issue and contrasting his views against some of the other conventional arguments...

Bringing up dirt on another candidate and flaunting it to scare people AWAY from that candidate - even if it is totally true - is an attack ad.

I'll admit - Ron Paul needs to run better ads on HIS positions - especially the ones where he is strong - the economy, the war - and he needs to explain his positions in a way that is easy for most people to understand/swallow...

...but he doesn't need to bring up other candidates by name and "target" McCain - this will only encourage McCain fence riders to go out and vote to spite Ron Paul and may shave off some Ron Paul supporters...

The ad ran in the paper in IL was just a quote from Obama saying he wasn't going to completely withdraw the troops and a mention that he voted to renew the Patriot Act. This was contrasted with Ron Paul saying we need to get out of Iraq now and that he voted against the Patriot Act twice. Seems harmless, right? Wrong. THAT is an attack ad, and THAT is what people emotionally respond to - in a negative way, the opposite of how you want, these days. Why? Because people are emotional and not rational - but that's how it works.

Lets not go there.

[parocks]

What kind of "blowback" do you expect?

You think this "blowback" will jeopardize Ron Paul's chances of winning?

Here's a bit of insight. Unless John McCain is stopped, and soon, John McCain will be the Republican nominee.

All of our strategy depends on a brokered convention, and if McCain gets the delegates, there will be no brokered convention.

Obviously, we should be going negative, through local TV cable spots funded by grassroots chip-ins.

I don' t know anything about Obama ads. There seems to be some sort of weird tendency to want to mention Ron Paul even if you're attacking another candidate.

Did the commercial do that?


I don't like this idea. In fact, I detest this idea.

It doesn't represent Dr. Paul, and it does not represent his platform or principals.

People are turned off by it and it can backfire... Can anyone say "blowback"?

We lost Ron Paul supporters in Illinois because of "attack ads" run in Illinois against Obama (paid for by other Ron Paul supporters)... Part of they reason they loved Ron Paul so much is because he didn't get into the dirty politics. As soon as we got into it, they said "Guess we were wrong about Ron Paul's candidacy." - I don't agree with the decision, but that's what happened.

In fact, that is part of the reason *I* love Ron Paul so much... he doesn't get dirty... why would I want to join in on what I dislike so much about the whole process?

Why don't we just suspend habius corpus and start torturing detainees while we're at it... all in the name of "winning" right???

[parocks]

How about negative attacks that don't mention Ron Paul?

"McCain is a scumbag" paid for by (mention the name of the group that's funding it that has nothing to do with Ron Paul).





Ron Paul sticks to the issues and doesn't talk about other candidates. If he does, he is VERY careful about it, and it only comes up when he is discussing an issue and contrasting his views against some of the other conventional arguments...

Bringing up dirt on another candidate and flaunting it to scare people AWAY from that candidate - even if it is totally true - is an attack ad.

I'll admit - Ron Paul needs to run better ads on HIS positions - especially the ones where he is strong - the economy, the war - and he needs to explain his positions in a way that is easy for most people to understand/swallow...

...but he doesn't need to bring up other candidates by name and "target" McCain - this will only encourage McCain fence riders to go out and vote to spite Ron Paul and may shave off some Ron Paul supporters...

The ad ran in the paper in IL was just a quote from Obama saying he wasn't going to completely withdraw the troops and a mention that he voted to renew the Patriot Act. This was contrasted with Ron Paul saying we need to get out of Iraq now and that he voted against the Patriot Act twice. Seems harmless, right? Wrong. THAT is an attack ad, and THAT is what people emotionally respond to - in a negative way, the opposite of how you want, these days. Why? Because people are emotional and not rational - but that's how it works.

Lets not go there.

[parocks]

If we're telling the truth, and not nessessarily affiliating ourselves with Ron Paul's campaign, why not? People need to know what a slimeball McFuck really is.


Right, don't mention Ron Paul.

[coffeewithchess]

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080105/FRONTPAGE/801050301/1311/48HOURS

Despite the folksy image he portrayed during the campaign, Paul wasn't above engaging in political combat. Laughlin had a reputation for accepting trips from lobbyists, and Paul and his advisers made sure voters knew about it.

"We just had one little ad that we put on," said Carol Paul. "And it had one little man in an airplane, and it said, 'He went here,' and the airplane flies to one side of the screen, and then 'he went here,' and then, 'he went here,' and then, 'He went here.' "

[MrZach]

How about negative attacks that don't mention Ron Paul?

"McCain is a scumbag" paid for by (mention the name of the group that's funding it that has nothing to do with Ron Paul).

Sure... if you can't beat'em, join'em?

I'll have no part in that... my integrity won't allow it. I re-direct you to my comment about suspending habius corpus and torture... You don't do "whatever it takes" to win. You do the right thing no matter what. Period. At least, that's how I was raised.

[2BFree]

Fine - Dr. Paul and his campaign don't need to run any, and thats fine with me.

But I, and others, as a concerned republicans and citizens certainly can. Are you suggesting that we should not be able to ask questions or state facts, what ever they may be, about any potential president. Since when does freedom mean you don't have responibility for your past actions? I call BS.

Why did McCain stop the release of information to the families of POW/MIAs - even after it was unanamously approved by the house? Lets ask him, shall we?

Watch - then tell me again why its not important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g

[parocks]

Sure... if you can't beat'em, join'em?

I'll have no part in that... my integrity won't allow it. I re-direct you to my comment about suspending habius corpus and torture... You don't do "whatever it takes" to win. You do the right thing no matter what. Period. At least, that's how I was raised.


Negative ads are freedom of speech, it's in The Constitution.

We're running for the Republican Nomination. We're kinda trying to "join 'em" aren't we?

Negative ads are a perfectly legitimate political campaigning tool. Yes, they are a bit sleazy, which is why the grassroots should be doing them.

But, in case you haven't noticed, political campaigning is a very messy affair. Ron Paul knows full well how the process works. If I was Ron Paul, I'd be confused about why the grassroots raised $500k to fly a blimp around instead of negative ads. The official campaign should be focused on the positive message about Ron Paul. The grassroots, basically independent people who like Ron Paul, should be focused on tearing down the opposition, McCain at this point.

[2BFree]

exactly -

[2BFree]

radio add are fairly cheap - even local adds on fox etc are not too much - we could realistically raise enough in an hour or two to do a pretty decent campaign.

[BigRedBrent]

I am not beneath anything to save this nation. If we find something that works then, uh USE IT. If it backfires, then stop doing it! But to many people don't even know what the hell is going on. Any information is better then the crap going on right now.

We need to kick something into overdrive. We have been fairly nice considering the stakes. We need to get people to understand the stakes.

[MrZach]

Negative ads are freedom of speech, it's in The Constitution.

We're running for the Republican Nomination. We're kinda trying to "join 'em" aren't we?

Negative ads are a perfectly legitimate political campaigning tool. Yes, they are a bit sleazy, which is why the grassroots should be doing them.

But, in case you haven't noticed, political campaigning is a very messy affair. Ron Paul knows full well how the process works. If I was Ron Paul, I'd be confused about why the grassroots raised $500k to fly a blimp around instead of negative ads. The official campaign should be focused on the positive message about Ron Paul. The grassroots, basically independent people who like Ron Paul, should be focused on tearing down the opposition, McCain at this point.

You're not arguing my point. My point isn't that they are illegal. Comeon, seriously... Law doesn't regulate morality...

My point is that I consider them wrong... and at this point, enough people in the US consider them wrong that even if they are totally true, I think that you're going to suffer a net loss of popularity.

This has nothing to do freedom of speech. Freedom of speech allows me to speak disrespectfully to whomever I want. That doesn't mean its a good idea...

[parocks]

You're not arguing my point. My point isn't that they are illegal. Comeon, seriously... Law doesn't regulate morality...

My point is that I consider them wrong... and at this point, enough people in the US consider them wrong that even if they are totally true, I think that you're going to suffer a net loss of popularity.

This has nothing to do freedom of speech. Freedom of speech allows me to speak disrespectfully to whomever I want. That doesn't mean its a good idea...


How does Ron Paul lose popularity? The TV Commercials don't mention Ron Paul.
And people aren't gonna think that Ron Paul was responsible for the commercials, because the TV doesn't mention Ron Paul.

[MrZach]

Also, I think the grassroots should be focused on spreading Ron Paul's message and educating people and rescuing them from their ignorance... That is going to "win" the election for Ron Paul - well informed people making well informed decisions...

I'm not interested in tearing opponents down. I'm interested in spreading the message of freedom and shining light into the darkness... You can do what you want though...

[parocks]

Also, I think the grassroots should be focused on spreading Ron Paul's message and educating people and rescuing them from their ignorance... That is going to "win" the election for Ron Paul - well informed people making well informed decisions...

I'm not interested in tearing opponents down. I'm interested in spreading the message of freedom and shining light into the darkness... You can do what you want though...

The strategy that you've outlined is very good, but to this point, it has had limited effectiveness.

In order for us to win, McCain has to be torn down. That's the long and short of it.

If you can figure out a method, better than negative ads, to get people from voting for McCain, we should work on that too.

[MrZach]

How does Ron Paul lose popularity? The TV Commercials don't mention Ron Paul.
And people aren't gonna think that Ron Paul was responsible for the commercials, because the TV doesn't mention Ron Paul.

So it doesn't get tracked back to Ron Paul... possibly... (that is very difficult to insure). Assuming it doesn't though... I just think that it is better to educate and edify people on Ron Paul's issues rather than "educate" them on how much of a scumbag someone they're a fan of is...

Trust me, I tried having a rational conversation with Huckabee supporters about some of the things he's done and they flat out wouldn't believe it, said all I wanted to do was take things he said out of context and twist his words... MOST people think their candidate walks on water and even those who don't usually don't respond very well to negative ads anymore - people are to sinical and usually write the negative stuff off as spin and bullshit - because most of it is...

So, again, I think your time and effort would be better served to be educating people on other issues that would lead them to actually believe in Ron Paul's message - not trying to convince them the person they're planning on voting for is a scumbag because these days - it hardly works at all...

Think big picture and long term...

[MrZach]

The strategy that you've outlined is very good, but to this point, it has had limited effectiveness.

In order for us to win, McCain has to be torn down. That's the long and short of it.

If you can figure out a method, better than negative ads, to get people from voting for McCain, we should work on that too.

"In order to win..."

See, I don't really think like that. That's too short-term for me. It goes back to the whole issue of compromising your morality to win a battle... in the end though you lose the war... Keeping your integrity in tact is more important than winning every battle... IMHO... Again, if that doesn't really bother you too much, then it really isn't a violation of your integrity... it bothers me, and I'm just trying to explain why and state some reasons why you might want to take pause on the issue as well...

I'm looking at this like a marathon, and I want a winning strategy for the long run - and I'm not interested in putting my morgage into the betting pool because I thinkn this ONE race is the end-all-be-all important battle in the struggle for liberty. It isn't. This is an important part, it is a foundation. If Paul wins the presidency - which he is highly unlikely to do so, then we're in pretty good shape...

On the other hand, if he doesn't - we should have a strategy for that, and I tend to think that educating people one-by-one - if ALL the 600,000 people who voted for Ron Paul up to this point would go get out and DO - is the best way to go. It has a better chance of getting Ron Paul delegates into the convention and a better chance of getting people vote for Paul if he runs Indy.

The hearts and minds battle is where it is at, and that is where I think all of our efforts should be - planting seeds to grow into mighty oak trees - not ravaging the battlefield with blood and guts and bullets and bombs...

[parocks]

I think the goal with the McCain negative ads is to keep undecideds from going to McCain. Maybe change the votes of weak supporters. You know, people who have a vague idea of what's going on, but they're old and they always vote. They go in there and say "hey, I've heard of McCain" and vote for him. We want them to think "hey, McCain is bad"

I don't think everyone here supporting Ron Paul is going to agree, and that's fine.

But, the likelihood that it gets "tracked back to Ron Paul" is unlikely.
1) if it is tracked back to Ron Paul's grassroots, at this point, the media could easily just ignore it, as they've been ignoring Ron Paul entirely for weeks.
2) if they do decide to cover it, they'd most likely have to present the attack ad itself, which would expand the reach of the ad.
3) if they say "ron paul sucks because his supporters aired an attack ad" we get mentions of Ron Paul in the MSM. Heck, some may not like that message, but at least they'll know that Ron Paul is still in the race.




So it doesn't get tracked back to Ron Paul... possibly... (that is very difficult to insure). Assuming it doesn't though... I just think that it is better to educate and edify people on Ron Paul's issues rather than "educate" them on how much of a scumbag someone they're a fan of is...

Trust me, I tried having a rational conversation with Huckabee supporters about some of the things he's done and they flat out wouldn't believe it, said all I wanted to do was take things he said out of context and twist his words... MOST people think their candidate walks on water and even those who don't usually don't respond very well to negative ads anymore - people are to sinical and usually write the negative stuff off as spin and bullshit - because most of it is...

So, again, I think your time and effort would be better served to be educating people on other issues that would lead them to actually believe in Ron Paul's message - not trying to convince them the person they're planning on voting for is a scumbag because these days - it hardly works at all...

Think big picture and long term...

[2BFree]

Hey MrZach - did you watch the video? Can you tell me why McCain kept these families from getting the records on their missing loved ones? Maybe its not important to you, but its one more example of Washington protecting the privacy of government while ignoring the right of its citizens to know what happened to their brothers, fathers and sons who fought in defense of our freedoms. Maybe thats getting a little too dirty for you -

[parocks]

Well, the reason most of us are here, right here, right now, doing this, is because Ron Paul is trying to win the Republican Nomination.

There is truth to the marathon analogy, but if it was presented as such at the outset (we're not trying to win this year, and I'm not trying to win ever, but sometime later, someone like me will come along...) people wouldn't have geeked out about Ron Paul, sending $, canvassing their butts off, etc etc.

No matter when Ron Paul or Rand Paul or whoever makes a run at the Presidency, if this one doesn't work, it's likely that Negative ads will still be a legitimate part of the political process.

I noted a while back that in New Hampshire I noted that many of the people there seemed to come from a Anti-war Protester background, and not a Political background.

Anti-war Protesters seem to have a certain amount of distain for the legitimate tools used in the political process.




"In order to win..."

See, I don't really think like that. That's too short-term for me. It goes back to the whole issue of compromising your morality to win a battle... in the end though you lose the war... Keeping your integrity in tact is more important than winning every battle... IMHO... Again, if that doesn't really bother you too much, then it really isn't a violation of your integrity... it bothers me, and I'm just trying to explain why and state some reasons why you might want to take pause on the issue as well...

I'm looking at this like a marathon, and I want a winning strategy for the long run - and I'm not interested in putting my morgage into the betting pool because I thinkn this ONE race is the end-all-be-all important battle in the struggle for liberty. It isn't. This is an important part, it is a foundation. If Paul wins the presidency - which he is highly unlikely to do so, then we're in pretty good shape...

On the other hand, if he doesn't - we should have a strategy for that, and I tend to think that educating people one-by-one - if ALL the 600,000 people who voted for Ron Paul up to this point would go get out and DO - is the best way to go. It has a better chance of getting Ron Paul delegates into the convention and a better chance of getting people vote for Paul if he runs Indy.

The hearts and minds battle is where it is at, and that is where I think all of our efforts should be - planting seeds to grow into mighty oak trees - not ravaging the battlefield with blood and guts and bullets and bombs...

[MrZach]

Hey MrZach - did you watch the video? Can you tell me why McCain kept these families from getting the records on their missing loved ones? Maybe its not important to you, but its one more example of Washington protecting the privacy of government while ignoring the right of its citizens to know what happened to their brothers, fathers and sons who fought in defense of our freedoms. Maybe thats getting a little too dirty for you -

I guess it is one thing to expose corruption and scumbag politicians whatnot for the sake of exposing corruption and scumbag politicians...

...but I was under the impression that this wasn't the goal here. I was under the impression that the goal here was to erode McCain's support, and for those reasons I don't like it - and I also don't think it'll be as effective as you think... Plus, the risk of it coming back around and hurting Ron Paul is still there, and in my mind, a lot higher than you may be thinking... I could be wrong.

I just am on a different mission I guess... I'm on the "spread the message of freedom" mission... You do what you gotta do I guess... :(

[MrZach]

Hey MrZach - did you watch the video? Can you tell me why McCain kept these families from getting the records on their missing loved ones? Maybe its not important to you, but its one more example of Washington protecting the privacy of government while ignoring the right of its citizens to know what happened to their brothers, fathers and sons who fought in defense of our freedoms. Maybe thats getting a little too dirty for you -

Hey, you want to talk "cheating" - look at how William Wilberforce and the UK Abolitionists brought down the slave trade in the West Indies... That was playing "dirty" to a certain degree...

I'm all about employing Sun Tzu's tactics of espionage and subversion... but what you're talking about is a full-on attack. Wisdom dictates otherwise... At least, my limited wisdom instructs me otherwise... I'm just trying to offer my 2-cents so that you can think about it in a different way and possibly reconsider. If you don't, I'm not going to condemn you or anything! :D

[2BFree]

What - you don't want to erode McCains support - or - you don't think that pointing out his record will erode his support?

I'm for "spreading the message of freedom" too. I think this is an excellent example of Government - via McCain - protecting itself at the expense of its citizens.

Examples - Examples - real world examples - not some BS idealogical "mission" - thats what this election needs - stark cold hard reality. Get your head out of the clouds.

Sorry -

[parocks]

Hey, you want to talk "cheating" - look at how William Wilberforce and the UK Abolitionists brought down the slave trade in the West Indies... That was playing "dirty" to a certain degree...

I'm all about employing Sun Tzu's tactics of espionage and subversion... but what you're talking about is a full-on attack. Wisdom dictates otherwise... At least, my limited wisdom instructs me otherwise... I'm just trying to offer my 2-cents so that you can think about it in a different way and possibly reconsider. If you don't, I'm not going to condemn you or anything! :D



I'm not sure I understand how "wisdom" is defied by attacking McCain. He's the delegate leader, and if his support isn't eroded quickly, we're going to lose the nomination.

It doesn't sound like you dispute this, it just sounds like you're not 100% sure what we're all doing here. Many think that this whole process has something to do with Ghandi, and has marches, and whatnot. Actually, this is a political process having to do with votes and delegates and primaries and caucuses and whatnot.

[MrZach]

I'm not sure I understand how "wisdom" is defied by attacking McCain. He's the delegate leader, and if his support isn't eroded quickly, we're going to lose the nomination.

It doesn't sound like you dispute this, it just sounds like you're not 100% sure what we're all doing here. Many think that this whole process has something to do with Ghandi, and has marches, and whatnot. Actually, this is a political process having to do with votes and delegates and primaries and caucuses and whatnot.

No... I get it. I just mostly tend to think that the "attack ad" approach isn't going to work as well as getting off "these forums" and spending quality time talking to people will. That's the bottom line. I could be wrong though. We all do our part, right? ;)

Speaking of which, I'm kinda wasting my time here... should be sleeping so I have more time in the day to talk to people about freedom tomorrow. ;)

Goodnight all! =o)

[parocks]

What - you don't want to erode McCains support - or - you don't think it pointing out his record will erode his support?

I'm for "spreading the message of freedom" too. I think this is an excellent example of Government - via McCain - protecting itself at the expense of its citizens.

Examples - Examples - real world examples - not some BS idealogical "mission" - thats what this election needs - stark cold hard reality. Get your head out of the clouds.

Sorry -

Agreed. The number 1 mission right now is knocking McCain down, or else we'll lose, and soon. If the time comes that McCain clinches the nomination, it's over.

The goal now is to prevent anyone from clinching the nomination.

You know this, we're in agreement.

We can work our asses off to bring RP's numbers from 5 to 10 percent or 10 to 20 percent, and it's not gonna matter if McCain keeps winning.

I heard someone on another thread talking about situational voting. Where we tell Paul voters to vote for either Mitt or Huck, depending on who is more likely to beat McCain.

That's what we should be thinking about.

[2BFree]

Agreed.

[2BFree]

So - what now?

I suggest we, as individuals, contact Viet Nam Veterans against John McCain and see if they'll run some adds pronto if we pay for them. Its a start, what do you think?
I think we challange the idea that McCain is fit to be commander in cheif as he turned his back on the families of POW/MIAs.

Media Contact:
US Veteran Dispatch
252-527-0442

tedsampley@usveterandispatch.com

stealthactivist@gmail.com

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com

[parocks]

So - what now?

I suggest we, as individuals, contact Viet Nam Veterans against John McCain and see if they'll run some adds pronto if we pay for them. Its a start, what do you think?

Media Contact:
US Veteran Dispatch
252-527-0442

tedsampley@usveterandispatch.com

stealthactivist@gmail.com

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com

Not a bad idea at all.

They probably have something ready to go. We would need to get something together fast in terms of funding or whatever.

[luvthedoc08]

stop reading this thread and start reading THIS THREAD GET THE WORD OUT TO ALL THE MEETUPS http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=114622

[2BFree]

mmmm - ok - but the primary is over in my state - McCain won and there's something really wrong with that.

[all J's in IL for RP]

One point. It was stupid to run the ad with Paul's smiling picture all over it. Those Obama supporters considering Paul are seemingly all about the "hope and change" message, and were liable to be turned off by pro-Paul attack ads to return to the warm, fuzzy nothingness of Obama's campaign.

Who are McCain's loose supporters? Independents seeking leadership. If these are eroded, wouldn't they also be likely to go elsewhere? This may hurt McCain, but not help us and benifit Clinton.

Something to consider.

[BigRedBrent]

Screw attack ads. If you want to spend money on an ad have it say something like this:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1204668

[2BFree]

Sorry all Js - I've missed something here - I think your refering to the add that mrZach said turned off Obama supporters? If so, I don't know it - and if it was done in the manner your suggesting - then your probably right.

There is a difference. Getting Obama supporters to cross over to sabotage MaCains campaign - is very different than converting them to support Paul. An attack type add would be inappropriate for the second purpose.

[2BFree]

Hi BigRedBrent,

To change minds is a two step process - you must first challenge the voters already held beleifs - If voters are confortable with their choice of candidates, they won't readily look elsewhere.

The purpose of an attack add is to get them to question their initial decision. Show that their initial choice does not resonate with their values. Remember their initial choice is a candidate. You do this with facts and the record. Of course - attack adds if successful, may send support to candidates other than the one you want.

Thats why adds like you describe are so important for the Paul campaign. In another completely seperate add, the campaign needs to introduce the voter to Dr. Paul and demonstrate why he is the right choice. I think that the add you suggest would be a great add for the paul camapign to run - especially now.

I hope they do it.

[2BFree]

Putting this thread back on topic

So - what now?

I suggest we, as individuals, contact Viet Nam Veterans against John McCain and see if they'll run some adds pronto if we pay for them. Its a start, what do you think?
I think we challange the idea that McCain is fit to be commander in cheif as he turned his back on the families of POW/MIAs.

Media Contact:
US Veteran Dispatch
252-527-0442

tedsampley@usveterandispatch.com

stealthactivist@gmail.com

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com

[parocks]

One point. It was stupid to run the ad with Paul's smiling picture all over it. Those Obama supporters considering Paul are seemingly all about the "hope and change" message, and were liable to be turned off by pro-Paul attack ads to return to the warm, fuzzy nothingness of Obama's campaign.

Who are McCain's loose supporters? Independents seeking leadership. If these are eroded, wouldn't they also be likely to go elsewhere? This may hurt McCain, but not help us and benifit Clinton.

Something to consider.

Our immediate goal is to prevent McCain from locking up the nomination.

We knock McCains numbers down, and people who would've ordinarily voted for him would either vote for Paul, Mitt, Huck or stay home. Any of those results is better than them voting for McCain.

We need a brokered convention in order to win. If McCain wraps it up before the convention, we lose.

Worry about Hillary (or Obama) later, but I think I do understand your point, which is, we're only doing damage to the Republican nominee (McCain), and that's not good for the fall.

[parocks]

Hi BigRedBrent,

To change minds is a two step process - you must first challenge the voters already held beleifs - If voters are confortable with their choice of candidates, they won't readily look elsewhere.

The purpose of an attack add is to get them to question their initial decision. Show that their initial choice does not resonate with their values. Remember their initial choice is a candidate. You do this with facts and the record. Of course - attack adds if successful, may send support to candidates other than the one you want.

Thats why adds like you describe are so important for the Paul campaign. In another completely seperate add, the campaign needs to introduce the voter to Dr. Paul and demonstrate why he is the right choice. I think that the add you suggest would be a great add for the paul camapign to run - especially now.

I hope they do it.



I agree. The official campaign should focus on a coherent positive message pro Ron Paul.

Others, the grassroots, anyone else who doesn't like McCain, should be trying to keep McCain from wrapping up the nomination, using tools like negative ads.

[parocks]

Putting this thread back on topic

So - what now?

I suggest we, as individuals, contact Viet Nam Veterans against John McCain and see if they'll run some adds pronto if we pay for them. Its a start, what do you think?
I think we challange the idea that McCain is fit to be commander in cheif as he turned his back on the families of POW/MIAs.

Media Contact:
US Veteran Dispatch
252-527-0442

tedsampley@usveterandispatch.com

stealthactivist@gmail.com

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com



Great idea.

[all J's in IL for RP]

2BFree: mrZach said this ad...

http://files.meetup.com/506027/rpAD.bmp

...intending to sway loose Obama's supporters towards Paul, backfired; Obama sympathizers that had signed on with Paul's positive message returned to the sweet nothings whispered by Obama. No doubt this is true, even though this is more a comparison ad that pure attack. The OP claims to have received e-mails to that effect. The number of people for which the ad succeeded cannot be known in a similar fashion (he would've received no positive feedback), though percentages would indicate not many.

I'll assume your missing this reference to the ad in question led you to think I was saying Obama supporters and McCain's campaign were somehow linked.

I agree with your assessment on the effects of negative ads. The desire is almost always designed to drive votes away from the target of the ad. My input was to wonder if we would benifit from an ad essentially attacking McCain's leadership qualities. This is an area in which we don't poll well, so we wouldn't be a direct beneficiary, except for the reduction of McCain's vote totals. And it could very well drive the Independent voters McCain is currently receiving across the aisle. As parocks noted, pushing up Clinton's (she's still the odds on winner, IMO) numbers in the primaries may eventually backfire if we're the nominee. Sorry if that got lost in the pithiness of my post.

Some other area of attack may be more beneficial to us. This needs further study before we jump.


Putting this thread back on topic
To be fair, the point of the thread was whether negative ads was a path worth following. Discussing the qualities and effects of the currently discussed ad campaign is the conflation. ;)

[parocks]

2BFree: mrZach said this ad...

http://files.meetup.com/506027/rpAD.bmp

...intending to sway loose Obama's supporters towards Paul, backfired; Obama sympathizers that had signed on with Paul's positive message returned to the sweet nothings whispered by Obama. No doubt this is true, even though this is more a comparison ad that pure attack. The OP claims to have received e-mails to that effect. The number of people for which the ad succeeded cannot be known in a similar fashion (he would've received no positive feedback), though percentages would indicate not many.

I'll assume your missing this reference to the ad in question led you to think I was saying Obama supporters and McCain's campaign were somehow linked.

I agree with your assessment on the effects of negative ads. The desire is almost always designed to drive votes away from the target of the ad. My input was to wonder if we would benifit from an ad essentially attacking McCain's leadership qualities. This is an area in which we don't poll well, so we wouldn't be a direct beneficiary, except for the reduction of McCain's vote totals. And it could very well drive the Independent voters McCain is currently receiving across the aisle. As parocks noted, pushing up Clinton's (she's still the odds on winner, IMO) numbers in the primaries may eventually backfire if we're the nominee. Sorry if that got lost in the pithiness of my post.

Some other area of attack may be more beneficial to us. This needs further study before we jump.


To be fair, the point of the thread was whether negative ads was a path worth following. Discussing the qualities and effects of the currently discussed ad campaign is the conflation. ;)



Right now, the only numbers that matter are McCain's. We're very close to losing here.

Will the ads have the desired effect of moving people away from McCain is the only question worth asking at this point.

The only strategy we can possibly have at this point is STOP MCCAIN. He's about to win, you know.