PDA

View Full Version : Bring Back Ross Perot 30-minute Infomercial




MrZach
02-08-2008, 05:13 AM
Ross Perot almost won the general election as an independent because of those things. On a FRIDAY NIGHT he garnered 10.9 million viewers.

Ron Paul should put together some professional looking infomercials and highlight the following:

WORKING TITLE:
The Decline of An Empire: Rescuing The American Dream
From the 9/11 & The Patriot Act to Iraq and The Housing Market Collapse

:D The history of the decline of our Civil Liberties and how his opponents are supporting this, not stopping it. Much like in this video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8).

:D What is REALLY happening in Iraq (including with the surge): How the Iraqis want us out, American troop presence IS the factor inciting violence and unrest, and they Iraqis ARE READY to take over security but we won't let them - in other words, the country won't decline into chaos.

Plus a bonus: Show the studies that show how the only areas violence went down after the surge was the areas we pulled troops out of! It was a total setup - the administration KNOWS that our presence is what is causing the violence and the surge was just a way to throw more $$ at the military industrial complex!

:D Transition this into what the war is costing us - show REAL numbers, then explain the concept of the American Empire, show how unnecessary our bases in all these other countries are - show what THEY cost us - show the cost of propping up dictators in other countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. Explain how that undermines Israeli security, etc.

:D Then this is the perfect time to transition into our deficit and the fact that the largest crisis facing out nation is paying off our national debt and that we are in CRISIS. Tie this into our economic problems. Show that if we cut back our spending overseas, pay off the national debt by such-and-such date, we can rescue Social Security, and eventually end the need for the income tax by 20??. People seem to think he'd get rid of everything overnight - that is the strongest objection to Ron Paul. Project dates!!!

BACK THIS ALL UP WITH CHARTS AND NUMBERS. THAT IS RON PAUL'S MAIN PROBLEM - PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE NUMBERS AND HE WON'T USE REAL NUMBERS - PEOPLE THINK HE'S NUTS - YOU HAVE TO SHOW THEM!!!

:D Finish by explaining what the Federal Reserve is doing to "fix" our economic problems and how it is hurting us. Explain what the point of the gold standard is and when it went away and what Reagen said about it, etc. - many people don't get this and think it is crazy and that we've been off it over a hundreds of years...

If Ron Paul were to put together an Infomercial like this and run it like Ross Perot did, that would be FANTASTIC!!! The only problem is it would cost a TON of money... Still, I think that (especially if he wend independent) this kind of strategy could be the key to his success.

The key is going to be presenting factual data (REAL NUMBERS AND REALISTIC PROJECTIONS) and schnazzing it up and dramatizing it with real images, footage, and even including quotes from other experts confirming what he has to say.

Better yet - how about the grassroots produce one - we can put as much $$ into it as we want and all we have to do is not specifically plug Ron Paul - we just look at ALL the candidates and their positions and now it is GREAT TELEVISION that happens to make Ron Paul look exceptionally good!

It has to be EXTREMELY professional looking though. None of this stuff we're been passing out on DVD's that are YouTube video clips and crap. This has to be broadcast television quality and ENTERTAINING - can't be boring like the Ross Perot stuff was - that way we can pull in even MORE viewers!!!

nodope0695
02-08-2008, 05:25 AM
Speaking of that....where our 3 one hour documentaries from the billionaire?:D:D:D:eek:

Stockli
02-08-2008, 05:26 AM
Agreed. This is what this campaign is seriously lacking. It doesn't matter how many people hear about Ron Paul if they don't understand the underlying issues along with Ron's stance on the solutions. We need a way to both interest, and educate the average American voter. This has to be well-advertised and broadcast at a time in which the most viewers can be reached.

RageAgainstDC
02-08-2008, 05:30 AM
this would be great if we went independent. Too late to save the GOP nod though.

KevinR
02-08-2008, 05:33 AM
don't know what Perot's stances were, but maybe Ron can announce him as his chosen VP and use his billions to his advantage :]

MrZach
02-08-2008, 05:42 AM
don't know what Perot's stances were, but maybe Ron can announce him as his chosen VP and use his billions to his advantage :]

Sadly, Perot is 78 years old and in no shape to be a VP...

Too bad Michael Bloomberg can't be brought on board. His political positions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg#Political_positions) need some work... :(

Too bad he and Ron Paul would majorly clash on Abortion Rights, government subsidies (stem cell research), gun control, amnesty, the National ID card, and the Patriot Act...

In other words, he's McCain 2.0.

coboman
02-08-2008, 05:45 AM
INFOMERCIALS! How didn't I think of that... Wait, I did think of that.

And we all BEGGED for good looking infomercials for months during last year, when they would have worked for something.

We insisted, and proposed, and begged... until they came up with the Iowa 30 minute special, which annoyed every pro-choice person here. And didn't work for anything.

Welcome to October 2007 when this was a good idea. Now, it wouldn't make any difference.

literatim
02-08-2008, 05:47 AM
You begged on a forum that the official campaign doesn't read. In fact, they avoid this forum like the plague.

intelliot
02-08-2008, 05:53 AM
Has anyone ever won the presidency as an independent? Seems like an extremely long shot to me.

coboman
02-08-2008, 05:53 AM
You begged on a forum that the official campaign doesn't read. In fact, they avoid this forum like the plague.
No. We contacted the official campaign.
There was a HUGE voice for the infomercials. There were even companies that were willing to do it without profit (Hollywood closeups).
There were serious plans presented, and multiple approaches to the official campaign, and they were all met with disdain.

I am very happy that Ron Paul won't be our next president, because if he was planning to run the country as he ran his campaign, it would have been a disaster.

As his campaign was (yes, past tense).

He had loads of money, and all the resources were wasted in things that didn't get one vote. The one thing that could have changed people's minds, the infomercials, were never even considered.

MrZach
02-08-2008, 05:54 AM
Ross Perot's 1992 presidential candidacy (from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot#1992_presidential_candidacy))

On February 20, 1992, he appeared on CNN's Larry King Live and announced his intention to run if his supporters could get his name on the ballot in all 50 states. With such declared policies as balancing the federal budget, firm pro-choice stance, expansion of the war on drugs, ending outsourcing of jobs, opposition to gun control, belief in protectionism on trade, his support of the Environmental Protection Agency and enacting electronic direct democracy via "electronic town halls," he became a potential candidate and soon polled roughly even with the two major party candidates.

Perot's candidacy received increasing media attention when the competitive phase of the primary season ended for the two major parties. President George H.W. Bush was losing support, and Democratic nominee Bill Clinton was still suffering from the numerous scandal allegations made in the previous months. With the insurgent candidacies of Republican Pat Buchanan and Democrat Jerry Brown winding down, Perot was the natural beneficiary of populist resentment toward establishment politicians. On May 25, 1992 he was featured on the cover of Time Magazine with the title "Waiting for Perot", an allusion to Samuel Beckett's play Waiting for Godot.

With several months to go until the Democratic and Republican conventions, Perot filled the vacuum of election news, as his supporters began petition drives to get him on the ballot in all 50 states. This sense of momentum was reinforced when Perot hired two savvy campaign managers in Democrat Hamilton Jordan and Republican Ed Rollins.

Accompanying the surge in support for Perot was increased scrutiny of his background. Reports surfaced of Perot hiring private investigators to obtain personal information about business and political adversaries. His temperament was brought into question by some who claimed that he exhibited irritability and an authoritarian management style. Around the same time, Perot was criticized for a remark made during a speech at the NAACP convention. Perot was sympathizing with the plight of African Americans during tough economic times, but referred to his audience as "you people", a phrase that was loudly objected to by some members of the audience, and deemed insensitive by the media.

These developments had an adverse impact on Perot's campaign and his approval rating in opinion polls was no longer rising. On July 16, 1992, Perot reconsidered running for the presidency, even if he was not placed on all 50 state ballots. At that time he was only on 24 state ballots. He was encouraged by the selection of the Democratic party ticket of Bill Clinton and Al Gore at the Democratic National Convention.

Nevertheless, in September he qualified for all 50 state ballots. On October 1, he announced his intention to start running again. He explained his earlier withdrawal by claiming that Republican operatives had wanted to reveal compromising photos of his daughter, which would disrupt her wedding, and he wanted to spare her from embarrassment. Scott Barnes, a private investigator and security consultant who had testified to that effect and supported Perot's story would later, in 1997, reveal that he had tricked Perot into believing that it was true, but it was a hoax he created with others outside any political campaign. Barnes was a Perot supporter, and believed if it were revealed Republicans were involved in dirty tricks, it would harm Bush's candidacy.

He campaigned in 16 states and spent an estimated $65.4 million of his own money. Perot employed the innovative strategy of purchasing half-hour blocks of time on major networks for infomercial-type campaign ads; these ads garnered more viewership than many sitcoms, with one Friday night program in October attracting 10.5 million viewers.[7]

Perot's running mate was retired Vice Admiral James Stockdale, a well-respected former Vietnam prisoner of war (POW). Perot was a long-time supporter of POWs. In December 1969 he organized and flew to North Vietnam in an attempt to deliver 30-tons of supplies to beleaguered American POWs in North Vietnam. Although North Vietnam blocked the flights, the effort was instrumental in bringing the plight of those POWs to the world's attention and their captors soon began treating them better.[2]

At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton). Just prior to the debates, Perot received 7-9% support in nationwide polls. It is likely that the debates played a significant role in his ultimate receipt of 19% of the popular vote. Although his answers during the debates were often general, many Democrats and Republicans conceded that Perot won at least the first debate. In debate he is noted to have said: "Keep in mind our Constitution predates the Industrial Revolution. Our founders did not know about electricity, the train, telephones, radio, television, automobiles, airplanes, rockets, nuclear weapons, satellites, or space exploration. There's a lot they didn't know about. It would be interesting to see what kind of document they'd draft today. Just keeping it frozen in time won't hack it."

Perot denounced Congress for its inaction. Washington, Perot said,

… has become a town filled with sound bites, shell games, handlers, media stuntmen who posture, create images, talk, shoot off Roman candles, but don't ever accomplish anything. We need deeds, not words, in this city.[citation needed]

In July, while Perot was pondering whether to run for office, his supporters established a campaign organization United We Stand America. Perot was late in making formal policy proposals, but most of what he did call for were intended to reduce the deficit. He wanted a gasoline tax increase and some cutbacks of Social Security.

In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote - approximately 19,741,065 votes - (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Perot managed to finish second in two states: In Maine, Perot received 30.44% of the vote to Bush's 30.39% (Clinton won Maine with 38.77%); In Utah, Perot received 27.34% of the vote to Clinton's 24.65% (Bush won Utah with 43.36%).

According to Ronald Rapoport and Walter Stone (2005), Perot's appeal came from two sources. First was his outsider, crusading zeal that made the major parties seem reactionary. Second, he adopted specific positions that had been abandoned by both parties — he was nationalistic and isolationist; he was conservative in social policy. He opposed free trade. He was above all a crusader for a balanced budget, as he warned of the horrors of the national debt.

A detailed analysis of the voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning over $50,000 annually).[8]

Based on his performance in the popular vote in 1992, Perot was entitled to receive federal election funding for 1996. Perot remained in the public eye after the election and championed opposition to NAFTA, urging voters to listen for the "giant sucking sound" of American jobs heading south to Mexico should NAFTA be ratified.

MrZach
02-08-2008, 06:01 AM
INFOMERCIALS! How didn't I think of that... Wait, I did think of that.

And we all BEGGED for good looking infomercials for months during last year, when they would have worked for something.

We insisted, and proposed, and begged... until they came up with the Iowa 30 minute special, which annoyed every pro-choice person here. And didn't work for anything.

Welcome to October 2007 when this was a good idea. Now, it wouldn't make any difference.

I think Ron Paul needs to clarify and perhaps "back off" his Pro-Life stance and explain that it is a states rights issue that he wants decided by the states and that is why he wants Roe vs. Wade to be repealed. I don't mean back off as in back down, but at least make sure he's not advocating a federal ban on abortion which I think scars the crap out of a lot of people.

In fact, this is just me, but if I was running for president, I would tell all the Pro-Life people out there - "Look guys, I agree with you 100%, but this is just like the slavery issue in England you have to win the hearts and minds of the nation first before you can expect lawmakers to have the power to support you. In a democracy, our power comes from the people, and if you want us to have the power to make abortion illegal, you have to get the people in together on this."

I think the Pro-Life movement has a LOT of convincing to do among the American people before they will ever be able to make any inroads politically. In the meantime, they should seriously table the issue and stop focusing so much money and effort on politics and start working on real people...

MrZach
02-08-2008, 06:04 AM
Why can't an independent organization be formed and produce one on our own? Just make it candidate neutral and issue specific. In fact, invite all the candidates to speak on it about their positions on the issues! =o)

literatim
02-08-2008, 06:18 AM
I think Ron Paul needs to clarify and perhaps "back off" his Pro-Life stance and explain that it is a states rights issue that he wants decided by the states and that is why he wants Roe vs. Wade to be repealed. I don't mean back off as in back down, but at least make sure he's not advocating a federal ban on abortion which I think scars the crap out of a lot of people.

In fact, this is just me, but if I was running for president, I would tell all the Pro-Life people out there - "Look guys, I agree with you 100%, but this is just like the slavery issue in England you have to win the hearts and minds of the nation first before you can expect lawmakers to have the power to support you. In a democracy, our power comes from the people, and if you want us to have the power to make abortion illegal, you have to get the people in together on this."

I think the Pro-Life movement has a LOT of convincing to do among the American people before they will ever be able to make any inroads politically. In the meantime, they should seriously table the issue and stop focusing so much money and effort on politics and start working on real people...

He is running for the nomination of the Republican Party.

nodope0695
02-08-2008, 06:26 AM
You begged on a forum that the official campaign doesn't read. In fact, they avoid this forum like the plague.

Why do they avoid this forum? Anyway, if I have a comment or and idea for the campaign, I do this thing that was invented before the internet...I PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL THEM.

Airborn
02-08-2008, 06:37 AM
No. We contacted the official campaign.
There was a HUGE voice for the infomercials. There were even companies that were willing to do it without profit (Hollywood closeups).
There were serious plans presented, and multiple approaches to the official campaign, and they were all met with disdain.

I am very happy that Ron Paul won't be our next president, because if he was planning to run the country as he ran his campaign, it would have been a disaster.

As his campaign was (yes, past tense).

He had loads of money, and all the resources were wasted in things that didn't get one vote. The one thing that could have changed people's minds, the infomercials, were never even considered.

then WHAT THE HELL are you doing here? Leave

MrZach
02-08-2008, 06:39 AM
He is running for the nomination of the Republican Party.

And the Republican Party needs/wants a leader to tell them what to do. Sometimes, you have to show people you sympathize with them while instructing them on what is *really* in their best interest.

Telling pro-lifers that they will accomplish more if they re-direct their energies into people rather than politics shouldn't be that controversial. It is already a very common theme among pastors, and conservative authors and talk-show hosts across America.

For a politician to say, "I agree with you, but I'm powerless to do anything about it yet - you need to help me win the ideological battle in people's hearts and minds." wouldn't kill them.

propanes
02-08-2008, 06:47 AM
then WHAT THE HELL are you doing here? Leave

Sorry, the campaign Ron or someone(s) is running isn't a good demonstration of money management and value.

Airborn
02-08-2008, 06:53 AM
Sorry, the campaign Ron or someone(s) is running isn't a good demonstration of money management and value.

If you feel Ron shouldn't be President, you shouldn't even be here. Why bother browsing and posting on the forum for RON PAUL if you feel that way.

Jimmy
02-08-2008, 07:03 AM
Ron Paul wants to get his message out...this is it. LOTS of folks never heard of Ron Paul and many more heard of him but don't know really what he stands for. MOST of America has NO idea whats going on behind the scenes in goverment....

I say Ron puts together an infomercial and lets it all hang out. Tell the American people everything he knows about the corruption in goverment....where this country is heading....the works!! Want to get the message out? Get more support for this type movement?? Let the American people GLUED to there televisions the straight info about whats going on....a SHOCKER and WAKEUP of a Ron Paul speech.....It makes the most sense at this point....I think this revolution would fund it if they see it happening and people watching!!! I know I would help. We NEED this....if were going out....Lets go out with a BANG!!!

nightlight
02-08-2008, 07:07 AM
Agreed. This is what this campaign is seriously lacking.

The reason it is lacking it is that people around him are not high caliber campaign masters, like Ed Rollins running Huck's campaign.

Ron Paul made it this far despite the third raters and saboteurs around him. Unless he dismantles that and brings in the fresh bood, a crew of much smarter and more loyal folks, the creme of the crop among the grassroots, our poll numbers will continue in the same miserable single digits.

If there is no dramatic shakeup in the HQ staff and the campaign course, one could only conclude that he doesn't wish to win the presidency in the physical plane, but rather he only wants the message to win in the realm of ideas. In fact it already has done that, recalling how much others have started to parrot his message which they smirked and rolled eyes at only months earlier.

Considering how much money and ruthless power is being threatened by his ideas, one cannot blame Dr. Paul if he actually isn't trying to win in the physical plane since the odds of making it alive into the White House against these enemies are far smaller than even his polling figures.

From Dr. Paul's conference call last night on R-P-Radio, it would appear that the campaign, the staff and all, will continue exactly as before, which means that at the physical plane the results will continue exactly as before. Unless, of course, the 'Great Programmer of the Universe' decides to have some fun and arranges some major miracles to come our way.

RageAgainstDC
02-08-2008, 07:08 AM
No. We contacted the official campaign.
There was a HUGE voice for the infomercials. There were even companies that were willing to do it without profit (Hollywood closeups).
There were serious plans presented, and multiple approaches to the official campaign, and they were all met with disdain.

I am very happy that Ron Paul won't be our next president, because if he was planning to run the country as he ran his campaign, it would have been a disaster.

As his campaign was (yes, past tense).

He had loads of money, and all the resources were wasted in things that didn't get one vote. The one thing that could have changed people's minds, the infomercials, were never even considered.

Well thanks for explaining that to everyone. Now go fuck yourself.

RonRules
02-08-2008, 07:09 AM
Bring back Perot's MS Powerpoint charts!

What would be fascinating is to get the old Perot charts and re-do them with today's numbers. You'll see how Ross Perot was right and how a Ron Paul president is URGENT.

scooter
02-08-2008, 07:19 AM
And the Republican Party needs/wants a leader to tell them what to do. Sometimes, you have to show people you sympathize with them while instructing them on what is *really* in their best interest.

Telling pro-lifers that they will accomplish more if they re-direct their energies into people rather than politics shouldn't be that controversial. It is already a very common theme among pastors, and conservative authors and talk-show hosts across America.

For a politician to say, "I agree with you, but I'm powerless to do anything about it yet - you need to help me win the ideological battle in people's hearts and minds." wouldn't kill them.

I think you vastly underestimate the feelings of pro-lifers. They see it as one of those key steps in the whole "life, liberty, pursuit of happyness" deal. For many conservatives out there, it's their top issue.

I'm not really concerned with the pro-choice vote. Most of them just go Democrat anyway. I'm just surprised Ron Paul didn't get as much great support from those pro-lifers, seeing how he is an OB/GYN doctor who dlivered 4,000 babies. I mean, it's not even a political or religious position for him, he believes in it scientifically.

Shaun
02-08-2008, 07:22 AM
Another complete and total waste of money.
Standard.
So far, all told I estimate that HQ and Grass roots have spent around 40million in cash and millions of man hours to win around 16 delegates. Not bad huh?
Now that's what I call a return on investment...
Ridiculous, and launching these thirty minute ads to educate is more money wasted.
He is not going to get the nomination.
It's done. McCain is the nominee.
Months ago I should have demanded they produce quality ads and hired a PR firm and FOR GOD'S SAKE A SPEECH WRITER AND AN EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS COACH FOR RP.
It's been an awful use of 40 MILLION DOLLARS.
Now we have McCI'LLBOMBIRAN as our man.
God help us.

BirdsAreWild
02-08-2008, 07:24 AM
coboman, do you have any idea at all how much that would cost to air? Before spouting off please do a bit more research. We did not raise enough money to air infomercials like that on a national scale.



No. We contacted the official campaign.
There was a HUGE voice for the infomercials. There were even companies that were willing to do it without profit (Hollywood closeups).
There were serious plans presented, and multiple approaches to the official campaign, and they were all met with disdain.

I am very happy that Ron Paul won't be our next president, because if he was planning to run the country as he ran his campaign, it would have been a disaster.

As his campaign was (yes, past tense).

He had loads of money, and all the resources were wasted in things that didn't get one vote. The one thing that could have changed people's minds, the infomercials, were never even considered.

nightlight
02-08-2008, 07:27 AM
He is not going to get the nomination. It's done. McCain is the nominee.

Very strong finish would prepare grounds for the third party run. Fizzling out with 5-6 percent to the end, which is what will continue if the campaign continues doing what it was doing, closes that path for all practical purposes.

Truth Warrior
02-08-2008, 07:36 AM
I've been a supporter and repeated suggester of the televised infomercials idea here since before the blimp. It's an end run around the MSM blackout blowback tactic. I seem to recall that Perot did it, in part, for the same reason.

It's still a good idea, unless it is now too late.<IMHO>

coboman
02-08-2008, 07:40 AM
coboman, do you have any idea at all how much that would cost to air? Before spouting off please do a bit more research. We did not raise enough money to air infomercials like that on a national scale.
There was a financial plan in place.

Llepard was going to finance the production himself.

There was access to public television, where they could be aired.
And part of the infomercial idea, was to ask for donations on the spot, to make the ad pay for itself.

This was discussed, and proposed seriously. We could have a media blitz started with less than 5 million, and let the infomercial pay for itself.

After everything we did, the campaign still ignored us. So, why am I posting here?

I haven't posted in a while, and Ron Paul for me is over. But when I see an idea that I held dearly (the infomercials) being proposed at this time of the game, I had to say something: it is not the ideas, it is the lack of leadership to put them to practice.

And, besides, the idea was not to make it in national scale. It was to win New Hampshire and Iowa, to gain momentum and show people that he could win.
Those states were really important. It was the moment to show the people that Ron Paul had a chance. Now, it is too late.

Sauron
02-08-2008, 07:40 AM
You begged on a forum that the official campaign doesn't read. In fact, they avoid this forum like the plague.
None of the campaign staffers want to jeopardize their easy money jobs to do any actual work. That's just not the libertarian way.

MrZach
02-08-2008, 07:44 AM
coboman, do you have any idea at all how much that would cost to air? Before spouting off please do a bit more research. We did not raise enough money to air infomercials like that on a national scale.

I'm pretty sure it would cost about as much money as the campaign has raised total so far... :mad:

cayton
02-08-2008, 07:52 AM
I cant believe Paul hasnt made a series of internet speeches. They could be 15-30 minutes in length, it wouldnt cost much to do it, and they could be advertised for a week or two beforehand.

Airborn
02-08-2008, 07:52 AM
I'm pretty sure it would cost about as much money as the campaign has raised total so far... :mad:

then it wouldn't be a great idea

Airborn
02-08-2008, 07:53 AM
I cant believe Paul hasnt made a series of internet speeches. They could be 15-30 minutes in length, it wouldnt cost much to do it, and they could be advertised for a week or two beforehand.

he has........

MrZach
02-08-2008, 07:55 AM
I cant believe Paul hasnt made a series of internet speeches. They could be 15-30 minutes in length, it wouldnt cost much to do it, and they could be advertised for a week or two beforehand.

Agreed. Perhaps he could produce something like this - put the video out there for the public to use and let us decide what to do with it... The DVD's we're distributing aren't really that good although they ARE a great idea...

pull in the experts endorsing the man
pull out the dramatic photos and footage
pull out the REAL NUMBERS and charts
put together a show!!

Don't market it as "Ron Paul Campaign" material either - market it as "Rescuing The American Dream" - that will *sell* man.

coboman
02-08-2008, 08:06 AM
I'm pretty sure it would cost about as much money as the campaign has raised total so far... :mad:
This was feasible when we had to win only 2 states. TWO STATES. And not big, expensive states like California, NY or Florida. This was Iowa and New Hampshire.

We were asked for 12 million to win these two states. We gave more than 20 million.

10 million per state.

That was then. And they lost that opportunity.


Now they have like 5 million. For 20 states.

That is $250,000 per state.

There was a time to do things right. That time has come and gone.

PC_for_Paul
02-08-2008, 08:19 AM
Has anyone ever won the presidency as an independent? Seems like an extremely long shot to me.

Lincoln 1860, that's where the GOP came from, it's only right that the next 3rd party win takes us back in the other direction, away from big government and back to states rights.

crazyfacedjenkins
02-08-2008, 08:37 AM
No. We contacted the official campaign.
There was a HUGE voice for the infomercials. There were even companies that were willing to do it without profit (Hollywood closeups).
There were serious plans presented, and multiple approaches to the official campaign, and they were all met with disdain.

I am very happy that Ron Paul won't be our next president, because if he was planning to run the country as he ran his campaign, it would have been a disaster.

As his campaign was (yes, past tense).

He had loads of money, and all the resources were wasted in things that didn't get one vote. The one thing that could have changed people's minds, the infomercials, were never even considered.

Agreed, lot's of people have blind faith in Ron Paul's leadership skills. See I do this real moron thing called thinking, where I question things. One of those things just so happens to be Ron's leadership abilities.

crazyfacedjenkins
02-08-2008, 08:41 AM
Another complete and total waste of money.
Standard.
So far, all told I estimate that HQ and Grass roots have spent around 40million in cash and millions of man hours to win around 16 delegates. Not bad huh?
Now that's what I call a return on investment...
Ridiculous, and launching these thirty minute ads to educate is more money wasted.
He is not going to get the nomination.
It's done. McCain is the nominee.
Months ago I should have demanded they produce quality ads and hired a PR firm and FOR GOD'S SAKE A SPEECH WRITER AND AN EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS COACH FOR RP.
It's been an awful use of 40 MILLION DOLLARS.
Now we have McCI'LLBOMBIRAN as our man.
God help us.

Very true, when you add up the man hours it was a lot of money...

crazyfacedjenkins
02-08-2008, 08:43 AM
None of the campaign staffers want to jeopardize their easy money jobs to do any actual work. That's just not the libertarian way.

hahaha

nightlight
02-08-2008, 09:09 AM
Agreed, lot's of people have blind faith in Ron Paul's leadership skills. See I do this real moron thing called thinking, where I question things. One of those things just so happens to be Ron's leadership abilities.

He is much smarter than what the present numeric results show, considering the level of suport and energy offered to him by the grassroots back in December 2007. Hence, the more pertinent question is whether he desires to win the office personally or he merely seeks that his vision of liberty to win.

On many occasions he hinted that his real objective is the latter. And that he is achieving beyond his wildest dreams, as we marvel at how much of his ideas and words were "stolen" by his competitors and pundits. We are often amazed here how much some commentator or celebrity agrees with Ron, yet they don't endorse him. I think, as far as he is concerned he has won.

It may be that his path is much wiser than what we can comprehend with our materialistic, shallow, instant gatification mindset. As a single person reaching the White House, his vision is one bullet away from a defeat and a long, dark age which would follow. As a vision and an aching, unfulfilled yearning seeded across millions of hearts and minds, seeking a path to the material realm, it is virtually indestructible and unstoppable force which will ennoble the spirit of the nation and light our way for a long time.

jkm1864
02-08-2008, 09:14 AM
Bloomberg Oh my God I seen a picture of Him hob nobbing with Rockefeller. He is not the type of person You want as a VP. My God man educate You're self. Jesus Are You so ignorant these are the people that are destroying America.

coboman
02-08-2008, 09:14 AM
Hence, the more pertinent question is whether he desires to win the office personally or he merely seeks that his vision of liberty win.

On many occasions he hinted that his real objective is the latter.
Then I want my money back.

We have donated like nobody else in history, and worked hard. That was because we wanted a good president. To win the white house.

The slogan in his website read "12 million to win Iowa and New Hampshire". It was not "12 million to promote a vision of liberty". That is false advertising, right there.

If this was a campaign to promote a vision of liberty, we could have spent those 30+ million dollars much more effectively on books and documentaries, instead of promoting an old man and his voting record.

JMann
02-08-2008, 09:20 AM
The campaign is pretty much over but for those of you that keep bring up those god awful Perot infomercials keep forgetting the billionaire ran those boring as hell spots on multiple networks at the same time during prime time at a cost (back then) of around 5 million dollars. Not to mention he got a ton of free press and praise about what a (ahum) brilliant person he is.

This would be the single most stupid thing Paul could spend his money on.

MrZach
02-08-2008, 09:26 AM
Lincoln 1860, that's where the GOP came from, it's only right that the next 3rd party win takes us back in the other direction, away from big government and back to states rights.

That's not completely true the way you put it... Lincoln was a Republican, but the Republican party had been around since 1854 out of the ashes of the Whig party. Lincoln was the Whig party leader in Illinois and left the party around 1852 for the newly formed Republican party. He *was* the first Republican President, but the Republican party was pretty prominent already because almost all the Whigs in the north had joined it and it attracted a lot of support from anti-slavery expansionists.

John Fremont was the first Republican to run for president and he garnered about 35% of the vote. The rest of the vote was split 45% for Buchanan, and 20% for Fillmore, who as you may recall was the last Whig President ever to serve. He was Zachary Taylor's VP and took office when Taylor passed several months after taking office.

But you didn't want a history lesson, did you? lol...

I'm afraid that after this next election, if Ron Paul isn't nominated, someone in the GOP is going to have to declare, "We are slayed. The party is dead--dead--dead!" in the spirit of Lewis Davis Campbell...

Michael Ingram
02-08-2008, 09:26 AM
Has anyone ever won the presidency as an independent? Seems like an extremely long shot to me.

Theodore Roosevelt won, Ross Perot led Clinton and Bush in the polls in 1992.

nightlight
02-08-2008, 09:30 AM
Then I want my money back. We have donated like nobody else in history, and worked hard. That was because we wanted a good president. To win the white house.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what you mean by "win". If McCain wins, Luskin may be his advisor and one more piece of Dr. Paul's vision has won.

The political establishment and media were so spooked by Dr. Paul's enormously enthusiastic support, they are "stealing" and are parroting his words. They don't mean it, of course, not yet. But words and ideas one hears and parrots do affect the thoughts and actions over time. They stole and are running with "liberty" and "constitution" memes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme). These "memes" have won the nation at the spiritual plane. It is then only matter of time before they descend and conquer it at the physical plane.

MrZach
02-08-2008, 09:36 AM
Theodore Roosevelt won, Ross Perot led Clinton and Bush in the polls in 1992.

Roosevelt was elected as a Republican in 1904 (he served as President since 1901 after McKinley was assassinated), but refused to run for re-election as a Republican in 1908. He ran unsuccessfully as a "Progressive" in 1912 (lost to Wilson (D) 41% by splitting the Republican vote with incumbent Taft (R))... He did not win as an "independent" as you claim.

I already copied a massive article about Perot's presidential bid and how he was leading by a 4% margin in the polls before he dropped out...

nightlight
02-08-2008, 11:35 AM
If this was a campaign to promote a vision of liberty, we could have spent those 30+ million dollars much more effectively on books and documentaries, instead of promoting an old man and his voting record.

That remark seems a bit on the mean side and kind of ungrateful.

You have heard Dr. Paul say many times that this is not about him but about liberty and our future. He was never trying to deceive anyone. If the Higher Power arranges the sequence of unlikely events so that he ends up in the White House as our next president, he will have courage to do it, knowing well that he would likely not make it alive for long enough to abolish Fed or dismantle the gigantic corporate-bureaucratic parasite bleeding us to death. The beast is not going to release its fangs and die quite that easily.

What I take from his words is that his physical occupation of the White House is not the force that will change the country. It might help, of course, make it move a bit faster, but it is not essential or even significant. It is what we and many more that will come to our side are thinking, speaking and doing that will.

Join The Paul Side
02-08-2008, 11:49 AM
Speaking of that....where our 3 one hour documentaries from the billionaire?:D:D:D:eek:


There is no billionaire and I want to kick that Good Spirits guy in the nuts for starting that crap rumor. :mad:

Jdayh
02-09-2011, 08:19 AM
Found this old post, and thought damn... this time around RP needs to do this...!!!

IDefendThePlatform
03-03-2011, 06:26 PM
How much would 30 minutes cost today? It's probably in the thread somewhere but I'm too lazy to look.

30 minute infomercials would be perfect for Dr. Paul to completely explain his platform. I'll moneybomb for this.

Dave Aiello
03-06-2011, 02:01 AM
Bump.. better yet, I'll start another thread in RP grassroots central.