Ron Paul Gives Scott Horton A+ for Suggesting: No Right Wing Professional TV Ads This Time

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

At about 54 minutes into his show today, while interviewing Ron Paul, Scott Horton asked Ron Paul to please only use his fans' YouTubes for TV ads this time, rather than those dreadful right-wingy things that all of our hard earned money went to last time. Scott obviously had in mind things like that Iowa Primary "Fear the Mexicans" TV ad atrocity.

Scott kept explaining to RP that all we need is just clips of Ron at the podium. Ron agreed heartily and gave Scott an "A+" for the suggestion. Ron said that our message is unconventional and it doesn't make sense to use conventional professionals to get our message out. And Ron was very positive about holding YouTube contests for selecting TV ads.

The archive of today's Anti-War Radio show should go up here:

http://www.kaosradioaustin.org/station/archives/6

in a few hours. The interview with RP should start about 45 minutes in. They talk about youtubes instead of professional right wing TV ads at about 54 minutes in.

[sailingaway]

Unfortunately, there are copyright clearances that really slow stuff down if you don't create the video to begin with with those considerations in mind. I'm thinking particularly of music, here.

[TheState]

No more "He's catching on!"?

[sailingaway]

No more "He's catching on!"?

Can we possibly bear it....

[sailingaway]

But I want him to use Rand's ad people. They were terrific and sometimes you have to whip things out immediately in response to events.

[tangent4ronpaul]

YEAH!

This is an area the campaign came up really lacking in last time - radio ads too...

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

But I want him to use Rand's ad people. They were terrific and sometimes you have to whip things out immediately in response to events.

No! I think if enough of us Scott Horton-types can influence him, Ron will go for broke, not hide his light under a bushell, and fire all these people who want to waste our money on warming over his message. Everything Ron needs has already been recorded such as clips from the CPAC speech where he chides conservatives and asks them to consider "swearing off" violence against their neighbors and foreigners. That's it! No money for campaign execs.

[nobody's_hero]

There's certainly a lot of talent that got overlooked last election as far as grassroots ads. I don't think copyright would be a big problem, because for the money they pay for 'professional' ads, they could divert that towards getting a quality soundtrack.

[Romulus]

But I want him to use Rand's ad people. They were terrific and sometimes you have to whip things out immediately in response to events.

YES. His message needs to produced effectively and professionally for our superficial, short attention span of a society.

Rands ad team kicked ass. The machine? Just think of that ad with the Fed being the machine!

[HOLLYWOOD]

Ron Paul had 'Right Wing Professional" TV Ads?

That news to me... 2008 was the RP year of amateurs running a presidential campaign.

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul had 'Right Wing Professional" TV Ads?

That news to me... 2008 was the RP year of amateurs running a presidential campaign.

His Presidential exploratory committee only raised something like $170,000 dollars before he began running in earnest, as I understand it. He didn't get money bomb money until way late in the cycle as things go. Infrastructure needs to be in place from day one. I am sure that is part of what they are getting into place now.

I think using the best user produced videos with copyright cleared music would be good, MIXED with ads by Rand's people.

[sailingaway]

Here are some of Rand's ads for those who may not have seen them:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APq-a7m2lYE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVorVi8gCJM

Obviously, it would be RON's message, but there were attacks and Rands people hit back THE SAME DAY with ads turning the tables. It was great.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30yxHqSUva8

[Matt Collins]

His Presidential exploratory committee only raised something like $170,000 dollars before he began running in earnest, as I understand it. He didn't get money bomb money until way late in the cycle as things go. Infrastructure needs to be in place from day one. I am sure that is part of what they are getting into place now.It will be different. I predict $10 million dollars within 30 days of his announcement.

[low preference guy]

It will be different. I predict $10 million dollars within 30 days of his announcement.

That sounds reasonable, more likely than the $20 million you said Rand would need for the Senate.

[Chester Copperpot]

The grassroots came up with some really good ads last time on you tube.. they should be ported over to tv

Anybody rememeber this one?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Med926aDBoc

[nobody's_hero]

Matt, that video was quite bad.

EDIT: Although, I must admit, I was always a bit curious as to where the slogan "He's catching on." originated from.

[Matt Collins]

That sounds reasonable, more likely than the $20 million you said Rand would need for the Senate.
Yeah that caught me by surprise, it was forecasted to be a great deal higher than it actually was, but it became apparent earlier on that Conman didn't have a chance so the big dollars went to more contentious races.

[Matt Collins]

The grassroots came up with some really good ads last time on you tube.. they should be ported over to tv

Anybody rememeber this one?
The aesthetics were good, but it wasn't targeted to Republicans primary voters.

[Anti Federalist]

Matt, that video was quite bad.

EDIT: Although, I must admit, I was always a bit curious as to where the slogan "He's catching on." originated from.

Holy smoke, you're just finding the origin of that meme now?

LoL

;-)

[nobody's_hero]

Holy smoke, you're just finding the origin of that meme now?

LoL

;-)

I take it that was one of the very early videos, and I didn't show up until about Dec. 2007, so I thought it was just an inside joke at RPF all these years.

But, "I'm catchin' on."

[ItsTime]

Remember the ads Ron had to run last time, most, were made BEFORE we got him the cash. Knowing he is going to get the cash, let's hope he has a better team this time

[Jeremy]

I personally don't like the idea that much. Just because the official ads in 2008 were bad doesn't mean you can't make good ads like Rand's campaign did.

[Anti Federalist]

I take it that was one of the very early videos, and I didn't show up until about Dec. 2007, so I thought it was just an inside joke at RPF all these years.

But, "I'm catchin' on."

Epic "inside joke" meme is epic.

ROFL.

[Anti Federalist]

The aesthetics were good, but it wasn't targeted to Republicans primary voters.

Which is what has to happen if we are going to "win" this time.

Let's face facts, the GOP base is not going to nominate an antiwar candidate.

So it will require a flood of "new blood" into the GOP base and primary system to make it happen.

And that's what some of these outstanding "homegrown" ads can do, instead of focus group nonsense.

[Immortal Technique]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e26FhQo_2JY

[Matt Collins]

Let's face facts, the GOP base is not going to nominate an antiwar candidate.

So it will require a flood of "new blood" into the GOP base and primary system to make it happen.

And that's what some of these outstanding "homegrown" ads can do, instead of focus group nonsense.
No, we must go to the GOP base. We can't win by bringing new people in, the inertia is too much to overcome. Ron will have to market himself as not an "anti-war" candidate. Doesn't mean he is "pro-war" but he simply can't rail on like he did in 2008 as much. In other words, he needs to follow Rand's playbook.

[Anti Federalist]

No, we must go to the GOP base. We can't win by bringing new people in, the inertia is too much to overcome. Ron will have to market himself as not an "anti-war" candidate. Doesn't mean he is "pro-war" but he simply can't rail on like he did in 2008 as much. In other words, he needs to follow Rand's playbook.

That is a critical, pivotal, integral part of his position, platform and personal philosophy.

I don't see that happening, nor should it, since it's one of the reasons so many people, including myself, support him.

If you can convince the GOP base that we're too broke to do war anymore, than maybe there's hope.

[ItsTime]

We wont win the gop on the "anti-war" message period.

[AtomiC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e26FhQo_2JY

Wow, good video! :)

[Matt Collins]

That is a critical, pivotal, integral part of his position, platform and personal philosophy.

I don't see that happening, nor should it, since it's one of the reasons so many people, including myself, support him.

If you can convince the GOP base that we're too broke to do war anymore, than maybe there's hope.
Well you have to go after fiscal issues. War can be ancillary to that, in a minor way, but it can't be a pillar of the platform if the GOP base is to be won.

[Anti Federalist]

We wont win the gop on the "anti-war" message period.

Nope. I agree 100%.

So the only choices are:

1) Lie about Ron's past positions and use slick marketing tactics to cover up the fact that he has a rock solid 30 year antiwar history and voting record.

2) Bring in enough new blood to overwhelm the hidebound GOP old guard and win the nomination.

[LatinsforPaul]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvCOA0LoMtY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmsXFxcVuu4&NR=1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfOfhqVQEa8&NR=1

[LatinsforPaul]

This one definitely needs to get redone for 2012 by a professional company...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_gKOCb4QBA

[Matt Collins]

Nope. I agree 100%.

So the only choices are:

1) Lie about Ron's past positions and use slick marketing tactics to cover up the fact that he has a rock solid 30 year antiwar history and voting record.

2) Bring in enough new blood to overwhelm the hidebound GOP old guard and win the nomination.
No, that's not.

Ron and Rand are essentially the same, but Rand didn't "lie" about anything on the campaign trail. It's all about marketing, packaging, and branding.

If Ron and his campaign market himself right then they simply won't talk about being anti-war, or if they do, they'll do it from an angle of fiscal responsibility. I've heard a ton of conservative Republicans (anecdotal I know) simply say "we can't afford these wars any more" so there might be some resonating going on there. Issue polls will show that though.

[iamse7en]

This one definitely needs to get redone for 2012 by a professional company...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_gKOCb4QBA

+1

[sailingaway]

No, that's not.

Ron and Rand are essentially the same, but Rand didn't "lie" about anything on the campaign trail. It's all about marketing, packaging, and branding.

If Ron and his campaign market himself right then they simply won't talk about being anti-war, or if they do, they'll do it from an angle of fiscal responsibility. I've heard a ton of conservative Republicans (anecdotal I know) simply say "we can't afford these wars any more" so there might be some resonating going on there. Issue polls will show that though.

But Rand didn't wake people up and when they found he was packaging differently he lost some of his support after the primary. It wasn't Maddow, they stayed through that. It was the fundraising in DC and hedging the language. I'm not saying he was wrong to do it, or didn't need to do it to pick up important blocks, or that Ron shouldn't get coaching from Doug Wead on how to 'package' his issues, but Rand's carefulness it is the reason I STILL want to see his record. That the record he has created so far is so good, on top of following him closely, means if Ron decided not to run, I'd go with Rand. But what is spectacular about Ron is the fact that his 30 year personal and public record matches so consistently his political and philosophical framework, and you know exactly how he will respond to NEW issues because of that. I don't worry that I might not have 'pinned Ron down' on a particular issue, I know where he is coming from, and even if I come at it a little differently, knowing HIS touchstones is enough.

[Matt Collins]

But Rand didn't wake people up and when they found he was packaging differently he lost some of his support after the primary. It wasn't Maddow, they stayed through that. It was the fundraising in DC and hedging the language. I'm not saying he was wrong to do it, or didn't need to do it to pick up important blocks, or that Ron shouldn't get coaching from Doug Wead on how to 'package' his issues, but Rand's carefulness it is the reason I STILL want to see his record. I completely understand, and if I didn't know him personally I'd probably feel the same way. But again I've noticed that reading between the lines is important to fully understand what's really going on. In other words, it's not not just as important as what is said, as what isn't said.


There was a lot of hand holding that had to happen after the primary to get the Ron Paul grassroots through that rough area. I had quite a few fairly prominent individuals in the liberty movement call me expressing their doubts about Rand at that point in time and asking for consolation and reassurance about Rand's philosophical foundations. Jack Hunter was one of them but when he started writing Rand's book he clearly told me that "you know, after analyzing Ron and Rand's speeches, there really isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two of them".

[Dreamofunity]

The anti-war message is necessary to spread the true message. I think there is a fundamental flaw with the strategy to sell 'Ron' to republican primary voters only. It is not about the man, it is not about winning the primary or even the presidency; it is about spreading the message of liberty. Killing innocent people over seas, regardless of the fiscal cost, is the biggest affront to liberty; and to limit the exposure of that, or revert it to a discussion on fiscal costs, does not give enough merit.

At Ron's speech last night the most applause he received was when he was speaking on foreign policy. Now, will those people all register republican and vote for him in the primary? No, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is spreading the message, and not watering it down to accommodate the old generation war hawks in the republican party. Ron is working to inspire a new generation.

Not only did Ron receive the most applause when he spoke an anti-war message, but he also focused most of his time on that subject. Even in the private briefing, Ron brought up foreign policy over and over again, even when it wasn't completely on topic to the questions asked. Why? Because it is one of the most important issues to the man, the ideas, and the philosophy. Stealing from people to pay for health care for poor children is a bad idea economically and even morally, sure, but stealing from people in order to slaughter and drop bombs on innocent people is probably the greatest moral tragedy in human history. The anti-war message needs to be said, regardless of how many votes Ron would lose. Someone needs to stand against the travesty taking place, and not just by saying it's too expensive as if it were cheaper to kill people it would be okay.

One thing that makes Ron courageous is that he is actually willing to stand vocally against the war. That is needed. No one else, including the so-called anti-war left, have the courage Ron does to stand in front of thousands of students and tell the message that our troops need to just come home. Ron's campaign should be educational, to spread the true message of liberty, and not watered down to accommodate a pie in the sky chance of winning a republican primary where the majority of republican voters dislike his ideas on a fundamental level.



That said, I believe in the division of labor. If you want to focus on converting primary republican voters, be my guest and I wish you the best of luck in it. But please, don't try to stop Ron from saying what needs to be said. Maybe if Ron were younger and had a better chance, maybe I'd agree, but right now while we still have him, he needs to be the standard bearer of true liberty.

[WyoLiberty]

I don't know about anybody else, but watching a slew of RP ads gets me fired up about him all over again...my optimism is in a bloody fisted battle with my pessimism....

[Jeremy]

Nope. I agree 100%.

So the only choices are:

1) Lie about Ron's past positions and use slick marketing tactics to cover up the fact that he has a rock solid 30 year antiwar history and voting record.

2) Bring in enough new blood to overwhelm the hidebound GOP old guard and win the nomination.

Did you completely miss Rand Paul's campaign?

[MRoCkEd]

But I want him to use Rand's ad people. They were terrific and sometimes you have to whip things out immediately in response to events.
Would it shock you to know that Ron used them in 2008? Not for the "He's catching on" series, but for the later ones.

[Matt Collins]

The anti-war message is necessary to spread the true message. I think there is a fundamental flaw with the strategy to sell 'Ron' to republican primary voters only.Again, if you are wanting to achieve electoral victory, then likely Republican voters is the only thing in your universe.



At Ron's speech last night the most applause he received was when he was speaking on foreign policy. Now, will those people all register republican and vote for him in the primary? No, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is spreading the message, and not watering it down to accommodate the old generation war hawks in the republican party. Ron is working to inspire a new generation.

That said, I believe in the division of labor. If you want to focus on converting primary republican voters, be my guest and I wish you the best of luck in it. But please, don't try to stop Ron from saying what needs to be said. Maybe is Ron was younger and had a better change, maybe I'd agree, but right now while we still have him, he needs to be the standard bearer of true liberty.
Well I see a diabolical rift developing between those that want to spread the message, and those that want to achieve electoral victory. I think the message IS being spread by achieving electoral victory. For instance, Goldwater's ideas of (mostly) limited / Constitutional government was spread FAR wider because he won the nomination than it would've been if he had not won the nomination.

He would've won except that he ran in the wrong year. Ron is running in the correct year I believe.

[Brett85]

That is a critical, pivotal, integral part of his position, platform and personal philosophy.

I don't see that happening, nor should it, since it's one of the reasons so many people, including myself, support him.

If you can convince the GOP base that we're too broke to do war anymore, than maybe there's hope.

It has to be framed as being "anti intervention," not "anti war." I've talked to people who don't even think that Ron would do anything at all if our country got attacked, and people need to realize that Ron would defend our country.

[Agorism]

Rand's tea party ads were the best one. IDK if that was an official ad though or just something for the internet.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No, that's not.

Ron and Rand are essentially the same, but Rand didn't "lie" about anything on the campaign trail. It's all about marketing, packaging, and branding.

If Ron and his campaign market himself right then they simply won't talk about being anti-war, or if they do, they'll do it from an angle of fiscal responsibility. I've heard a ton of conservative Republicans (anecdotal I know) simply say "we can't afford these wars any more" so there might be some resonating going on there. Issue polls will show that though.

I call this myopic. Ron winning the Presidency won't make or break the movement, nor turn us around, especially if you conceal some of the most important aspects of the philosophy. If all you want to do is win in the short term, but lose in the long term, pursue this strategy. Then again, that is all politics is -- a myopic distillation. Frankly, I find it highly offensive to want to run a Frank Luntz campaign. What's the point in winning if you win by obfuscation?

There is a lot more to being anti-war (I prefer anti-standing army) than spending. To be honest, nothing is going to change without a significant change in the institutions in our society, which necessitates a revolution. Playing word games is not going to have any lasting effect. Ideas are important.

[Dreamofunity]

I agree electoral victory is important, and I'm fine with Rand's packaging (tea-party) even if I am personally turned off by it. I understand it; it's more important to have Rand in the senate than have some random guy from Kentucky be anti-war. The same, I think, would apply to electing Ron Paul to congress. If he had to tone things down to stay in congress, I'd understand it. Ron, running for president, is not just some random guy though.

I don't view the presidential run as an attempt to gain electoral victory. I find it to be a vocal and public platform to spread the message and convert people to ideas, and to that extent, the anti-war message is crucial. We disagree on the premise of what is the purpose of the presidential run, which is fine thanks to the division of labor, and I'd understand if the official campaign took the approach you want. But I hope Ron on a personal level, and the majority of his supporters, never drop the true message. Ron won't be around much longer, and maybe I'm too pessimistic but I don't view it as likely for him to win the primary or presidency no matter what is done by the grassroots, and to that extent I don't think the public spotlight should be wasted. I look long-term, far after 2012, and unfortunately, far after Ron is gone.

[sailingaway]

Would it shock you to know that Ron used them in 2008? Not for the "He's catching on" series, but for the later ones.

There weren't any where I was. Well, he needs someone younger and hipper directing them. I say that being neither particularly young nor hip, but his ads were putrid. No offense and all that, but there it is. And there is a LOT of talent out there. Look at the eagle logo in the RP forum, and compare it to the Campaign for Liberty logo. No comparison.

Get GAry whatshisname back from Rand, or borrow him, too.

http://i.imgur.com/8bA8pl.jpg

compared to:

https://secure.campaignforliberty.com/store/c4l-navy-ls.jpghttps://secure.campaignforliberty.com/store/poloshirt.jpg

[ElCount]

I'm quite sick of the "tone down the Antiwar rhetoric" nonsense being spouted on here. It is THE MOST IMPORTANT POLITICAL ISSUE in his country and it was the one Ron decided to speak out on during the last campaign. He spoke out against the wars, the destruction of habeas corpus, the policies of torture and indefinite detention, etc...for good reason.

And you cannot compare Rand's electoral victory in a state primary for Senate with only one other viable candidate with Ron's potential victory in a presidential primary that are going to have at least 7 or 8 viable candidates. Talking about foreign policy and war is not as big of an issue in a state election as it's a national policy. Also, foreign policy wasn't as big of a political issue in 2010 as it was in '08. And Rand smashed Greyson on just about every political issue on the domestic front so it wasn't even necessary to emphasize it.

In Ron's case, things are completely different.



http://i.imgur.com/8bA8pl.jpg


Where can I get those T-Shirts!?

[sailingaway]

Where can I get those T-Shirts!?

For right now just at the guy's zazzle store but he is working on setting up potentially more stuff: http://www.zazzle.com/ronpauldesigns

There's other cool stuff there too, for example:
http://rlv.zcache.com/blue_bumper_sticker-p128810289569859765tmn6_525.jpg

http://rlv.zcache.com/dark_bumper_sticker-p128750788794012310tmn6_525.jpg

http://rlv.zcache.com/blue_button-p145114692829382558tmn2_525.jpg

[Romulus]

No, we must go to the GOP base. We can't win by bringing new people in, the inertia is too much to overcome. Ron will have to market himself as not an "anti-war" candidate. Doesn't mean he is "pro-war" but he simply can't rail on like he did in 2008 as much. In other words, he needs to follow Rand's playbook.


No, that's not.

Ron and Rand are essentially the same, but Rand didn't "lie" about anything on the campaign trail. It's all about marketing, packaging, and branding.

If Ron and his campaign market himself right then they simply won't talk about being anti-war, or if they do, they'll do it from an angle of fiscal responsibility. I've heard a ton of conservative Republicans (anecdotal I know) simply say "we can't afford these wars any more" so there might be some resonating going on there. Issue polls will show that though.

That's right. You can still be anti-war, you just have to message it differently in terms of financials and supporting the troops by bringing them home.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Dreamofunity wrote:

At Ron's speech last night the most applause he received was when he was speaking on foreign policy. Now, will those people all register republican and vote for him in the primary? No, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is spreading the message, and not watering it down to accommodate the old generation war hawks in the republican party. Ron is working to inspire a new generation.

Not only did Ron receive the most applause when he spoke an anti-war message, but he also focused most of his time on that subject. Even in the private briefing, Ron brought up foreign policy over and over again, even when it wasn't completely on topic to the questions asked.

You got it Dreamofunity. This is what made Ron Paul a rock star. The establishment accidently let him on stage with all the war mongers and many in America were astounded to see someone with the balls to call them all a bunch of fascist-state socialist warmongers.

Its Ron's pure libertarian message of Peace & Sound Money which emphasizes BOTH sides of the freedom equation that is the genuine Ron Paul phenom.

For TV and radio ads all we need to do is choose from and tinker a little bit with the zillions of Ron Paul riffs. Anything else will be a detraction from Ron's pure libertarian message. The establishment will do anything to stop Ron Paul's pure libertarianism message from getting blasted on TV and radio ads--even hack the KY Senate election for Rand Paul to impede the momentum of his father's dangerous ideas (if you ask me).

[MelissaWV]

I still stand by the same suggestion I had last go-round.

Have a friendly contest to produce ads, accept them as entries, and provide "prizes" to the winners (obviously not monetary, as that just gets you into deep shit). If you could win dinner cooked by Carol and eaten with the Pauls, wouldn't you do your damnedest to make a good ad?

The soundtrack issue is pretty easy to fix. Once the campaign receives these entries, and makes it very clear that they are submitted as entries and henceforth become property of the campaign, they can tinker a little bit with any music or images which are improper for use in political ads.

[Romulus]

I still stand by the same suggestion I had last go-round.

Have a friendly contest to produce ads, accept them as entries, and provide "prizes" to the winners (obviously not monetary, as that just gets you into deep shit). If you could win dinner cooked by Carol and eaten with the Pauls, wouldn't you do your damnedest to make a good ad?

The soundtrack issue is pretty easy to fix. Once the campaign receives these entries, and makes it very clear that they are submitted as entries and henceforth become property of the campaign, they can tinker a little bit with any music or images which are improper for use in political ads.

The only problem with 'contests' is that you normally get amateur work. Professionals are busy getting paid to work. So I don't really hold 'contest' material in the highest regard.

[MelissaWV]

The only problem with 'contests' is that you normally get amateur work. Professionals are busy getting paid to work. So I don't really hold 'contest' material in the highest regard.

People in the Grassroots were producing damned good stuff without any payment. If there were an incentive, it stands to reason the production value would improve, not decrease.

"Professionals" made some terrible commercials in 2008 for all kinds of candidates. They just got paid more for their shitty work.

[acptulsa]

The only problem with 'contests' is that you normally get amateur work. Professionals are busy getting paid to work. So I don't really hold 'contest' material in the highest regard.

This nation is full of crappy so-called professionals in every profession, who have their degrees through nepotism at least to some degree and cut their teeth selling The Message for The Man.

We could use a new class of professionals.

[Shane Harris]

i actually think his non-interventionist policies wll be mroe of a hit this time. the republicans are just like the democrats in regards to being extremely partisan. notice how the left doesnt care about war anymore since obama's the one starting it. likewise i think the right is more than ready to rail against anything obama is doing including foreign adventurism just because its obama and not a republican. this may be the perfect chance to convince the right to vote against foreign intervention and endless war spending and also vote against government intrusion and spying and the destruction of privacy and the 4th amendment via the patriot act. the right loved them before but all of sudden dont like the idea of the government havign that power when its obama wielding it. i think its rons moment to shine

[Shane Harris]

also. i think the contest is a good idea. politicians are always trying to sell themselves with actors. i love the idea of using clips and real footage made by passionate supporters. ads come off cheesy almost always. however the top couple ron paul videos on facebook are the stuff of true inspiration. they are what first got me really interested back in 2009

[Eric21ND]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30yxHqSUva8
Aside from the atrocious acting and dialogue, there's also a glaring flaw in this ad....Ron Paul doesn't appear in it!!! He gives some chunky video edit at the beginning saying he approves of the ad, but he's not actually in the ad. FACEPALM!!!!

[Eric21ND]

No, that's not.

Ron and Rand are essentially the same, but Rand didn't "lie" about anything on the campaign trail. It's all about marketing, packaging, and branding.

If Ron and his campaign market himself right then they simply won't talk about being anti-war, or if they do, they'll do it from an angle of fiscal responsibility. I've heard a ton of conservative Republicans (anecdotal I know) simply say "we can't afford these wars any more" so there might be some resonating going on there. Issue polls will show that though.
The wars going on around the Middle East are the elephant in the room, that needs to be addressed, maybe now more than in 2008 campaign. I think Ron coming out strongly against them with withdrawl plans for each war will be huge! Almost everybody is tired of the wars, and we clearly can't afford them. There's very few diehard neocons out there in flyover country these days. Even milktoast candidates in the republican party aren't big on the wars anymore, Huckabee had some comments on it lately as did some others. Ron needs to say, "I will withdrawl troops safely and swiftly, within 6 months of my taking office."

[RPIdeaMan08]

The Ads need to focus on: show Picture with Regan, His history as a doctor, military and family (Rand), His voting record on taxes and liberty (taxpayers best friend, ranked most conservative in congress), Federal Reserve, cutting the debt specifically by reducing military spending, a long term approach to ending the welfare system, safer boarders and Ron following trough while most of his opponents don't (Values and trustworthiness), Ron has been talking about these issues before anyone else. Also should make a mild amount of fear that only Ron Paul has the record and values to handle our crisis (others will be empty rhetoric and our country and republicans reputation will suffer).

[RPIdeaMan08]

The Ads need to focus on: show Picture with Regan, His history as a doctor, military and family (Rand), His voting record on taxes and liberty (taxpayers best friend, ranked most conservative in congress), Federal Reserve, cutting the debt specifically by reducing military spending, a long term approach to ending the welfare system, safer boarders and Ron following trough while most of his opponents don't (Values and trustworthiness), Ron has been talking about these issues before anyone else. Also should make a mild amount of fear that only Ron Paul has the record and values to handle our crisis (others will be empty rhetoric and our country and republicans reputation will suffer).


I really would like someone to help me make a mock up commercial with these constraints appealing to conservatives how may be skeptical thinking Ron Paul will go to far to quickly ending government programs people rely on. we should use a quote from Ron saying it will take time to dismantle the welfare state because people are reliant on it.

[acptulsa]

I really would like someone to help me make a mock up commercial with these constraints appealing to conservatives how may be skeptical thinking Ron Paul will go to far to quickly ending government programs people rely on. we should use a quote from Ron saying it will take time to dismantle the welfare state because people are reliant on it.

I think we need to win the primary first. I don't know how many G.O.P. primary voters will be as concerned with this angle.

Yes, we are already selling this to potential crossover voters and independents. But in the meantime (and as truly bizarre as this seems to my soul) right now we need to sell certain people on the benefits of peace.

[Anti Federalist]

No, that's not.

Ron and Rand are essentially the same, but Rand didn't "lie" about anything on the campaign trail. It's all about marketing, packaging, and branding.

If Ron and his campaign market himself right then they simply won't talk about being anti-war, or if they do, they'll do it from an angle of fiscal responsibility. I've heard a ton of conservative Republicans (anecdotal I know) simply say "we can't afford these wars any more" so there might be some resonating going on there. Issue polls will show that though.

Rand did not have a thirty year congressional record of antiwar positions to "repackage".

But I agree with trying to "sell" it to the base by pointing out, correctly, that we're broke and can't afford it anymore.

[AuH20]

I'm quite sick of the "tone down the Antiwar rhetoric" nonsense being spouted on here. It is THE MOST IMPORTANT POLITICAL ISSUE in his country and it was the one Ron decided to speak out on during the last campaign. He spoke out against the wars, the destruction of habeas corpus, the policies of torture and indefinite detention, etc...for good reason.

And you cannot compare Rand's electoral victory in a state primary for Senate with only one other viable candidate with Ron's potential victory in a presidential primary that are going to have at least 7 or 8 viable candidates. Talking about foreign policy and war is not as big of an issue in a state election as it's a national policy. Also, foreign policy wasn't as big of a political issue in 2010 as it was in '08. And Rand smashed Greyson on just about every political issue on the domestic front so it wasn't even necessary to emphasize it.

In Ron's case, things are completely different.




Where can I get those T-Shirts!?

You win elections by addressing domestic economical issues. War waged by the state goes over people's heads because they're removed from it. It's distant images on the television to the sheep. Ramming the war issue down the voters' throats in an environment with no military draft is a losing strategy.

[Romulus]

Ron ought to focus on financials, from that point he can sell his foreign policy all day long.


People in the Grassroots were producing damned good stuff without any payment. If there were an incentive, it stands to reason the production value would improve, not decrease.

"Professionals" made some terrible commercials in 2008 for all kinds of candidates. They just got paid more for their shitty work.

I don't think they are pro's by any stretch.. but yes, the grassroots did put excellent stuff.


This nation is full of crappy so-called professionals in every profession, who have their degrees through nepotism at least to some degree and cut their teeth selling The Message for The Man.

We could use a new class of professionals.
I don't care if its grassroots or high dollar 'professionals' - I just to see them source some bold, consistent, talent when it comes to production.

[AuH20]

That's right. You can still be anti-war, you just have to message it differently in terms of financials and supporting the troops by bringing them home.

And being anti-war doesn't mean that you should come off like a coward. Ron lets too many people define him as an isolationist and a pacifist. He really comes off like he would never utilize the military for anything, including an alien invasion. He has to work hard to change that perception. Ron has to communicate that the sheer, awesome power of the U.S. military shouldn't be casually used as a toy for flippant causes. With great power, come great responsibility. There must always be a legitimate threat, citing the need for a strong national defense as opposed to interventionism in the name of global policing.

[ForLibertyFight]

We need to cater to the GOP voters and their concerns.

I agree that Dr. Paul's anti-war position is important but I don't think it should be the issue he needs to base his campaign around, at least not during the GOP primaries.

Dr. Paul has the most consistent and the best conservative record out of ALL of the candidates running.
We need to focus on this.

A picture of him with Reagan is good. We need to highlight his principled voting record when it comes to taxes and spending.
We need to distinguish Dr. Paul from the rest of the phony conservatives in the race.
Dr. Paul needs to be constantly mentioned as the "tax payers best friend", as the one who does not compromise on his principles, as the one who promises to reduce spending (using his record in Congress as proof), and as the one who understands monetary policy.

We need to cater to the GOP voters. That's whats going to win us the primary.
When we win the primary, we can target the anti-war independents and etc.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

And being anti-war doesn't mean that you should come off like a coward. Ron lets too many people define him as an isolationist and a pacifist. He really comes off like he would never utilize the military for anything, including an alien invasion. He has to work hard to change that perception. Ron has to communicate that the sheer, awesome power of the U.S. military shouldn't be casually used as a toy for flippant causes. With great power, come great responsibility. There must always be a legitimate threat, citing the need for a strong national defense as opposed to interventionism in the name of global policing.

Standing Armies are offensive tools, not defensive...They'll always be used for oppression at home and abroad.

[Sentinelrv]

A lot of you here are arguing over whether Ron should frame his message as being pure anti-war, or to focus on the monetary consequences of our war mongering. There is a much better solution here most people are overlooking. First of all, the monetary consequence is a valid way to look at the problem, but it also lacks concern for the people of the world who are being affected by our foreign intervention. Secondly, the pure anti-war stance is too extreme because it causes people to believe that Ron is an isolationist. It causes people to feel insecurity, as if Ron would leave us wide open to attack. That's why so many neocons dislike Ron. They misunderstand Ron and fear that he is weak on defense. So both strategies have their faults in my opinion.

Instead, Ron needs to frame the message not as anti-war, which causes people insecurity, but as non-interventionist. Non-interventionism should be the focus, and it should be explained as clearly as possible, to prevent people from mistaking him as isolationist. He needs to frame the war as being a threat to our national security and that he's very strong in defense. This will allow him to talk about the war being immoral as well as the monetary consequences of it without triggering insecurity and opposition.

In order to do this, he needs to change his wording on the issue. Ron may truly be non-interventionist, but if he's in a debate and his response to a question is "We should just come home," without backing it up with reasons why the war is a threat to us and without explaining why he is pro-defense, people will believe he is just anti-war and isolationist, triggering people's defense mechanisms.

[Sentinelrv]

And being anti-war doesn't mean that you should come off like a coward. Ron lets too many people define him as an isolationist and a pacifist. He really comes off like he would never utilize the military for anything, including an alien invasion. He has to work hard to change that perception. Ron has to communicate that the sheer, awesome power of the U.S. military shouldn't be casually used as a toy for flippant causes. With great power, come great responsibility. There must always be a legitimate threat, citing the need for a strong national defense as opposed to interventionism in the name of global policing.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Ron needs to show the world he is strong on defense, and not a coward.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The anti-war message is necessary to spread the true message. I think there is a fundamental flaw with the strategy to sell 'Ron' to republican primary voters only. It is not about the man, it is not about winning the primary or even the presidency; it is about spreading the message of liberty. Killing innocent people over seas, regardless of the fiscal cost, is the biggest affront to liberty; and to limit the exposure of that, or revert it to a discussion on fiscal costs, does not give enough merit.

At Ron's speech last night the most applause he received was when he was speaking on foreign policy. Now, will those people all register republican and vote for him in the primary? No, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is spreading the message, and not watering it down to accommodate the old generation war hawks in the republican party. Ron is working to inspire a new generation.

Not only did Ron receive the most applause when he spoke an anti-war message, but he also focused most of his time on that subject. Even in the private briefing, Ron brought up foreign policy over and over again, even when it wasn't completely on topic to the questions asked. Why? Because it is one of the most important issues to the man, the ideas, and the philosophy. Stealing from people to pay for health care for poor children is a bad idea economically and even morally, sure, but stealing from people in order to slaughter and drop bombs on innocent people is probably the greatest moral tragedy in human history. The anti-war message needs to be said, regardless of how many votes Ron would lose. Someone needs to stand against the travesty taking place, and not just by saying it's too expensive as if it were cheaper to kill people it would be okay.

One thing that makes Ron courageous is that he is actually willing to stand vocally against the war. That is needed. No one else, including the so-called anti-war left, have the courage Ron does to stand in front of thousands of students and tell the message that our troops need to just come home. Ron's campaign should be educational, to spread the true message of liberty, and not watered down to accommodate a pie in the sky chance of winning a republican primary where the majority of republican voters dislike his ideas on a fundamental level.



That said, I believe in the division of labor. If you want to focus on converting primary republican voters, be my guest and I wish you the best of luck in it. But please, don't try to stop Ron from saying what needs to be said. Maybe if Ron were younger and had a better chance, maybe I'd agree, but right now while we still have him, he needs to be the standard bearer of true liberty.

I have been trying to say this for a long time, and have never put it so succinctly or eloquently.

Also:

Ron can have BOTH grassroots ads and Rand's professional team doing official campaign ads. The grassroots for the more inspiring, issues based ads, and the professional team to respond to any potential attacks. Best of both worlds.

[CUnknown]

That is a critical, pivotal, integral part of his position, platform and personal philosophy.

I don't see that happening, nor should it, since it's one of the reasons so many people, including myself, support him.

If you can convince the GOP base that we're too broke to do war anymore, than maybe there's hope.

I absolutely agree with you.. I don't know for sure if its the smartest "tactical" move (you never can know that), but it feels like a betrayal to do anything else. Non-violence is at the core of what he's about.

Trying to turn Ron into a politician with "game" just doesn't make sense. He wouldn't even be able to effectively pull it off, it is so antithetical to his spirit. His benevolent spirit is the only reason why I ever was converted to this movement.

George Bush can't say "Capitalism is the greatest humanitarian system in the world" and be credible, but Ron Paul can. He is the only one who is credible saying words like that, because the fact that he honestly cares is so obvious.

[AuH20]

I absolutely agree with you.. I don't know for sure if its the smartest "tactical" move (you never can know that), but it feels like a betrayal to do anything else. Non-violence is at the core of what he's about.

Trying to turn Ron into a politician with "game" just doesn't make sense. He wouldn't even be able to effectively pull it off, it is so antithetical to his spirit. His benevolent spirit is the only reason why I ever was converted to this movement.

George Bush can't say "Capitalism is the greatest humanitarian system in the world" and be credible, but Ron Paul can. He is the only one who is credible saying words like that, because the fact that he honestly cares is so obvious.

So you're saying Ron Paul could never defend himself in the face of real-life hostility? I hope you're wrong because I could never vote for someone like that. Pacifists are potential serfs on the world stage. I'm certainly against looking for trouble or manufacturing excuses to dominate my fellow man, but I sure as hell won't roll over to be subjugated by another nation or my own government.

[AuH20]

Someone should ask Ron Paul if he's a pacifist. If he's a 2nd amendment supporter, then he's probably not a pacifist:

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_Pacifism.html


Pacifism is the moral principle that the use of force is wrong for any reason. This applies to both the initiation of force, as well as defensive or retaliatory force. If your life is being threatened, pacifism holds that you should not defend yourself. If someone has stolen from you, pacifism holds that you should not retrieve your property. If someone has murdered other people, pacifism holds that nothing should be done about it. Pacifism is the moral principle that attempts to permanently disarm its practitioners, leaving them helpless and at the mercy of any thug.

Some people accept pacifism due to a faulty inductive process. They notice that force can be used for evil, and generalize it believing that force is only used for evil. Others accept pacifism as a moral commandment or duty. There is no rational reason to accept pacifism, and its consequences are deadly. This ethical premise is destructive to one's life and values. It makes morality oppose self-interest, and requires the choice of either being good, or being alive.

Pacifism requires one to withhold the use of force. It is thought that if practiced by everyone, the world would be a better place, making life easier to live. This is mistaken, though. A single thug could destroy any society based on pacifism. Since nobody could respond with equal force, even in self-defense or the defense of their loved ones, the thug would be constantly rewarded for his acts. He could rob, steal, or murder, and nobody could stop him. It would encourage others to act this way as well, since nobody would be willing to stop them. But one cannot live under such circumstances. One's life would be at the mercy of the worst people alive.

Pacifists are able to survive in as far as either they abandon this faulty principle, or others dismiss it. Without the use of retaliatory force, they could not survive against the threat of other people. A lone pacifist in a society willing to enact justice can survive at the expense of his fellow citizens. It is to them that his survival is maintained. It is his ethical system that makes him dependent on the good will of others.

[MelissaWV]

Ron Paul has never been a Pacifist. He's a strong believer in the Constitution, which is not a pacifist document. Wars can be declared. National defense is provided for (although I think you would see, at some point, an Amendment proposed to clarify the branches of the military and their roles). Letters of marque and reprisal are mentioned.

None of those things are Pacifist.

You can also rest assured that Dr. Paul supports the 2nd Amendment, which is to say that we have a right to defend ourselves and our property from certain threats. This is also not Pacifist of him.

What makes him Pacifist compared to so many other candidates is that he doesn't support the idea that the US should just zip around the globe shooting and bombing and torturing and meddling without an overpoweringly important reason, and that on the off chance we did have to go to war, we should never stick around and nation-build.

Know what? That sounds pretty good to me.

[Eric21ND]

The Ads need to focus on: show Picture with Regan, His history as a doctor, military and family (Rand), His voting record on taxes and liberty (taxpayers best friend, ranked most conservative in congress), Federal Reserve, cutting the debt specifically by reducing military spending, a long term approach to ending the welfare system, safer boarders and Ron following trough while most of his opponents don't (Values and trustworthiness), Ron has been talking about these issues before anyone else. Also should make a mild amount of fear that only Ron Paul has the record and values to handle our crisis (others will be empty rhetoric and our country and republicans reputation will suffer).

Something like this video? I know its long, but surely we could buy a longer block of time, especially in the wee hours of the night/morning. Elderly people wake up early in the morning quite often.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE1tyaNKyRU

[invisible]

Another way to present a conservative anti-war position is to tie the wars to obomba. Talk about how shrub campaigned on a platform of no nation building and not policing the world, and how obomba has only escalated the wars and nation building. Talk about how horrible it is for the democrats to be continuing our wars, and how badly we need to elect a Republican that will end these awful obomba democrat wars. Ron has the excellent advantage of war = democrat rhetoric being in his favor this time around. Not much repackaging to do there. Just keep tying war to democrats and obomba. Always be quick to point out that being pro-war means support for obomba's policies. As :collins: says, it's just all in how you say what you do say, and in knowing what not to say.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

I think Ron Paul has strong convictions about this issue that we've been discussing on this thread. Here's a transcript of Scott Horton's question and Ron Paul's answer that I think is revealing. If you listen to the audio, Ron Paul clearly changes cadence and emphasizes the word "I" when he answers Scott's question--as though all along he's wanted to do one thing but his handlers have always done another.

This starts at about 51:30 into the kaos archive of the 4/22 show:

http://www.kaosradioaustin.org/station/archives/6



Scott Horton: "...That's going to lead into this topic which is a special favor actually that I want to ask of you which is: Please let the kids--the Youtube kids--make the TV ads, because last time the TV ads kind of ran to the right--like in a typical Republican primary you want to run to the right in the primary and to the center in the general, that kind of thing.

"But you're changing the game all the way around. You don't need to do that. All of the very best Ron Paul ads from 2007, 2008 were made by your fans. And they were just clips of your speeches and TV appearances put together with a little bit of music. Why not just hold Youtube contests and let the kids make the ads. What do your think?"

Ron Paul: "You get an A+ for that suggestion. I agree with you 100%. There's been some discussion that if there's a campaign, then that's the direction that I want to go in because resorting to some of the conventional people because they've been experts, that doesn't fit us. We don't have a conventional campaign and therefore I think what you suggested is very good."

Scott Horton: "Well, right on. I'm so glad you see that my way. Some of the youtubes were so good. All we need is a couple of clips of you at a podium and (the responses from viewers will be) 'sold, you got my vote Mr. President'"

[Badger Paul]

Successful campaigns usually come down to selling three basic messages to the voters, Here's what RP's should be in 2012

1). End the Fed or at least attack the Federal Reserve and the crony capitalism which caused the financial crisis (an opponent to rally people against in a populist manner)
2). Non-interventionist foreign policy and reduction in the police state (fiscally sound foreign policy which reduces government)
3). Freedom brings people together (expresses desire for unity among public and shows regular Republicans Ron is the only only capable of beating Obama because he can draw large numbers of voters to his side from across political spectrum).

[Matt Collins]

Successful campaigns usually come down to selling three basic messages to the voters, Here's what RP's should be in 2012

1). End the Fed or at least attack the Federal Reserve and the crony capitalism which caused the financial crisis (an opponent to rally people against in a populist manner)
2). Non-interventionist foreign policy and reduction in the police state (fiscally sound foreign policy which reduces government)
3). Freedom brings people together (expresses desire for unity among public and shows regular Republicans Ron is the only only capable of beating Obama because he can draw large numbers of voters to his side from across political spectrum).
That would work if he was in a Democrat primary or running in the general.

But he has to talk about Republican issues if he is to achieve electoral victory in the Republican Party.

[acptulsa]

I consider Badger's number three to be an extremely strong selling point for the primary. Republicans love to win. They truly do.

[Brett85]

Yeah, this is such a great idea. Ron should simply appeal to hardcore libertarians rather than large numbers of conservative Republicans who vote in GOP primaries.

[low preference guy]

From the same interview, a bit after 9:15:


Our message is going to become more popular than ever, and that is what I'm sensing.

http://antiwar.com/radio/2011/04/23/rep-ron-paul-17/

[acptulsa]

Yeah, this is such a great idea. Ron should simply appeal to hardcore libertarians rather than large numbers of conservative Republicans who vote in GOP primaries.

Please don't for a moment think I don't appreciate the sentiment. But we are going to have to move these people to some degree, or as much as we can. The Dubya Doctrine is patently unsustainable. Empire is an undeniable mistake.

Traditional conservatives were raised on a different value system than the one they advocate today. Really. The transition has been slow and deliberate, and many of them don't understand how they have been led down the garden path. This is why we piss them off. We're advocating what they thought they believed, and the disconnect is a deep irritation to them.

I don't know how to gently help them undo the damage. If I did, I would be all over this forum espousing the cure. But if we can find that key, if we can find the way to lead them back up the garden path and off in the right direction, we will be doing our progeny the greatest favor they can have bestowed upon them.

I don't know what the answer is. But I do know this. Pandering is not the answer. People are sick of this, and that is why we're doing as well as we are--Ron Paul has not built his reputation on a foundation of manure. This isn't just our greatest weakness in the political realm, it is (thanks to a changing national mood) also our greatest strength.

I advocate selling Paul's message to the rank and file as the G.O.P.'s only hope of winning and being rid of Obama. I don't know of a better plan. But I do firmly believe that this is a true and accurate claim to make to them. And I know it will carry some weight.

Now, if we can just remind them of what their grandparents believed in their hearts and why, that will be enough to put it over the top.

I can only think of one more thing to add. The more Thomas Jefferson quotes we memorize and toss into our conversations, the better off we are. We must tailor our message as best we can, yes. But we can't expect to win if we don't carefully, patiently and earnestly try to move your average Republican at least a little bit.

[Brett85]

I'm not saying that Ron should run on some kind of war mongering platform. But Ron has had a very conservative voting record on the immigration issue over the years, and he needs to point that out to GOP voters.

[Theocrat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30yxHqSUva8

:D

[TheDriver]

I can't help but to laugh at this. The grassroots can make suggestions, and possibly rough drafts, but if he has a serious campaign--he'll need a company like the one he used in late 2008, which is the same company Rand Paul used for his entire election.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

From Bob Wenzel's article about his discussion with Ron Paul during Ron Paul's trip to Reno last week:


http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/05/on-road-with-ron-paul.html

The talk turned to politics and he told me he had some advisers telling him that he should alter his message slightly to attract the attention of larger groups. He said, "You know, they don't want me to actually change my view, but the way I say certain things. I can't do that."

I can't help but marvel at Ron's determination to tell the truth--whether it offends the banksters, the war mongers, or his handlers. If he could somehow make it known that THIS TIME our money won't be wasted on commercials that "change his view" or change the way he "says certain things," then I think his money bombs would bring in a LOT MORE money.