New Ron Paul NH Commercial

[The Good Doctor]

Looks good! Not as cheesy as the last one. Not that it is bad really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay4vXZWxeuU

[726f6e7061756c]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=29478
[ Ad #2 ]

it is much better then the first one. :)

[The Good Doctor]

Doh! I must have missed it. I scrolled through looking for NH I guess.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=29478
[ Ad #2 ]

it is much better then the first one. :)

[Primbs]

Very nice ad.

[JPFromTally]

Sooooo much better.

[Grandson of Liberty]

I like it too, though I find it silly they make him say, "I'm Ron Paul, and I approved this message" even though he was the only one talking in the commercial.

[nyrgoal99]

i think it looks great

[Nathan Hale]

Looks good! Not as cheesy as the last one. Not that it is bad really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay4vXZWxeuU

Nice tan.

[Nathan Hale]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=29478
[ Ad #2 ]

it is much better then the first one. :)

Not really. The first one suffered from bad acting, but it was a better format (having supporters make the statement to show popular support), and it communicated several important things to NH television viewers:

1. You don't have to agree with paul on everything

2. You can and should vote in the GOP primary.

3. His campaign is growing.

4. Ron Paul is in line with the "live free or die" ethic.

Once again, the acting was truly horrible, but the first ad was a better ad because of the important points it made.

[Shellshock1918]

That was really good. Really sings to the heart of independents. I think the first one targeted the whole voting audience: democrat, republican, independent, young and old.

[paulaholic]

Awesome!

[JS4Pat]

Not really. The first one suffered from bad acting, but it was a better format (having supporters make the statement to show popular support), and it communicated several important things to NH television viewers:

1. You don't have to agree with paul on everything

2. You can and should vote in the GOP primary.

3. His campaign is growing.

4. Ron Paul is in line with the "live free or die" ethic.

Once again, the acting was truly horrible, but the first ad was a better ad because of the important points it made.
It's a stretch to say the first one was "better" - but I will say we are not there yet with the 2nd commercial either.

[10thAmendmentMan]

Damned good. The opening joke is a nice touch.

[leipo]

Very nice. Although it definitely needs some color correcting, because Ron looks a bit too orange.

[bmcosti]

I was highly critical of the last television spot. If your from Chicago, it reminded me of the Eaglewoman Commercial with Mancow. Perhaps the worst commercial ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL1QUmeEZQc

I am very pleased at this production however. Bravo, his honesty and integrity really come through on this one. Much better for an insurgency compaign.

Thanks Campaign, I was beginning to ask myself what the heck is going on, but I feel much better now.

[mojohnk2000]

Very good ad. Great backdrop and very concise. Good use of our money. I'll bet it will work in every market.

[denvervoipguru]

I have to be frank because I'd hate to see the campaign spend money to put that first one on the air. #2 is better, but not "great"...guess you can only do so much with 30 seconds.

[LBT]

I prefer the commercials suggested by Thomas Woods here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016485.html
&
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016486.html

Copied and pasted below for your convenience:
------------------
People like to get involved in causes that they think other people are supporting. With that in mind, this is the Ron Paul commercial I would do. (Everything below, including Ron Paul's own "I'm Ron Paul and I approved this message" can fit into a 30-second ad.)

The video side of the ad consists of clips of Ron speaking, along with the huge crowds, the signs, the cheers, the smiling faces, and the youthful demographic. This is even more important than the words spoken. The spontaneous energy of the Ron Paul movement should come through. This has been captured very well in countless YouTubes, so it should be easy for a professional outfit to duplicate.

Then the voice over: "Andrew Napolitano calls Ron Paul the Thomas Jefferson of our day."

[Here we break to Ron himself, saying to a cheering crowd, "Freedom is popular!"]

"Ron Paul doesn't have to run away from his record. In ten congressional terms he's never voted to raise taxes. He opposed the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq war. No one has a better record of fighting big government than Ron Paul.

"Let's say no to business as usual. This January, vote Ron Paul, Republican for President."

At the same time, on the screen:

Ron Paul 2008
Hope for America
Be a part of it
---------------------------------------

-----------------------------------
In addition to this one, I suggest something like this (again, all of this, including the "...and I approved this message" bit, can fit into 30 seconds):

"Why does Ron Paul have so much grassroots support? [On the screen, tick off the Internet statistics, superimposed over images of Ron Paul rallies: First place, Ron Paul, with 1,082 Meetup groups; second place, Barack Obama, with 62, etc.]

"Because when Americans finally have an honest man who doesn't speak to them in slogans, they respond.

"Ron Paul wants to restore our Constitution: no more unnecessary, undeclared wars, no more violations of our liberties, and no more Internal Revenue Service.

"Finally, an election with a real choice. Vote Ron Paul, Republican for President."
--------------------------------

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Now THIS is classic Ron Paul! The simple, honest, straightforward message of liberty. Kudos to HQ for getting this one RIGHT!

[kylejack]

I like the first one better. It covers more ground and provides more rational arguments for supporting Ron Paul.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

I like the first one better. It covers more ground and provides more rational arguments for supporting Ron Paul.

Lol @ your sarcasm.
Yeah, the first one had great arguments. Like:

"I don't agree with Ron Paul on some things."

"Actually, I agree with him on most things. I REALLY DO!!!!" :D


#2 is head and shoulders above #1.

[kylejack]

Lol @ your sarcasm.
Yeah, the first one had great arguments. Like:

"I don't agree with Ron Paul on some things."

"Actually, I agree with him on most things. I REALLY DO!!!!" :D

#2 is head and shoulders above #1.
The acting was terrible, but I liked the above factors. Republicans are generally pro-war, so they need to be provided a rational path to support Ron Paul, even if they're stubborn as mules on the war. The same is true for a number of issues and different types of voters: abortion, social welfare entitlements, Department of Education, Social Security.

And as I said, it covered a lot more ground. Incredible how much it was able to pack in to 30 seconds, actually.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

The acting was terrible, but I liked the above factors. Republicans are generally pro-war, so they need to be provided a rational path to support Ron Paul, even if they're stubborn as mules on the war. The same is true for a number of issues and different types of voters: abortion, social welfare entitlements, Department of Education, Social Security.

And as I said, it covered a lot more ground. Incredible how much it was able to pack in to 30 seconds, actually.

An incredible amount of beards.

[kylejack]

An incredible amount of beards.
Are you familiar with New Hampshire? :D

[johngr]

Isn't "...and I approve of this message" self-understood?

[kylejack]

Isn't "...and I approve of this message" self-understood?
Yes...but its required by law.

[Badger Paul]

Much, much better.

[Nathan Hale]

It's a stretch to say the first one was "better" - but I will say we are not there yet with the 2nd commercial either.

The only flaw in the first ad was bad acting. If you consider the weight of that flaw, it's about even to Ron Paul's horrendous faux tan makeup in the second ad. Those two equal flaws aside, the first ad, as I mentioned earlier, communicates a lot of important things to the voting audience than the second ad does not.

[Nathan Hale]

Lol @ your sarcasm.
Yeah, the first one had great arguments. Like:

"I don't agree with Ron Paul on some things."

"Actually, I agree with him on most things. I REALLY DO!!!!" :D


#2 is head and shoulders above #1.

Those ARE rational arguments. Most people are turned off by outside the box candidates because they disagree on a few issues. The ad communicates that voters can support for Ron Paul without agreeing on everything. It's a good way to remind people of this, because they often forget. It's an important point to make, remember, not everybody is an interested in politics, as educated about politics, or as intelligent in general, as we are. This is the audience that these ads are trying to reach. Considering that, the first ad is FAR more useful than the second one.