PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul's Campaign needs an ad on Cain right now on abortion.




Sean
10-20-2011, 01:54 AM
Go for the juggler now and get an ad on TV in Iowa and South Carolina with Cain saying he is pro choice on abortion.

lucent
10-20-2011, 01:55 AM
Revolution PAC needs to come out with an ad showing various candidates as pro-choice.

Karsten
10-20-2011, 01:55 AM
Abortion is not really an issue to me, but if it will help get Ron Paul elected, go for it.

McDermit
10-20-2011, 01:59 AM
Ron needn't waste time or money on Cain. He won't be around long. He's trying to sell books, not win the nomination. He has already said he'd be comfortable with Romney or Newt taking the nomination. It won't be long before he bows out and endorses one of them.

We just need to get the message and Ron's plans in front of as many people as possible. Many people still have no clue what he's all about... the campaign's current ads have been on the mark.

Oddone
10-20-2011, 02:00 AM
Abortion is not really an issue to me, but if it will help get Ron Paul elected, go for it.

It's the GOP - It's a huge issue for a lot of Republicans. It's like a Democrat running as Pro-Life.... There go tons of votes... So I say RevPac should run an ad. Not an issue for me either though! Lets get our Economy in order first!

Sean
10-20-2011, 02:01 AM
Abortion is not really an issue to me, but if it will help get Ron Paul elected, go for it.

It is a big issue to Cain's supporters. Cain is the Huckster in this race. He is dangerous in Iowa and the South. We now have him in his own words saying he is prochoice. Put that in an ad right and he will lose 85% of his support.

Sean
10-20-2011, 02:03 AM
Ron needn't waste time or money on Cain. He won't be around long. He's trying to sell books, not win the nomination. He has already said he'd be comfortable with Romney or Newt taking the nomination. It won't be long before he bows out and endorses one of them.

It doesn't take much money to run ads in Iowa and South Carolina. You don't have to run a bunch, just make sure it gets out there. I am pretty sure Ron Paul has already purchased ad time so really just need to produce a quick commercial.

pauladin
10-20-2011, 02:46 AM
should he make an attack ad on cain, it should be a compilation of flip-flips.

jasonxe
10-20-2011, 03:32 AM
He is gonna flutter by himself. I don't think a ad is needed.

ZanZibar
10-20-2011, 07:56 AM
How do we know Cain is pro abortion?

brushfire
10-20-2011, 08:00 AM
Cain has bled out - I'd not bother with him right now. Keep the focus on Romney.

trey4sports
10-20-2011, 08:00 AM
How do we know Cain is pro abortion?


we don't. If you look at his appearance on stossel and Piers Morgan he filps and flops on the issue right there! The problem is that I'm sure he will do so again and claim he is pro-life!

sailingaway
10-20-2011, 08:02 AM
How do we know Cain is pro abortion?

he wen't back and forth on Stossel. Months later just the pro abortion part is being quoted in a paper. But the video clip is on these boards.

jmdrake
10-20-2011, 08:04 AM
should he make an attack ad on cain, it should be a compilation of flip-flips.

^This! Debt ceiling....Al Alawki assassination....electrocution fence...the bailout...the federal reserve...Muslims in government.....the list goes on.

69360
10-20-2011, 08:09 AM
Hit him on the flip flops, not abortion.

It's hard to tell from all his floundering, but his position on abortion seems to be the same as Ron's.

Personally against it, but no federal regulations seems to be what Cain is trying to say, or he might flip on it again who knows?

sailingaway
10-20-2011, 08:12 AM
Hit him on the flip flops, not abortion.

It's hard to tell from all his floundering, but his position on abortion seems to be the same as Ron's.

Personally against it, but no federal regulations seems to be what Cain is trying to say, or he flip on it again who knows?

It actually seemed like he was looking for a cue from the audience on where on his swinging pendulum he should stop on abortion, which isn't at all like Ron, but yeah, Ron's position is about where he finally came to rest.

EBounding
10-20-2011, 08:13 AM
I remember him saying that it was a states rights issue a few months ago in the debates. But then he went back in forth in less than 30 seconds on Stossel...it makes no sense. People don't like to be confused, so Cain will drop off soon without any attack ads. The campaign needs to go after Romney and push the spending cuts.

trey4sports
10-20-2011, 08:14 AM
It actually seemed like he was looking for a cue from the audience on where on his swinging pendulum he should stop on abortion, which isn't at all like Ron, but yeah, Ron's position is about where he finally came to rest.



lol - that's pretty funny

Sean
10-20-2011, 08:15 AM
You need a targeted ad on this. He said he would leave the choice to the woman. That is prochoice and that is not Ron Paul's position at all. I really think a lot of people here do not know how to target Republican voters. Until the campaign does Ron Paul will never get into the lead. Hit Cain hard with his own words on abortion now.

69360
10-20-2011, 08:16 AM
It actually seemed like he was looking for a cue from the audience on where on his swinging pendulum he should stop on abortion, which isn't at all like Ron, but yeah, Ron's position is about where he finally came to rest.

Cain does this on every issue, throws out both sides and sees what side sticks with the audience.

sabu140
10-20-2011, 08:18 AM
NO ATTACKING OTHERS. THE FOCUS NEEDS TO BE ON GETTING VOTES FOR RON PAUL.


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

TomtheTinker
10-20-2011, 08:22 AM
Take cain out on iowa now woth abortion would be the way to go.

Birdlady
10-20-2011, 08:22 AM
Personally I think we need to start focusing on Romney. I have this feeling that Cain is simply a distraction at this point.

musicmax
10-20-2011, 08:24 AM
South Carolina: BOEING BOEING BOEING

TheDriver
10-20-2011, 08:30 AM
Attacking a candidate on abortion could have massive blowback, especially when that candidate is Herman Cain--who has a history of being a social conservative, despite his tangling of words in the Stossel interview.

Feeding the Abscess
10-20-2011, 08:30 AM
Personally I think we need to start focusing on Romney. I have this feeling that Cain is simply a distraction at this point.

This, with a caveat. Focus more money on GOTV and positive campaign projection, put out ads like the last two just made.


Attacking a candidate on abortion could have massive blowback, especially when that candidate is Herman Cain--who has a history of being a social conservative, despite his tangling of words in the Stossel interview.

And this. People won't see the difference between attacking flip-flopping and attacking an actual position - which, let's face it, was essentially Ron's position to a T. Not only could it look in bad taste (and incorrect), the gun could very easily be turned on Ron. Possibly a complete disaster. The ad already made by the campaign on the issue is plenty.

tremendoustie
10-20-2011, 08:38 AM
That wasn't paul's position. Paul thinks it's a states issue. Cain was simply pro-choice.

Libertea Party
10-20-2011, 08:38 AM
Cain is done. The media will have to cover this and pro-life organizations will lose all credibility on the issue if they don't speak up.

He should debut this new campaign t-shirt: Stick a fork in me. I'm done!

http://bdfashions.com/images/news_image/2243-Stick%20a%20Fork%20in%20me.%20I%5C%5C%5C%27m%20Don e%20Light%20T-Shirt.jpg

Feeding the Abscess
10-20-2011, 08:40 AM
That wasn't paul's position. Paul thinks it's a states issue. Cain was simply pro-choice.

You tell me how the people who would presumably be targeted with this Cain info would react to the following:


"A woman's health care should be a private matter between her and her doctor," Paul explained. "The government shouldn't get in the middle."

69360
10-20-2011, 08:48 AM
Running a hit ad on Cain's abortion postion is not a good idea right now. Cain's postions change like the wind and he is getting away with it.

Much better to hit him on the flipping in general.

SchleckBros
10-20-2011, 09:13 AM
You tell me how the people who would presumably be targeted with this Cain info would react to the following:

The quote is taken out of context. He was referring to abortion where the life of the mother was at risk and that it was a state issue. Cain said he doesn't believe any government or bureaucracy should get involved.

Fredom101
10-20-2011, 10:06 AM
Go for the juggler now and get an ad on TV in Iowa and South Carolina with Cain saying he is pro choice on abortion.

Completely disagree.
I hate the abortion issue. It affects only a tiny percentage of the population. And, I disagree with RP on this one. I don't think it would be wise to make abortion front and center when it's not RP's main issue. There are SO many more important things to discuss. Fuck this.

nbhadja
10-20-2011, 11:02 AM
Completely disagree.
I hate the abortion issue. It affects only a tiny percentage of the population. And, I disagree with RP on this one. I don't think it would be wise to make abortion front and center when it's not RP's main issue. There are SO many more important things to discuss. Fuck this.

Abortion is a huge issue in the Republican primary. If you are pro-choice the chances of you winning are slim to none.

Cain would instantly crumble in Iowa if RP hit him hard on being pro-choice. Pro-choice affects A LOT of Republican voters.

low preference guy
10-20-2011, 11:04 AM
No, let Rick Santorum deal with that. He is already attacking Cain over this. Save money for more important things.

low preference guy
10-20-2011, 11:07 AM
And this. People won't see the difference between attacking flip-flopping and attacking an actual position - which, let's face it, was essentially Ron's position to a T. Not only could it look in bad taste (and incorrect), the gun could very easily be turned on Ron. Possibly a complete disaster. The ad already made by the campaign on the issue is plenty.

No, it's not. RP's position is that babies have rights even in the womb, and the state governments should make abortion illegal. Cain's position is that the mother decides, so the state government doesn't interfere.

erowe1
10-20-2011, 11:10 AM
I see this as a bad idea. Given what Cain has said, he very well might be able to come out of this with a position very close to Paul's without reversing anything he has said.

If Paul prematurely labels him pro-choice and he ends up doing that, then it will become ammunition for others where Paul effectively calls himself pro-choice.

Wait and see what Cain does with this.

Feeding the Abscess
10-20-2011, 11:15 AM
No, it's not. RP's position is that babies have rights even in the womb, and the state governments should make abortion illegal. Cain's position is that the mother decides, so the state government doesn't interfere.

He's also said this:


"A woman's health care should be a private matter between her and her doctor," Paul explained. "The government shouldn't get in the middle."

And "the law doesn't solve the problem - only the moral character of people will change this, not the law":


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPJ27fd7uMM

erowe1
10-20-2011, 11:19 AM
Cain's position is that the mother decides, so the state government doesn't interfere.

Did he clearly say the state government shouldn't be able to interfere?

69360
10-20-2011, 11:19 AM
Let this sleeping dog lie. We won't come out of it smelling like roses.

low preference guy
10-20-2011, 11:25 AM
Did he clearly say the state government shouldn't be able to interfere?

No, but it's a direct implication. He clearly said the woman decides and that no politician or bureaucrat should interfere.

"What it comes down to: It's not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you're not talking about that big a number. So what I'm saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family, and whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn't have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue."

low preference guy
10-20-2011, 11:27 AM
He's also said this:



And "the law doesn't solve the problem - only the moral character of people will change this, not the law":


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPJ27fd7uMM

Health care is not abortion. Stealing a kidney from you because I want a transplant is not a just a health care decision. It's a crime. Same with abortion. Regarding the statement about the moral of the people, RP is still in favor of laws against murder, even when it is part of morality. He is also against murder of babies in the womb. Moreover, he thinks all laws regarding murder should be made by the states, not the Federal Government.

erowe1
10-20-2011, 11:31 AM
No, but it's a direct implication.

Unless he said it, it should be easy enough for him to say it should be left to the states, which he might still do.

I don't see any implication in anything he said that the federal government should be forcing the states to allow abortion for any reason at all stages of pregnancy, which is what the federal government is now doing. But if Cain were to say the federal government should stop doing that, then his position is de facto the same as Paul's.

low preference guy
10-20-2011, 11:32 AM
Unless he said it, it should be easy enough for him to say it should be left to the states, which he might still do.

I don't see any implication in anything he said that the federal government should be forcing the states to allow abortion for any reason at all stages of pregnancy, which is what the federal government is now doing. But if Cain were to say the federal government should stop doing that, then his position is de facto the same as Paul's.

Herman Cain:


It gets down to that family, and whatever they decide, they decide.

This means that the family decides, not the federal government, not the state government. It's one or the other.

erowe1
10-20-2011, 11:39 AM
This means that the family decides, not the federal government, not the state government. It's one or the other.

Was that not in the context of what he thought his role as president would be?

Or, asked another way, do you infer from that answer that Cain believed the federal government should be dictating to the states that they cannot interfere with a woman's choice to have an abortion? I don't.

trey4sports
10-20-2011, 11:43 AM
Completely disagree.
I hate the abortion issue. It affects only a tiny percentage of the population. And, I disagree with RP on this one. I don't think it would be wise to make abortion front and center when it's not RP's main issue. There are SO many more important things to discuss. Fuck this.


In Iowa, it's a big deal dude.

trey4sports
10-20-2011, 11:44 AM
Let this sleeping dog lie. We won't come out of it smelling like roses.

agreed.

kylejack
10-20-2011, 11:45 AM
Not needed. This is going to play out in the media all by itself. Keep our powder dry for the stuff that's not already getting attention.

trey4sports
10-20-2011, 11:46 AM
Cain has literally flip-fopped during the same interview. The problem is that Ron's position is kind of murky to social con's and the ad he put out is pretty damn good so I don't think attacking Cain on abortion is a great idea honestly. Maybe a general attack about his many flip-flops would be nice though?

Feeding the Abscess
10-20-2011, 11:48 AM
Cain has literally flip-fopped during the same interview. The problem is that Ron's position is kind of murky to social con's and the ad he put out is pretty damn good so I don't think attacking Cain on abortion is a great idea honestly. Maybe a general attack about his many flip-flops would be nice though?

The Consistency ad is great for that, I'd think. We'll see what kind of impact it has when it rolls out on TV.

low preference guy
10-20-2011, 11:50 AM
Was that not in the context of what he thought his role as president would be?

Or, asked another way, do you infer from that answer that Cain believed the federal government should be dictating to the states that they cannot interfere with a woman's choice to have an abortion? I don't.

If you say the woman decides, then the states don't decide. So the implication is that states shouldn't interfere. You might want to get another interpretation but it's different than what a vast part of the conservative movement will understand.

HotAir: Cain to Piers Morgan: I’m anti-abortion yet pro-choice (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/20/cain-to-piers-morgan-im-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/) | Video: “So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make” (http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/10/19/video-so-what-im-saying-is-it-ultimately-gets-down-to-a-choice-that-that-family-or-that-mother-has-to-make/)

RedState: Herman Cain: Pro-Choice (http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/10/20/herman-cain-pro-choice/)

Santorum (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123122-503544.html): "Herman Cain said that he believes life begins at conception, but that it's up to the individual to decide whether or not to terminate that life. And I find it gravely troubling that Herman believes it's a life, but that he doesn't consider it a life worth fighting for," Santorum said Thursday morning

erowe1
10-20-2011, 12:22 PM
If you say the woman decides, then the states don't decide

I understand that that's the point you're trying to make. But my simple yes or no question was this:

Do you infer from that answer that Cain believed the federal government should be dictating to the states that they cannot interfere with a woman's choice to have an abortion?

I can't tell what your answer to that is.

That's fine that those other conservatives are taking this attack route. I'm glad they're doing it. But those are folks who support an all or nothing federal ban of abortion. They don't risk looking like hypocrites if Cain clarifies that his position is an anti-Roe v. Wade, state sovereignty one. Ron Paul does if he attacks too soon on this.

low preference guy
10-20-2011, 12:24 PM
I understand that that's the point you're trying to make. But my simple yes or no question was this:

Do you infer from that answer that Cain believed the federal government should be dictating to the states that they cannot interfere with a woman's choice to have an abortion?

I can't tell what your answer to that is.

the answer to that question doesn't matter because what cain said is damaging enough to have his support from pro-life voters drop.

erowe1
10-20-2011, 12:25 PM
the answer to that question doesn't matter

It does matter.

If the answer is "no," then that means that Cain has not said anything that he would contradict by taking a state sovereignty approach.

low preference guy
10-20-2011, 12:28 PM
It does matter.

If the answer is "no," then that means that Cain has not said anything that he would contradict by taking a state sovereignty approach.

We disagree. I think the fact that he said that the woman or family should decide without the government telling her what to do is enough to make him lose the pro-life vote.

erowe1
10-20-2011, 12:37 PM
We disagree. I think the fact that he said that the woman or family should decide without the government telling her what to do is enough to make him lose the pro-life vote.

That might be true. But, like I said, for Ron Paul to go on the attack now could put him in the position of having to eat his words later. Let those who support a federal ban attack him.

low preference guy
10-20-2011, 12:41 PM
That might be true. But, like I said, for Ron Paul to go on the attack now could put him in the position of having to eat his words later. Let those who support a federal ban attack him.

I agree with that. Leave it to Santorum.

trey4sports
10-20-2011, 12:48 PM
I agree with that. Leave it to Santorum.


Santorum can't run ads attacking him though. Maybe he can call him out in the debate, but that is about it.