Mike Church offering two good bits of advice

[Decay]

Today on the Mike Church show, Mike spent a fair amount of time as he always does, expressing support for Ron Paul. But he did have two good pieces of advice to help push through some big hurdles. Might not be new thoughts amongst some of us, but still good.

First, he said Paul must address the newsletter issue by claiming responsibility for publishing it, but showing he's been clear of that nonsense ever since. He's basically gotta man up, own it, but explain that what existed in them did not necessarily represent his views.

Secondly, he should hold a large, media covered town hall meeting which would only focus on Iran so he can clearly explain his stance and answer any question regarding the subject. Mike explained that while his views are clear to us as supporters, many outsiders just don't get it because he hasn't always been as clear as he could be.

The basic idea is that Paul needs to get tough and lead with these issues which will continue to haunt him throughout the campaign. He needs to give off a greater projection of strength and there's no reason why he shouldn't show off some bigger brass balls.

[FA.Hayek]

great idea, i hope the campaign takes his advice!

[FA.Hayek]

anyone here on the forums from the official campaign? this needs to be done asap

[rbohlig]

I heard this too this morning. IMO these are the MOST important things the campaign should do in the next few weeks. The newsletters are not going to go away and he has done a poor job of handling it (the CNN response will not assure undecided voters).

As for Iran, he needs to say exactly what he would do as president. Also, if the establishment is going to use fear mongering, I say we use it right back.

EXPLAIN that an attack on Iran would cause them to shut the straights of hormuz and cause gas to reach $6 / gallon. EXPLAIN that a military strike will galvenize the hardliners and make it harder for peaceful change in the younger generation to happen. EXPLAIN that an air strike will only set them back a short time, and the only assured way of stopping them is via an invasion.

I can guarantee that if you paint a bleak enough picture of what a war with Iran would look like, we retake the high ground on this debate. It's gonna be hard to sell another full scale invasion. ESPECIALLY come general election time!

[vechorik]

Yes, voters are looking for STRENGTH and SAFETY and support for ISRAEL -- form the discussion of how Dr. Paul will provide that.

[milo10]

Ron Paul has handled the newsletter scandal perfectly and appropriately. He should not take any more responsibility than he has done. From those comments, I'm not sure if Mike understands that Ron has already said that he feels some responsibility, as it was published under his name.

The part about Iran is a really good idea, though.

[Decay]

Someone in his campaign seriously needs to step up and advise him on this. The problems people have with Paul are clear so there should be no question about the importance of handling this immediately. I feel they're way too relaxed and they appear to have the attitude that the general public just needs to get over it already. Well, they're not gonna get over it, so it's time for a new strategy.

[CaptUSA]

See, I think we already have the high ground with the Iran debate. Everytime it comes up, Paul picks up some steam. It's only the right-wing media that doesn't like it.

And the only reason why the right-wing media (and their listeners) don't like Paul's position is because most of them lack the proper context. If these people truly understood the history of Iran and the middle east, they'd be backing Paul to no end. I don't think Paul can explain any more clearly, but it's up to US to provide them with the proper context that they are missing.

[Cowlesy]

Good points, Mike.

[matt0611]

Definitely agree with the Iran thing.

The main issue the neo-cons use to marginalize us is Iran. If we make this go away by explaining it we could see a big rise in the polls IMO.

[Decay]

Ron Paul has handled the newsletter scandal perfectly and appropriately. He should not take any more responsibility than he has done. From those comments, I'm not sure if Mike understands that Ron has already said that he feels some responsibility, as it was published under his name.

The part about Iran is a really good idea, though.

As a Paul supporter and someone who's been listening to his responses, I don't feel he's being as strong as he could be on the newsletter issue. He can settle it with a single sentence, but he tends to drag out his answers and use the excuse that it's simply an old issue. Well, it's become a new issue all over again and needs to be handled as such.

[Decay]

See, I think we already have the high ground with the Iran debate. Everytime it comes up, Paul picks up some steam. It's only the right-wing media that doesn't like it.

And the only reason why the right-wing media (and their listeners) don't like Paul's position is because most of them lack the proper context. If these people truly understood the history of Iran and the middle east, they'd be backing Paul to no end. I don't think Paul can explain any more clearly, but it's up to US to provide them with the proper context that they are missing.

If it's up to us, he's screwed. We're not gonna be up at the podium giving speeches and answering questions to the press. He is. And it's up to him to make his points in a clear and bold manner. He had a great opportunity to explain his Iran stance at the Fox debate, and I'm sorry to say, he kinda blew it. He's gotta be able to handle those "what if" scenarios whether he likes it or not.

[PhineasFinn]

The newsletters are something that needs to be addressed now because if Paul actually wins the nomination, he'll be running against Obama and I'm sure his campaign will play dirty and portray Paul as a staunch closet racist (with quotes from these supposed newsletters in a well funded ad).

I like the idea of a town hall meeting on Iran. Even as a supporter, I still would like to sit down and listen to Paul explain his ideas and thoughts on how to view and deal with Iran. That's one thing that has drawn us close to Paul as a presidential candidate: his vernacular and diction in regard to explaining his true conservative stances.

Benton and Co. better have a game plan for the newsletters though; I find it hard to believe they haven't considered the possibility of addressing them. They aren't rookies anymore and they better start acting like they are running a top tier campaign. (Although having to watch Fox News and CNN to keep up doesn't help the process.)

[vita3]

Also getting a small group of respectable ex military & inteligence leaders in support of Ron, will go a long way.

[Travlyr]

As a Paul supporter and someone who's been listening to his responses, I don't feel he's being as strong as he could be on the newsletter issue. He can settle it with a single sentence, but he tends to drag out his answers and use the excuse that it's simply an old issue. Well, it's become a new issue all over again and needs to be handled as such.

There was a lot of racial hatred promoted by mainstream media in the 70's & 80's. As far as I can tell, the quotes I've read are not much different than what we heard weekly from Archie Bunker. Ron has said that he did not write those articles. Specifically, what exact quote(s) in the newsletters bother you the most and why?

[Apparition]

Only a handful of commentators are making issue of the newsletters, once it actually becomes a big issue again, THEN will be the time to really address it.
If he answers it again now and "puts it to bed" then he's still going to get asked about it regardless... the media won't just stop pressing it even if he does answer every single little bit of it.

Now on the Iran thing, totally a great idea and it would be great for him to be able to answer questions about it and put peoples fears to rest and yet again open their eyes to history to why we are where we are in the first place.

Yesterday on Hannity the guest-host railed on a Ron Paul supporter when the caller was trying to bring up Iran and our meddling from the mid-50's, the host cut him off and was like "What's your point?" over and over and over again (caller could have done a better job representing RP, but that's not the issue)... the issue is that people NEED to know the history behind our involvement in the Middle East to get proper perspective. For we all know what happens to those who do not learn from history.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Also getting a small group of respectable ex military & intelligence leaders in support of Ron, will go a long way.YES GOOD IDEA INDEED... I also wondered why RON wasn't visiting the VFWs/American Legion posts throughout these initial states. Both go a long way with supporters and the older voting groups. Particular... you don't see the campaign having a plan of VETS endorsing/backdropping RON on some of his big speeches. This is in the political campaigning 101 book under "Back-Dropping".


There was a lot of racial hatred promoted by mainstream media in the 70's & 80's. As far as I can tell, the quotes I've read are not much different than what we heard weekly from Archie Bunker. Ron has said that he did not write those articles. Specifically, what exact quote(s) in the newsletters bother you the most and why?That's something has slipped the minds of the United States of Amnesia. I still think Ron or Campaign staff when confronted, can use the same analogy of trying to implicate Ariana Huffington for what a bogger wrote on HuffPo.

[evadmurd]

He's already done that (newsletters) in the last campaign. That being said, would be no harm in reiterating it, I guess.

[odamn]

Who the f is mike church, and is English his first language?
Both of the topics have been addressed several times,
to my complete satisfaction.

If they can't understand Ron Paul,
it's because they don't want to.
Next Case ...

[Decay]

Only a handful of commentators are making issue of the newsletters, once it actually becomes a big issue again, THEN will be the time to really address it.

I disagree. He's being asked about it all the time now. What's he supposed to do, sweep it under the rug until he's up against Obama?

One of the reasons Paul is so respected is because he's consistent as hell. He should be giving the same answers about the newsletters now as he would in the future. He needs one strong answer right now and allow that answer to continue through the end of the campaign.

[Decay]

Who the f is mike church, and is English his first language?
Both of the topics have been addressed several times,
to my complete satisfaction.

If they can't understand Ron Paul,
it's because they don't want to.
Next Case ...

Next case nothing. Paul may already have your vote, but he's missing millions of others. If voters are dissatisfied with a candidate's stance or presentation, that candidate must work hard to fix that as much as possible. He can't just say, "Deal with it." Every candidate must win people over. That's how elections are won.

[A. Havnes]

Would a town hall meeting, even if broadcast, be watched by most voters? Most of them will just wait and see what Fox News has to say about it later on. I know plenty of voters who don't actually watch the debates, but rather read about them, or catch what the news has to say about them the following day. I don't know that a meeting would be any different.

However, it would provide supporters with soundbites and youtube clips to make go viral!

[Decay]

Would a town hall meeting, even if broadcast, be watched by most voters? Most of them will just wait and see what Fox News has to say about it later on. I know plenty of voters who don't actually watch the debates, but rather read about them, or catch what the news has to say about them the following day. I don't know that a meeting would be any different.

However, it would provide supporters with soundbites and youtube clips to make go viral!

I think there are a lot of people out there who would love to support Ron Paul but are terrified by "their understanding" of his foreign policy. I believe those people would be all over it.

[daviddee]

...

[Decay]

Newsletters:

I think a percentage of us have a firm idea who wrote them... Dr Paul won't throw that person under the bus and that person does not have the desire to take credit for them.

Regardless, it is a "gotcha" situation. If the person that wrote them took credit, then it would turn to: "Ron Paul, why do you associate with racists?" from "Ron Paul why did you write these newsletters?"

When did you stop beating your wife?

So, the newsletters do not have an easy solution...

Mike Church made a point about that too. He said Paul shouldn't disclose the name of the author, but simply take responsibility for the publishing and disagree with what was written, accepting it as a mistake.

[SonofThunder]

Who the f is mike church, and is English his first language?
Both of the topics have been addressed several times,
to my complete satisfaction.

If they can't understand Ron Paul,
it's because they don't want to.
Next Case ...

Folks like this ^^^ need to get out of the Ron Paul bubble every once in a while. Sure, most of us here on this forum understand this issue and pretty much every issue, but the general public does not, and unfortunately in elections you have to get a majority of the general public to vote for you, not just your hard-line supporters.

[kuckfeynes]

He's right. When the MSM gets desperate, and they will, expect them to push HARD on this. They most certainly will try to back both Ron and Lew into a corner (thanks Reason), and somebody is going to have to be more assertive about it than either has been, or they will simply write their own story. To that end, he should be ready and expect them to start emphasizing all sorts of associations with the more hardcore wing of the liberty movement. They tried to paint him as crazy and failed. So naturally the next step is crazy by association. And that has the potential to get nasty.

[odamn]

Next case nothing. Paul may already have your vote, but he's missing millions of others. If voters are dissatisfied with a candidate's stance or presentation, that candidate must work hard to fix that as much as possible. He can't just say, "Deal with it." Every candidate must win people over. That's how elections are won.



Ok, Thanks for the education.
I had no idea how elections worked.
I was just questioning the beating of a dead horse.
If ppl like church (whoever he is) can't understand
the explinations Ron's already given, then they must not
understand english, and therefore won't understand it
no matter how many times it is explained.
or maybe someone will have to draw them all a picture ... :D
It's a good thing we have such talented film makers on our side ...

[sailingaway]

He has done the first, accepting moral responsibility for lack of oversight, but they keep bringing it up over and over and over. The Iran townhall should showcase alternate ideas Ron has, because he has many, and the impression many have is 'he won't do anything' which is absolutely wrong.

[sailingaway]

Mike Church made a point about that too. He said Paul shouldn't disclose the name of the author, but simply take responsibility for the publishing and disagree with what was written, accepting it as a mistake.

He has DONE that, multiple times. The media ignores it.

[shrugged0106]

Ok, Thanks for the education.
I had no idea how elections worked.
I was just questioning the beating of a dead horse.
If ppl like church (whoever he is) can't understand
the explinations Ron's already given, then they must not
understand english, and therefore won't understand it
no matter how many times it is explained.
or maybe someone will have to draw them all a picture ... :D
It's a good thing we have such talented film makers on our side ...


Mike Church has been an awesome advocate for Paul and he was once a neo-con that then saw the light (like a lot of us)

He has a huge radio audience

[odamn]

Mike Church has been an awesome advocate for Paul and he was once a neo-con that then saw the light (like a lot of us)

He has a huge radio audience
O thanks!
I honestly didn't know who he was, or why we should
care what he thinks.
What station is he on?

[Decay]

He has DONE that, multiple times. The media ignores it.


I've seen him explain it several times as well, and I still feel he could be more precise and stronger on the issue. The way he answers it sometimes makes it appear as if there are some loose ends and secrets. I accept his answer as a supporter, but I understand how some people may not be convinced.

[Decay]

O thanks!
I honestly didn't know who he was, or why we should
care what he thinks.
What station is he on?

SiriusXM Patriot

[Decay]

Ok, Thanks for the education.
I had no idea how elections worked.
I was just questioning the beating of a dead horse.
If ppl like church (whoever he is) can't understand
the explinations Ron's already given, then they must not
understand english, and therefore won't understand it
no matter how many times it is explained.
or maybe someone will have to draw them all a picture ... :D
It's a good thing we have such talented film makers on our side ...

No need to be sarcastic. I'm just stating the facts. If voters are confused or put off by something, instead of telling them to go fuck themselves, try a better approach at educating them. And Mike Church understands Ron Paul completely, he's just making the point that he needs to change his techniques in order to strengthen his campaign.

[Todd]

Who the f is mike church, and is English his first language?
Both of the topics have been addressed several times,
to my complete satisfaction.

If they can't understand Ron Paul,
it's because they don't want to.
Next Case ...


Sooooo glad you are not running Ron's campaign. :)

[odamn]

Sooooo glad you are not running Ron's campaign. :)

lol, no i don't want to run anything.
i wouldn't be any good at it.
i have very low tolerances.
and am a little sourcastick by nature.
i'm trying to improve myself,
but i've got a ways to go.
Have a Nice Day ...

[RayB]

Hi, new here fwiw.
I disagree they (newsletter/Iran) are not keystone topics- money. He needs to talk money, economics to the working Joe. Further show how corporate welfare and Govt. favoritism has gutted the life savings of regular Americans and what that means in ordinary language, but how to fix it is the key.

[Decay]

Hi, new here fwiw.
I disagree they (newsletter/Iran) are not keystone topics- money. He needs to talk money, economics to the working Joe. Further show how corporate welfare and Govt. favoritism has gutted the life savings of regular Americans and what that means in ordinary language, but how to fix it is the key.

He's already strong on that issue. Even the big government neocons agree with him on economics. That's no longer an issue that he needs to try and win people over with.

[Southron]

Who the f is mike church, and is English his first language?

Here is a good article about Mike.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/mike-church-the-most-radical-man-on-the-radi/

[Decay]

Mike's awesome. I like his buddy Andrew Wilkow a lot too, but he's not much of a Paul fan unfortunately.

[shrugged0106]

Mike's awesome. I like his buddy Andrew Wilkow a lot too, but he's not much of a Paul fan unfortunately.

I used to like Wilcow, but he was so rude to Paul and us last go around. (I'll never get the sound of his snarky voice modulated "Ronpaul" mocking shout out of my head) that I have rejected his program. He's too in tune with Hannity/Levin's way of thought and I think he's beyond salvation sadly. Man he takes it to Libs though!

[scbissler]

There was a lot of racial hatred promoted by mainstream media in the 70's & 80's. As far as I can tell, the quotes I've read are not much different than what we heard weekly from Archie Bunker. Ron has said that he did not write those articles. Specifically, what exact quote(s) in the newsletters bother you the most and why?

As an example, regarding the 1992 LA riots(from wikipedia via the LA Sunday Times, May 3, 1992) Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton stated that people "are looting because ... [t]hey do not share our values, and their children are growing up in a culture alien from ours, without family, without neighborhood, without church, without support."

I can't believe that a direct quote like that would fly today. I've seen several news discussions about the newsletters that use the 'riots ended because the welfare checks came' as an example. People forget, and take things out of the context of the times. That being said, the newsletter backlash needs to be effectively dealt with.

[Decay]

I used to like Wilcow, but he was so rude to Paul and us last go around. (I'll never get the sound of his snarky voice modulated "Ronpaul" mocking shout out of my head) that I have rejected his program. He's too in tune with Hannity/Levin's way of thought and I think he's beyond salvation sadly. Man he takes it to Libs though!

Yeah, and what makes him better than Levin and Hannity is that he'll allow a lib to speak and debate for a while instead of just hanging up and insulting them. I do feel there's hope for him as far as Ron Paul goes though. He's one of those guys that has his bias but could be turned if Paul steps up his game in explaining his foreign policy better.

[RayB]

He's already strong on that issue. Even the big government neocons agree with him on economics. That's no longer an issue that he needs to try and win people over with.

I was just thinking that if we thought of these political talking points as locations on a map- perhaps a nomination map of targets and objectives. It would over- populate quickly with so many fascinating places to see that the campaign could bog down trying to win a battle here or there. If the war will be won by the economy then that is where the campaign should go. In the quote below I think ‘float’ means to be random unpredictable, then ‘sting’ with your best weapon. There is not a candidate on that stage that can withstand a Ron Paul free market idea brawl.
“Float like a butterfly, Sting like a Bee”- Ali

Anyway no argument thanks for letting me ramble.

[Captain Shays]

I would go further if I worked for his campaign and not only focus on clarity of my position on Iran but clarity on my entire national defense strategy. If I were Ron Paul I would outline EXACTLY what I WOULD do since everyone knows what I WOULDN'T do.
Great. Nor more policing the world. That sentiment turned out to be an esy sell and the garnishment on his appeal to so many Americans. OK No more wars that we get into easily or without a declaration of war. Easy sell. No more meddling in the affairs of other countries. Easy sell. Great so far. But the fact is every single American for the past 75 years has been bombarded, with fears of threats. Threats from Germans. Threats from Japan. Threats from the Soviet Union. Threats from terrorists who want to kill every one of us. The result is that people want to elect a president who has the balls to do whatever is necessary to keep this country and their children safe. Many of us are Reganites who still believe in peace through strength. We cannot get around these simple facts.

We RP supporters really believe that in a Ron Paul administration we would abandon militarism for a strong national defense. But that's us who already have faith that president Ron Paul would be strong. He would protect our children ffrom perceived threats.

What they want to know is HOW. What is his plan for what he WOULD DO. Does he support a missile defense system? Does he think we should inspect the 36,000 shipping containers the size of a tractor trailer should be inspected? If yes, by whom? By what method? Is Iran really a threat or not? If yes or even if those who share an opposing opinion are partially correct in their concerns what would Ron Paul's plan to protect us or deal with Iran that at least equals the level of safety and security compared to support for sanctions, and our threats to Iran?

If he gives specifics and focuses on national security he will win big time.

[Len Larson]

Here's what I posted about Iran over at the DailyCaller under Jack Hunter's article.
Why conservatives must adopt ron pauls foreignpolicy (http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/19/why-conservatives-must-adopt-ron-pauls-foreign-policy/)


The 1952 Republican convention pitted the favored "Mr. Republican" Taft against Eisenhower. Ike chose to run specifically to prevent Taft's Non-Interventionist policies from being implemented. Ike eventually won the nomination, but not without resorting to "Fair Play" shenanigans at the convention.

Let's compare a couple of Ike's decisions while in office.

We look at Spain first, at that time a rogue state and brutal dictatorship. Ike chose to engage in diplomacy and trade just like Taft proposed. The result was the "Spanish Miracle".

Next we have Operation Ajax, Dulles' plan to overthrow Iran's popularly elected leader and install the Shah. While Ajax did succeed in securing the oil for Britain, our relations with Iran have never been peaceable since. The 1979 Revolution was not an accident and we have nobody to blame but ourselves. No "Iranian Miracle" was forthcoming.

60 years later America faces a similar choice.

Will we make the same mistake again?

We owe it to ourselves to at least think about the choice rather than just blindly follow others.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

[Decay]

I would go further if I worked for his campaign and not only focus on clarity of my position on Iran but clarity on my entire national defense strategy. If I were Ron Paul I would outline EXACTLY what I WOULD do since everyone knows what I WOULDN'T do.
Great. Nor more policing the world. That sentiment turned out to be an esy sell and the garnishment on his appeal to so many Americans. OK No more wars that we get into easily or without a declaration of war. Easy sell. No more meddling in the affairs of other countries. Easy sell. Great so far. But the fact is every single American for the past 75 years has been bombarded, with fears of threats. Threats from Germans. Threats from Japan. Threats from the Soviet Union. Threats from terrorists who want to kill every one of us. The result is that people want to elect a president who has the balls to do whatever is necessary to keep this country and their children safe. Many of us are Reganites who still believe in peace through strength. We cannot get around these simple facts.

We RP supporters really believe that in a Ron Paul administration we would abandon militarism for a strong national defense. But that's us who already have faith that president Ron Paul would be strong. He would protect our children ffrom perceived threats.

What they want to know is HOW. What is his plan for what he WOULD DO. Does he support a missile defense system? Does he think we should inspect the 36,000 shipping containers the size of a tractor trailer should be inspected? If yes, by whom? By what method? Is Iran really a threat or not? If yes or even if those who share an opposing opinion are partially correct in their concerns what would Ron Paul's plan to protect us or deal with Iran that at least equals the level of safety and security compared to support for sanctions, and our threats to Iran?

If he gives specifics and focuses on national security he will win big time.


Great points.

We should all hear the answers to these questions. "What if" scenarios need to be addressed because shit will go down in this world. One of the greatest fears people have is that our president will curl up in a ball under his desk in the time of a crisis. It disturbs me that the one real issue holding Paul back simply isn't being taken care of. It seems like a no brainer.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

The media is trying to bait Dr. Paul into a briar patch with the newsletter issue, where the more he struggles, the more he will get tangled and stuck. The more he addresses it, the more they will over-analyze and twist his answers to make him look as bad as possible. Remember, these "journalists" don't want to vet him, they have an agenda to kill his campaign.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

First, he said Paul must address the newsletter issue by claiming responsibility for publishing it, but showing he's been clear of that nonsense ever since. He's basically gotta man up, own it, but explain that what existed in them did not necessarily represent his views.


This is key right here. Americans are pretty forgiving, especially when you own up to your mistakes.

[Decay]

This is key right here. Americans are pretty forgiving, especially when you own up to your mistakes.

If some can forgive Gingrich, then this should be a breeze. Should be, anyway.