Ron Paul brings anti-war theme to military-rich South Carolina

[bobbyw24]

WEST COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul is touting his anti-war message in South Carolina, a state with a strong military presence.

Paul told a cheering crowd in West Columbia on Wednesday that the United States should end its current wars and stop meddling in other countries' affairs. He said active military personnel are sick of wars that drain the nation's resources and hurt families.

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-brings-anti-war-theme-military-rich-180126744.html

[schiffheadbaby]

This is my worry with South Carolina, is it so hawkish that we will be screwed even though Ron is the only Great American nominee?

[Baxylz]

It is a little worrying, I still have hope!

[Miss Annie]

But in his speech last night, he said that you don't cut one penny from National Defense and drove home the point of having a strong defense..... just not all over the world! it was fabulous! :)

[bobbyw24]

But active duty military support Ron Paul more than any other candidate

[luctor-et-emergo]

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45000.html

Demographics...

[PastaRocket848]

ron should not attack our current foreign policy like he has been as "irresponsible" or "meddling". that won't play well. take the exact same message, bringing home the troops from around the globe, and spin it differently. make it about technology. we have the foreign policy of WW2 in the age of terrorism. emphasize how one drone can replace 50,000 men in south korea, and save a boat load of cash at the same time. that is a message that can resonate. we're not cutting defense, we're cutting military spending, and we're doing it by modernizing our foreign policy to keep up with technology and the changing face of our enemies. it's a perfectly logical argument and one that is hard to compete with.

[maxoutco]

Ron needs to show that a strong national defense means reopening of bases at home, which means job creation. Although, I'm not sure if this is going to happen, but if it is we could emphasize on this.

[Mister Grieves]

Why don't many supposedly pro-miltary people understand that bringing the troops back to our bases at home and continuing research and development is what is actually going to strengthen our national defense?

[Babylon]

WEST COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul is touting his anti-war message in South Carolina, a state with a strong military presence.

Paul told a cheering crowd in West Columbia on Wednesday that the United States should end its current wars and stop meddling in other countries' affairs. He said active military personnel are sick of wars that drain the nation's resources and hurt families.

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-brings-anti-war-theme-military-rich-180126744.html

What might be useful to demonstrate the difference between "military spending" and "defense" is a graph or chart showing where the billions are going.

People do not realize how small a portion of the money actually goes to soldiers and the basic routine weapon systems.

Something asking why the CEOs of [fill-in-the-blank military-industrial conglomerate] are making millions while the servicemembers are on food-stamps.

Emphasize that [fill-in-the-blank military industrial conglomerate] made 400% increase in profits, while the base pay for soldiers stayed flat.

War profiteering is a good angle. It's worked in the past. It's a way of appearing pro-soldier while attacking the fat cats.

The old "$300 hammer" and "$200 toilet" memes from the 80s were never all that effective.

The reason why is that they lacked the balls to name names and explicitly point out that Company A spent X in lobbying, received X gazillion in money, and returned a tiny benefit to the soldiers.

Ordinary politicians can't name names like that, and can only allude to expensive toilets and hammers.

But, Paul can fo the full monty and explicitly accuse specific people and companies of fraudulent war profiteering.

[Voluntary Man]

But active duty military support Ron Paul more than any other candidate

Exactly! The military cures more war mongers than it makes. Trust me. This is not Ron's problem with SC.

[PAULinSC]

This article has been picked up by The Herald, a newspaper in Rock Hill which is SC's 5th largest city. It never ceases to amaze me how journalists come up with these slanted headlines, while Gingrich gets "Gingrich in Rock Hill: I can unite conservatives"

http://www.heraldonline.com/

[unknown]

ron should not attack our current foreign policy like he has been as "irresponsible" or "meddling". that won't play well. take the exact same message, bringing home the troops from around the globe, and spin it differently.

I think he should make it about unnecessary wars like Iraq which resulted in a lot of lost lives, many more handicapped and now, a suicide epidemic. How so many in DC (chickenhawks) didnt serve, yet are so willing to send YOU to war. Unlike the man himself who is a VETERAN.

That there is a difference between militarism and national defense.

How the spending on militarism is directly related to our economy, its not two separate issues.

How they are spending trillions on other countries while our country crumbles.

How he gets more $$$$$$$$$ from the military than all the other candidates COMBINED.

You know, the stuff he normally says. :)

[PastaRocket848]

I think he should make it about unnecessary wars like Iraq which resulted in a lot of lost lives, many more handicapped and now, a suicide epidemic. How so many in DC (chickenhawks) didnt serve, yet are so willing to send YOU to war. Unlike the man himself who is a VETERAN.

That there is a difference between militarism and national defense.

How the spending on militarism is directly related to our economy, its not two separate issues.

How they are spending trillions on other countries while our country crumbles.

How he gets more $$$$$$$$$ from the military than all the other candidates COMBINED.

You know, the stuff he normally says. :)

you really think all those folks in south carolina that just got back from their third tour in Iraq want to hear about how unnecessary it was? make it about modernization, streamlining, not "we shouldn't have done that, you're effort was for nothing". it may be true, but it won't win us any votes in SC.

[Kandilynn]

I'd like to see him draw a comparison of foreign military bases and policing the world with the welfare state we have here.

[Voluntary Man]

This article has been picked up by The Herald, a newspaper in Rock Hill which is SC's 5th largest city. It never ceases to amaze me how journalists come up with these slanted headlines, while Gingrich gets "Gingrich in Rock Hill: I can unite conservatives"

http://www.heraldonline.com/

Yeah. Gingrich can "unite conservatives," alright ... the same way Obama has ... by pissing us off.

[Freedom of Speech]

But active duty military support Ron Paul more than any other candidate

But I rarely ever hear anyone repeat this and people haven't really shared the Ron Paul adherence to the oath (http://youtu.be/WhxJ1XUGLR0) ad.

Until this is repeated OVER AND OVER AND OVER no one who isn't a Ron Paul supporter will know it.

Same thing with people voting for Romney for electability and people not repeating the fact that Ron Paul does just as good against Obama as Romney and even better with independents.

You need to repeat something over and over and over before it sticks.

Even Ron Paul and the campaign should be repeating these things and they don't.

[Lucille]

But I rarely ever hear anyone repeat this and people haven't really shared the Ron Paul adherence to the oath (http://youtu.be/WhxJ1XUGLR0) ad.

Until this is repeated OVER AND OVER AND OVER no one who isn't a Ron Paul supporter will know it.

Same thing with people voting for Romney for electability and people not repeating the fact that Ron Paul does just as good against Obama as Romney and even better with independents.

You need to repeat something over and over and over before it sticks.

Even Ron Paul and the campaign should be repeating these things and they don't.

Maybe revpac should air that in SC.

I'm sure the campaign's looking at the exit polls, and will address the electability question real soon, since that is Rs biggest reason for voting Romney.

[rnestam]

he needs to make it about the FAMILY! "10 years...it's about time our nations best can come home to raise there families, America needs fathers and mothers of there caliber more than ever here and now....lets bring them home, America needs them."

[rnestam]

hawk or not....these people want there families back full time. and u put it in a way that gives them the highest deserved respect possible...."we need them home"

[Feeding the Abscess]

ron should not attack our current foreign policy like he has been as "irresponsible" or "meddling". that won't play well. take the exact same message, bringing home the troops from around the globe, and spin it differently. make it about technology. we have the foreign policy of WW2 in the age of terrorism. emphasize how one drone can replace 50,000 men in south korea, and save a boat load of cash at the same time. that is a message that can resonate. we're not cutting defense, we're cutting military spending, and we're doing it by modernizing our foreign policy to keep up with technology and the changing face of our enemies. it's a perfectly logical argument and one that is hard to compete with.

He disagrees with using drones, though. I get what you're saying, but we're going to have to brainstorm and come up with soundbytes that don't contradict what Ron himself says.

[specsaregood]

I'd like to see Ron throw out his son's suggestion of allowing veterans to seek medical attention at any hospital/doctor, not just the VA. It was something Rand mentioned in his primary.

[Carole]

That was when the needle dipped on the magic undecideds dial. :(

[Carole]

Great Ad. Definitely needs to be aired in SC and everywhere!!!!!!!

[Matthanuf06]

He disagrees with using drones, though. I get what you're saying, but we're going to have to brainstorm and come up with soundbytes that don't contradict what Ron himself says.

Here is where I disagree. Sure no drones dropping bombs in neighborhoods in undeclared wars. But if we are caught in a war I'd much rather do it cheaply, with the minimal amt of lost US lives, and with a goal to win. If drones do that, which they would, then they should be used.

[Sematary]

ron should not attack our current foreign policy like he has been as "irresponsible" or "meddling". that won't play well. take the exact same message, bringing home the troops from around the globe, and spin it differently. make it about technology. we have the foreign policy of WW2 in the age of terrorism. emphasize how one drone can replace 50,000 men in south korea, and save a boat load of cash at the same time. that is a message that can resonate. we're not cutting defense, we're cutting military spending, and we're doing it by modernizing our foreign policy to keep up with technology and the changing face of our enemies. it's a perfectly logical argument and one that is hard to compete with.

Except that Ron Paul has built his support on being honest, and that isn't honest, because it isn't what he believes. It sounds like a lie because it would be a lie. He doesn't even want DRONES overseas. I don't want him to begin "tailoring" his message because that's what turns me off to other candidates like Mitt Romney. I support Ron Paul because he is consistent in his message and will tell you what he believes you need to hear, not what he thinks you want to hear.

[Sematary]

By the way, for those who WEREN'T here four years ago - the campaign he's running now is FAR BETTER than the campaign the people he hired four years ago could manage. He's more aggressive, more assertive. His ads are awesome. He is polling FAR HIGHER than he could have dreamed 4 years ago and raking in more cash than he could have imagined 4 years ago. People know who he is now. His name is everywhere. Have faith in Ron Paul, he knows what he's doing.

[aravoth]

Or just show people how exactly our foreign policy has failed us over the last few decades. Supporting the Mujahadeen in the 80's, then bombing them in the 90's, then supporting the KLA in Kosovo who was funded by Bin Laden, who, incidentally, was part of the Mujahadeen(which later became the Taliban) that we funded in the 80's. Then there is the interventionist policy in Iraq all through the 80's and 90's, that ultimately compounded the the hatred of us, leading to 9/11. Which led to the TSA sticking their hand up some old ladies asses at the airport, while DHS listens to your phone calls, reads your e-mails, and profiles you to ensure your safety.

Then explain that while all that bullshit is happening, the war has spread beyond it's original borders, into Yemen, and Pakistan, as we build more drone bases in Africa. At a cost somewhere north of 2 or 3 trillion dollars a year. In the meantime, social security is bankrupt, the national debt has exceeded GDP, our public schools are worthless, and shit is literally falling apart all over the place here.

But then, Ron Paul already says all of that.

When people hear him say it, they agree, grudgingly albeit, but they do agree. And for the most part, that position is supported. The problem is not his message or how he frames it, as it is always framed in truth. The problem is the push back from pundits and talk show hosts that have the ear of millions of people every day. They can convince most of their listeners of nearly anything they want, at nearly anytime they want. They turn the truth into something that only "crazy old kooks" espouse. As if Ron Paul is an intellectual lightweight for pointing out the fact that our foreign policy has consequences.

Cutting through that madness is another monster entirely.

[squarepusher]

Romney is weak in SC though because of his religion

[bobbyw24]

Romney is weak in SC though because of his religion

Is he weak or are the ignoramuses who hold his religion against him weka?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

This is my worry with South Carolina, is it so hawkish that we will be screwed even though Ron is the only Great American nominee?If someone joins the military to shoot people instead of defend their country, there's something seriously wrong here.

[jcarcinogen]

Its the evangelicals not the military that's the problem in SC.

[GunnyFreedom]

Or just show people how exactly our foreign policy has failed us over the last few decades. Supporting the Mujahadeen in the 80's, then bombing them in the 90's, then supporting the KLA in Kosovo who was funded by Bin Laden, who, incidentally, was part of the Mujahadeen(which later became the Taliban) that we funded in the 80's. Then there is the interventionist policy in Iraq all through the 80's and 90's, that ultimately compounded the the hatred of us, leading to 9/11. Which led to the TSA sticking their hand up some old ladies asses at the airport, while DHS listens to your phone calls, reads your e-mails, and profiles you to ensure your safety.

Then explain that while all that bullshit is happening, the war has spread beyond it's original borders, into Yemen, and Pakistan, as we build more drone bases in Africa. At a cost somewhere north of 2 or 3 trillion dollars a year. In the meantime, social security is bankrupt, the national debt has exceeded GDP, our public schools are worthless, and shit is literally falling apart all over the place here.

But then, Ron Paul already says all of that.

When people hear him say it, they agree, grudgingly albeit, but they do agree. And for the most part, that position is supported. The problem is not his message or how he frames it, as it is always framed in truth. The problem is the push back from pundits and talk show hosts that have the ear of millions of people every day. They can convince most of their listeners of nearly anything they want, at nearly anytime they want. They turn the truth into something that only "crazy old kooks" espouse. As if Ron Paul is an intellectual lightweight for pointing out the fact that our foreign policy has consequences.

Cutting through that madness is another monster entirely.

If you tell SC their sons and fathers died for a mistake, we'll end up in 5th place.

[GunnyFreedom]

The big issues in SC are foreign policy, social security, and medicaid.

Foreign policy is not that hard to overcome. First you need to shut the heck up about past mistakes and instead focus on future correctness. The Charleston undecideds thing could not have made this more clear. They do not object to Paul's foreign policy, they object to the idea that little Johnny died for a 'mistake.' It should be obvious why.

In the speech, Paul said the exact same thing twice in a row. The first time it featured how we are making a mistake with all this militarism. The SC people HATED that. The second time it featured how we were going to bring the troops home. The SC people LOVED that.

YOU may not see a difference, but the family who has lost loved ones sure as heck does. The policy described may be the exact same policy, but hearing that your son died for a mistake is going to piss you off, and in SC's case drive you to another candidate. Instead, hearing that your other son will come home to defend the US will make you happy and want to vote for Ron Paul.

So we must must must stop focusing on past mistakes and start focusing on future glorious accomplishments. The past is gone, as far as this election is concerned, it no longer exists. There is only today through November, full stop.

On Social Security, well, that's easy. Paul is the only guy with a budget that preserves it solvent for 35 years.

Medicaid/Medicare, we're going to have to come up with a simpler and easier to understand argument than "block-grant it to the States." It may be the correct answer, but what voter even knows what that means?

[GunnyFreedom]

Its the evangelicals not the military that's the problem in SC.

I wish Chuck Baldwin were campaigning for RP in SC right now. That would make an enormous impact.