*Foreign Policy Ad Extremely Vital at this Point*

[Okie RP fan]

Reposting from the "Campaign Suggestion Box" for more views. I know a lot of us see this as a major priority. I hope the campaign gets to working on something soon.



Many of us have been talking on here and asking the campaign, through whatever way we can, to bring out the big guns and create a hard hitting and honest ad on Ron's foreign policy. One that would crush all of the misconceptions and fallacies perpetrated by the media.

It needs to touch on the following:


-Start off with this quote by Ronald Reagan: "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." (KetchupMaster)
-Ron's defense of Israel in the 1980s
-Ron wants a STRONG national DEFENSE
-Ron wants secured borders with boots on the ground
-Ron wants to "cut the head off the snake" when it comes to illegal immigration (a part of foreign policy)
-Ron wants diplomacy and free trade with countries who are willing
-Ron will go to war with a proper declaration from Congress if our nation is threatened
-Michael Scheuer's endorsement
-Ron's donations from the military
-And a closing quote with Benjamin Netanyahu saying this quote "...friends, we do not need any nation building. We are already built."

Anything else I missed? Please add. We are losing conservatives and Republicans left and right because of Ron's perceived foreign policy. The media and radio talking heads always thrash Ron and his supposed foreign policy stance, while agreeing with mostly every other issue that Ron stands for.

The campaign needs a foreign policy ad a.s.a.p. And now would be a really good time considering we are going into South Carolina.
It needs to be well made and it needs to go viral the second it hits the Internet and television. What we did with Gingrich's ad, we can triple the effect with Ron's foreign policy ad.

So, anyone with connections within the campaign, please tell them to get on the ball with this idea.

[nano1895]

Yes yes yes, Ron Paul is not going to be the anti-Romney if misconceptions about his foreign policy continue to exist.

[dskalkowski]

This this this. We seriously need to get people spreading the word on foreign policy. It's killing us.

Is there anyone that can make a template letter to send to the campaign via, website that we can all send to them so they get the message? It needs to get out there ASAP. It's too late for South Carolina, but at least we'd still have a shot in the western and southern states.

[alucard13mmfmj]

you cannot depend on people to do their own research to find out what Ron Paul's stance really is. they just get junk from the media/radio.

[Ilhaguru]

I agree. A full 30 or 60 seconds ad about nothing else.

[UK4Paul]

I agree.

[ssjevot]

I agree.

Can someone contact either RevPAC or SantaRita about this? I think it would be easiest to get one of them to do it.

[mport1]

How long do we have to continuously bring this up before it is seriously addressed by the campaign. They have been doing great this time around, but I think this is their biggest failing so far.

[Okie RP fan]

How long do we have to continuously bring this up before it is seriously addressed by the campaign. They have been doing great this time around, but I think this is their biggest failing so far.

Exactly. We are in a window right now where it needs to be released before it is too late. The foreign policy argument is what will cause this campaign to go stagnant, or retake a strong position in the race.

This is so critical that the campaign release something. And when/if they do, we need to do everything we can to make it go viral.

[Zatch]

He really needs to work on his explanation for why he opposed OBL's assassination. He's been asked a million times but seems unprepared every time and hasn't honed his response at all. I agree with him but every-time he's asked the question his response makes me cringe.

[D.A.S.]

I've been saying this, too, and it seems like it's been falling on deaf ears. Will we or won't we have a serious foreign policy ad from the Ron Paul Campaign that will put to rest the neocon accusations once and for all???

[Blue_Merle]

Good to see positive reception to the OP's concern. Mind you this concern has been vociferously demanded by others as well over the last quarter.

What i'm not happy about is the obvious TROLLS on the forum that try to condemn anyone that calls out the campaign on it's shortcomings.

"Wa Wa Wa don't criticize the campaign they know what their doing Wa Wa Wa!!"

Pussies. This shit is important.

This election is life or death to some young troops out there and if you think they won't be KILLED IN ACTION in Iran within the next 48 months your scum to me.

[Okie RP fan]

I've been saying this, too, and it seems like it's been falling on deaf ears. Will we or won't we have a serious foreign policy ad from the Ron Paul Campaign that will put to rest the neocon accusations once and for all???

Some people have stated our ad is the "Secure" one that never really went anywhere, it's about 30 secs. long. And, honestly, it's not good enough and so much has occurred that should be added to that ad (like the bolded part in the first post).

Matt Collins, someone, please get on the ball with this.

[jamezelle]

Yes we need this I think a full 60 is needed, too much for a 30 but we desperately need an ad for this, and fast.

[Okie RP fan]

Yes we need this I think a full 60 is needed, too much for a 30 but we desperately need an ad for this, and fast.

I am thinking a full 90 second ad for the Internet for spreading, while a 60 second version for television and/or radio.

And I know an effective commercial can be made and touch on all of this within 60 seconds, let alone 90.

[coffeewithchess]

I'll tell you why. They aren't serious about winning South Carolina, and wrote it off months ago apparently. You don't not address this issue, and the seniors issue, and every other issue they have ignored...instead they just run attack ads? Is RP's campaign simply a PAC, designed to run attack ads? Is that what they're preparing for?

None of this makes any sense on the political side.

[mport1]

He really needs to work on his explanation for why he opposed OBL's assassination. He's been asked a million times but seems unprepared every time and hasn't honed his response at all. I agree with him but every-time he's asked the question his response makes me cringe.

Unfortunately it appears that he has spent little to no time preparing a good answer for this and another of other questions he gets continuously hammered on.

[coffeewithchess]

Unfortunately it appears that he has spent little to no time preparing a good answer for this and another of other questions he gets continuously hammered on.

How many months (years) have we been saying this? Since he ran the last time? Right. Sorry people, but if RP doesn't make it this time...there is no other "Just wait for 2016." It's now or never.

[dbill27]

Foreign policy ad is vital!!!! We can't just address blowback either, we need to show what Ron would do as president in specific situations!!

[Okie RP fan]

Well, I know many others have created threads pertaining to this subject, but let's try to keep this thread bumped until we hear something from the campaign.

Seriously, this can no longer go ignored or pushed back. They need to give us grassroots a break with this issue.

[BigByrd47119]

I love Dr. Paul, so please understand me when I say this but...if he looses the nomination it will because of a lack of clarity on his foreign policy stance, or at least a lack of layman's terms for the masses to easily digest.

[mport1]

How many months (years) have we been saying this? Since he ran the last time? Right. Sorry people, but if RP doesn't make it this time...there is no other "Just wait for 2016." It's now or never.

Yep, those of us who have been around for awhile have been calling for this type of thing for years. Ron Paul is able to win some people over with his explanations on this, but it is clearly not good enough. We need a well thought out, tested method to more effectively communicate his FP. War hawks will not come around any time soon but I'd say the large majority of people would if the message can just be communicated more effectively.

Has anybody heard one way or the other from the campaign why this has not been done yet, and if something is in the works? We need to find some way to put the pressure on them for this. It is ridiculous that this has not been a top priority.

[RaptorNtc]

This is the same issue we had in the 07 campaign. This is an issue that needs to be addressed for the republican base to understand his foreign policy, yet the campaign refuses to fix it.

People didn't ask for Benton to step down for no reason.

[mport1]

What can we do to get their attention? A massive call and/or email flood?

[thoughtomator]

This ad has over 800k views... probably 40 of them me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY&feature=player_detailpage

[Feeding the Abscess]

This ad has over 800k views... probably 40 of them me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY&feature=player_detailpage

Unfortunately, this is the type of thing that those who typically call for a foreign policy ad are completely against.

Why that is I don't know; it's one of Ron's most concise and powerful foreign policy messages.

[are9are9s]

OK,Thanks.





















http://www.herfree.com/avatar.php

[SonofThunder]

Unfortunately, this is the type of thing that those who typically call for a foreign policy ad are completely against.

Why that is I don't know; it's one of Ron's most concise and powerful foreign policy messages.

Because that simply points out the problem, the negative, the "what we're against."

To win people over, you have to explain to them what you would do, and why that would be better.

We apparently don't do that, and a lot of the members here don't even think we need to. This is the reason we aren't winning.

[mport1]

BUMP!

[Okie RP fan]

What can we do to get their attention? A massive call and/or email flood?

No clue, other than keeping things like this up. We can only hope that some people from the campaign see this. I am calling the campaign HQ (listed on the contacts of the 2012 site) to try and see if there is a way I can get the message through that way, but, I doubt it.

[A. Havnes]

YES! NEED! WANT!

His foreign policy needs to be explained as a way to make America stronger. His phrasing of it is pretty bad, because he's always pointing out America's foreign policy shortcomings, making it easy for the media to spin his words as blaming America. If he'd speak more positively, then I'm sure some of the hawks would come around.

Granted, I like that he tells it like it is, but some people just can't face that kind of bluntness.

[klamath]

It is not going to happen. I fought and fought for this in the fall as well as many others but RP himself refuses to listen. Even tom Woods says RP will NEVER take advice, even from him. This is who RP is and it is the charactor that made him be the only no vote on many issues. Nobody pushes him on anything. He has lost the campaign on this issue but for the people wanting a win get over it. It is about a philosophical movement now and we should put our hearts behind that so that the disappointment of not winning doesn't totally demoralize you.

[Hoax]

He doesn't need to explain why his foreign policy is better - that's what he's been doing and either people understand it or they don't. He needs to explain how he is going to defend the country, with a concrete example or two. And he needs to make it clear that the US Navy will continue to patrol the shipping lanes - which I assume they still would because doing so doesn't infringe on any other country's sovereignty, and it is vital for trade. And that should put the issue to bed. Why has the campaign not done this?

[jsem]

NeoCons need a lesson in empathy.

[coffeewithgames]

He has lost the campaign on this issue but for the people wanting a win get over it. It is about a philosophical movement now and we should put our hearts behind that so that the disappointment of not winning doesn't totally demoralize you.

So basically you're saying to not donate to the campaign, stop supporting the campaign, and RP should drop out now, and refund all the money he has left to donors that gave the campaign money?
I mean seriously, if the campaign is not serious about winning and addressing the issues preventing RP from winning the REPUBLICAN nomination, why donate money to them? So they can continue to run attack ads, and ads with little actual substance to wake people up?

[UK4Paul]

It is not going to happen. I fought and fought for this in the fall as well as many others but RP himself refuses to listen. Even tom Woods says RP will NEVER take advice, even from him. This is who RP is and it is the charactor that made him be the only no vote on many issues. Nobody pushes him on anything. He has lost the campaign on this issue but for the people wanting a win get over it. It is about a philosophical movement now and we should put our hearts behind that so that the disappointment of not winning doesn't totally demoralize you.

OK, then... but can't a SUPERPAC still do this?

Focus on the STRENGTHS of Ron's foreign policy, i.e.

- defending the borders
- no nation building, which makes enemies abroad

etc.

These ideas need brainstorming and expanding, but you get the idea. We might be able to persuade a superpac to do it.

[klamath]

So basically you're saying to not donate to the campaign, stop supporting the campaign, and RP should drop out now, and refund all the money he has left to donors that gave the campaign money?
I mean seriously, if the campaign is not serious about winning and addressing the issues preventing RP from winning the REPUBLICAN nomination, why donate money to them? So they can continue to run attack ads, and ads with little actual substance to wake people up?
No, because the bigger block of voters he wins the more the movement gather steam. This is very important. The ideas and issues are never granted a second look for someone that gathers 5% of the vote but win 16 or 20% across the country and people take note.
An idependent run is not out of the question either. He won't win it as an independent but he would still continue to address his issues in general election debates if he maintains over 10% of the vote. It would grow peoples acceptance of his ideas to an even greater extent because then more democrats would be hearing his answers.

[AuH20]

This is futile. Paul is who he is. Erroneously sounding like OBL isn't the path to the nomination. In his defense, the media has pushed the issue disproportionately.

[coffeewithgames]

OK, then... but can't a SUPERPAC still do this?

Focus on the STRENGTHS of Ron's foreign policy, i.e.

- defending the borders
- no nation building, which makes enemies abroad

etc.

These ideas need brainstorming and expanding, but you get the idea. We might be able to persuade a superpac to do it.

See, that's the problem. A SUPER PAC should not be focusing on touting RP's POSITIVES, a SUPER PAC is designed to run negatives, so the campaign can remain clean, and have deniability. What has happened though, is the campaign has been ineffective on the newsletters issues, not addressing them for nearly 2 weeks in any meaningful way, which resulted in a 3rd place finish in Iowa. It also resulted in a Super PAC producing a commercial, that should have been produced immediately by the campaign instead, and run in Iowa to dispell the lamestream media on the issue quickly.
The campaign has not addressed the foreign policy issue, or gone after senior voters, and now Super PACS are having to run ads (that might not be the best) trying to get positive messages out for RP. The campaign has MILLIONS, the Super PACs nowhere near the campaign, and yet the two are producing very different ads.

Why? If the campaign's goal is to simply destroy all Republican candidates and get President Obama reelected (which is likely to happen against anyone but RP anyway), they are doing a great job. If we are to believe as many around here have said, "It's about the message", though, their advertising/ads makes 0 sense.

They have no grassroots person addressing issues with us regularly, and clearly they have ignored all emails on addressing the foreign policy issue in a different way.
I wonder if RP will just stay in this race until the convention, then release another book like he did in 2008?

"An idependent run is not out of the question either."
Hopefully it is, and according to Doug Wead, "It's not going to happen." Why would they want to waste more time/money, when they have money now, and apparently can't even get out ads in a timely manner?

[Butchie]

Unfortunately, this is the type of thing that those who typically call for a foreign policy ad are completely against.

Why that is I don't know; it's one of Ron's most concise and powerful foreign policy messages.

I would say this ad would be ineffective because it assumes most NeoCons are willing to put themselves in someone else's shoes and they are not, as far as they are concerned America is right and better than everyone and can do as it pleases, do you recall the debate Mon where the "Golden Rule" got viciously booed? This ad would do nothing to convince a conservative, works well on liberals, but not conservatives.

[EBounding]

Many of us have been talking on here and asking the campaign, through whatever way we can, to bring out the big guns and create a hard hitting and honest ad on Ron's foreign policy. One that would crush all of the misconceptions and fallacies perpetrated by the media.

It needs to touch on the following:

-Ron's defense of Israel in the 1980s
-Ron wants a STRONG national DEFENSE
-Ron wants secured borders with boots on the ground
-Ron wants to "cut the head off the snake" when it comes to illegal immigration (a part of foreign policy)
-Ron wants diplomacy and free trade with countries who are willing
-Ron will go to war with a proper declaration from Congress if our nation is threatened
-Michael Scheuer's endorsement
-Ron's donations from the military
-And a closing quote with Benjamin Netanyahu saying this quote "...friends, we do not need any nation building. We are already built."

Anything else I missed? Please add.

That's a good list, but it still needs to be greatly expanded. Most importantly, he needs to get specific on what exactly IS a Strong National Defense to Ron Paul?

To me that includes:
- A strong Navy patrolling international waters to protect trade routes and the "freedom of the seas". This in itself projects power without aggravating countries through foreign occupation. A Navy is specifically in the Constitution.
- The world's most powerful Airforce. What are some unique characteristics of our Airforce that no one other country can match? I'm not a military buff.
- He supported Reagan's SDI Missile Defense Initiative.
- We have hypersonic weapons that can strike anywhere on Earth within an hour.
- We would maintain diplomatic relations without occupation.
- A strong economy with a fiscally responsible government.

A strong economy is also important for national defense since enemy nations will get emboldened if they think we no longer can pay the bills (it's already starting to happen). Likewise, a strong economy will deter attacks if we can get everyone hooked on the goods we export and have a large pool of resources to go to war, if needed.

As someone who voted for Bush and McCain, I had to dig deep before I was completely on board with Paul's foreign policy. He rarely gets specific about what he would do for national defense. Maybe he thinks it's common sense, but it's not to most people.

People literally think that Paul would pull all US forces within our borders to turtle ourselves in. This is complete nonsense. Yes, it's a media narrative, but he's not doing as much as he should to combat this narrative. In addition to saying he'd end the wars and foreign occupation, he needs to get specific about what he'd do instead.

[Cyberbrain]

If the campaign won't listen can't we get RevPAC to do it? They've been extremely receptive, like with the compassion ad for example.

[EBounding]

Bumping for the lunch hour because this is really important.

When people hear Paul say he wants a "Strong National Defense". They just think that entails bringing the troops home. They don't realize that we would still have a navy in international waters and a highly responsive Air Force.

[Captain Shays]

Ron Paul NEEDS to come out and tell Americans what he WILL do to protect us from ANY threat. He needs to outline a concisive plan for a strong national defense. He has always been a very strong proponent of a missile defense system for example but I haven't heard him talk about that. He's strong on the 2nd Amendment which is the cornerstone of our national security. He needs to talk about that too. Securing our borders is a very important issue to many of us not only for drug reasons or economic reasons but to stop an invason.
We hear enough about what he won't do like he won't police the world. He won't meddle in the affairs of other countries. He won't get us into unnecessary wars. He won't start a war. He won't go to war without Congressional authority etc etc etc.

Ron Paul What WILL you DO?

[Captain Shays]

I think we all agree on this and it's not happening. We all agree that it's hurting our efforts. Maybe we should all construct a letter to his campaign together and send it to them. Maybe then they will listen. If Ron Paul doesn't come out and get reall assertive about that he will do to keep us strong and safe and free then all of our efforts and money is watsed in this campaign in my humble opinion. Every day I am out here fighting the good fight. I talk to a lot of people here in New Jersey and I have access through my job to people from all over the country and I have a captive audience wich if I'm not careful might get me in trouble with my employer but I do it anyway. The thing is, I do it in such a way that it not only gets support for Ron Paul but also keeps me out of trouble....for the time being.
Anyway, the ONE THING that I have the most difficulty in convincing people about is foreign policy and I think it's because they have listened to Dr Paul and though they agree that we should stop wasting money policing the world, and subsidizing socialism in Europe they cannot grasp how we would remain the top dog with his style of foreign policy. I make a better case than he does. I overcome their trepedations better than my candidate and there's something wrong with that. It's not that I make a better argument. It's that he doesn't make any argument at all. He never says what he will do. Only what he won't do and that's simply not good enough. Because he doesn't his enemies have a field day with him and they can enjoy repeating the lie about Ron Paul being an isolationist and that he's dangerous. He can wipe them out once and for all and WIN this thing IF he comes out with a clear and concise plan for a strong national defence as opposed to constant debt, enemy producing militarism.
Can we put something together to send to the campaign? After all. It's us who is out here on the front lines of this campaign. It's us who is personally speaking to individuals one at a time while the campaign is focusing on reaching conglomerates of large groups and the media. We're the boots on the ground and we need to send a report back to the generals about what we encounter out here.
\

[boneyard bill]

What has presidential interventions gotten us? That is the question that I think any ad should begin with, and it should include bloody pictures of troops getting shot up in Vietnam. Then switch to a picture of the Al Qaeda flag flying over Libya and identify that as result of our intervention. Then mention that the current Iraqi government is pro-Iranian. Then to Afghanistan with a mention that the president's brother there is a notorious international drug king-pin.

But then it should point out that the key point is "presidential" interventions. Constitutionally the president is empowered to act against an attack or an imminent threat, but it is Congress that must declare war. In authorizing the president to use force, the Congress has abdicated it's constitutional role while presidents have often acted without any Congressional approval whatsoever. (Truman in Korea, Clinton in Kosovo, Obama in Libya). And it is clear that presidents have not used this authority wisely.

Our interventions have proven to be costly and mostly ineffective. It is Congress, not the president, that is authorized to send our troops to war, but they have not acted seriously in this matter but have merely passed the buck to the president. We are the worse off for it. War is serious business. Congress needs to debate these issues seriously instead of ducking the issue. If Congress cannot agree that war is a necessary response, rather than just a plausible one, such an intervention is probably not a very good idea.

I think that would capture Ron Paul's constitutional position, discredit most of our interventionist policy of the post-world war II era, but not foreclose the possibility of intervention where the necessity is clearly demonstrable. Ron Paul is against interventions, but the decision, as president, would not be his to make except in a dire emergency.

[matt0611]

Unfortunately, this is the type of thing that those who typically call for a foreign policy ad are completely against.

Why that is I don't know; it's one of Ron's most concise and powerful foreign policy messages.

As a former neo-con I'll try to explain why this stuff WILL NOT work on the vast majority of conservative republicans who hold a neo-con-ish foreign policy.

Though, type of stuff will work great on liberals and moderate indepedents but will not work on neo-cons.

Why? To neo-cons this "imagine if they were doing it to you", though I agree with the message, is a wussy / weak / liberal line of thought.

Conservative republicans need to know that they will be safe, that Ron will protect us, that other people with foreign policy experience have endorsed Ron's foreign policy, that the troops support him, that he will go after and be very harsh on terrorists, that he will go to war to protect america if the congress declares a war etc. These are the type of things that need to be highlighted, before its too late...

[Back In Black]

It's common sense to me. But he still needs to be clear at the debates.

[coffeewithgames]

As a former neo-con I'll try to explain why this stuff WILL NOT work on the vast majority of conservative republicans who hold a neo-con-ish foreign policy.
Why? To neo-cons this "imagine if they were doing it to you", though I agree with the message, is a wussy / weak / liberal line of thought.

Conservative republicans need to know that they will be safe, that Ron will protect us, that other people with foreign policy experienced have endorsed his idea, that the troops support him, that he will go after and be very harsh on terrorists, that he will go to war to protect america if the congress declares a war etc. These are the type of things that need to be highlighted, before its too late...

This. And after SC, it very well may be too late, at least according to history since 1980, which absolutely blows my mind the campaign (and/or RP) do not see this.
RP needs to simply say when asked about foreign policy, "I'm running to the right of President Obama, my opponents are running to the left of the Constitution. President Obama is continuing the policies of President Clinton, and what Al Gore wanted...those are bankrupting this country. I get more monetary support from our troops, and I will defend this nation!"

[Captain Shays]

What has presidential interventions gotten us? That is the question that I think any ad should begin with, and it should include bloody pictures of troops getting shot up in Vietnam. Then switch to a picture of the Al Qaeda flag flying over Libya and identify that as result of our intervention. Then mention that the current Iraqi government is pro-Iranian. Then to Afghanistan with a mention that the president's brother there is a notorious international drug king-pin.

But then it should point out that the key point is "presidential" interventions. Constitutionally the president is empowered to act against an attack or an imminent threat, but it is Congress that must declare war. In authorizing the president to use force, the Congress has abdicated it's constitutional role while presidents have often acted without any Congressional approval whatsoever. (Truman in Korea, Clinton in Kosovo, Obama in Libya). And it is clear that presidents have not used this authority wisely.

Our interventions have proven to be costly and mostly ineffective. It is Congress, not the president, that is authorized to send our troops to war, but they have not acted seriously in this matter but have merely passed the buck to the president. We are the worse off for it. War is serious business. Congress needs to debate these issues seriously instead of ducking the issue. If Congress cannot agree that war is a necessary response, rather than just a plausible one, such an intervention is probably not a very good idea.

I think that would capture Ron Paul's constitutional position, discredit most of our interventionist policy of the post-world war II era, but not foreclose the possibility of intervention where the necessity is clearly demonstrable. Ron Paul is against interventions, but the decision, as president, would not be his to make except in a dire emergency.

I agree totally but STILL the people NEED to know what exactly president Paul WOULD DO to keep us strong and safee and free. What IS the plan? What is the strategy? What will the tools be? How willl remain in top? I am tellin ya and if you're active in this campaign you KNOW I'm right. We C AN win over the "strong national defense" types because the idea of minding our own business is inherently an Ameircan ideal. It goes back to our very beginnings. It's a sentiment that needs to selling. It's more a part of our thinking than apple pie and baseball. That is why Ron Paul wins over so many people on foreign policy but can't seem to bring it home all the way. Yeah it's great to not meddle in the affairs of other countries. SOLD. It's great to not subsidize socialist programs in Europt. SOLD. It's great to not ad to our national debt. SOLD.
We need a strong national defense. SOLD. I understand why Iran wants a nuclear weapon.......????? Huh? Well Mr Paul what if they do get one? What if they threaten us with it? What about Israel? What about Europe? Not that I personally care about Europe or think for a minute that Israel can't take care of matters themselves but I ain't no neocon who is brainwashed by the media. I read like you guys do. They don't so they need a quick education and it's fairly simple in that all Ron Paul needs to do to bring this home is outline his strategy for keeping us strong and safe. Period. End of story. White House bound

[Ilhaguru]

If the campaign won't listen can't we get RevPAC to do it? They've been extremely receptive, like with the compassion ad for example.

Then there is this awesome clip:


Sen. Tom Davis on Ron Paul's foreign policy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPy_U6k5W-k&feature=youtu.be

Maybe the RevPAC can use this.

[libertygrl]

First of all, for those of us who have been around since '07 we knew that it would take time for people to start coming around to his message. And I think most people from back then would agree that there is WAY more support for him this time around than ever before. The seeds were planted back in 2007 and because some of Dr. Paul's predictions have came true, I believe it opened up alot of eyes. We have come a long way and I firmly believe that we are very, very close to his message being accepted on an even greater scale. The only major obstacles have been - of course, that beast we call the media.

One of the things we have in our favor is the fact that the Republicans are not at all thrilled with the crop of establishment GOP candidates. This is to our benefit and if one views this entire race as a marathon and not a sprint, we still have time and opportunity to influence more people in our favor. But the time to act is NOW. We are soooo close! The issue of foreign policy is the tipping point and if we or the campaign can come up with something really clever in how Ron's message is packaged, and specifically targeted, it could be the key to the entire campaign. You have to keep in mind these people have been influenced for years by fear. Constant fear mongoring by the media. Many of us have been there at one time as well. So people are responding emotionally and not logically. And as with most great ads, we have to appeal to their emotions as well.

We will most likely never influence the zionist / christian zionist crowd since religious beliefs can be deeply entrenched. But we could certainly make a difference with other Republican voters

Maybe first start building up a little momentem with a FB page entitled something like this - "AMERICANS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL FOREIGN POLICY." -or- "AMERICANS FOR RON PAUL'S CONSTITUTIONAL FOREIGN POLICY." (I know it's a bit long but maybe it can be tweaked)

Then maybe do some reseach for the ad, to compare and contrast what the media has told us (like Iran /Iraq) and what the actual facts are by eminent people in the field of international intelligence like Schauer and others. I'm wondering if we should do both a print and tv ad. With an ad, people can read it at their leisure and maybe really take in the message better.

What about comparing Obama's unconstitutional foreign policy decisions to Paul's? This way it's showing Republican voters that they actually agree with the the guy they love to hate.

These are just some of my ideas/opinions I'm throwing out there. Either way, I agree with the majority of people here. THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE. Either by the Super PAC / Campaign, or if it comes down to it......US! Afterall, the grassroots did that great newspaper ad back in '07. ;)

[EBounding]

I decided to e-mail my state's campaign coordinator about how Paul needs to lay out his national defense policy. I basically asked that Paul spell out his national defense strategy in specific terms. He responded pretty quickly:



Dr. Paul is asked pretty frequently about national defense, and his answers are pretty consistent: bring the troops home, strengthen home bases, strengthen border security, demand Congressional declaration of war when necessary, letters of marque and reprisal for terrorists, free trade with all others.

I will pass on to the campaign that you would like some more details on how Dr. Paul would fund defense efforts. He did vote to fund Reagan's missile defense, for what that's worth.

I will say, though: if you want Dr. Paul to win, the #1 issue is electability. Ron Paul is the only candidate with a serious following, who will shatter Obama's base, who has a consistent record people can believe in.

For Liberty,
Adam de Angeli



That's great that he voted for Reagan's missile defense...but it doesn't help him if he never mentions things like that and make it part of his platform! I hope the campaign understands that the reason people think Paul is unelectable is because they think Obama has a stronger national defense policy than he does. Hopefully everyone on here will write their state campaign coordinator with these concerns. Maybe something will change?

[Feeding the Abscess]

As a former neo-con I'll try to explain why this stuff WILL NOT work on the vast majority of conservative republicans who hold a neo-con-ish foreign policy.

Though, type of stuff will work great on liberals and moderate indepedents but will not work on neo-cons.

Why? To neo-cons this "imagine if they were doing it to you", though I agree with the message, is a wussy / weak / liberal line of thought.

Conservative republicans need to know that they will be safe, that Ron will protect us, that other people with foreign policy experience have endorsed Ron's foreign policy, that the troops support him, that he will go after and be very harsh on terrorists, that he will go to war to protect america if the congress declares a war etc. These are the type of things that need to be highlighted, before its too late...

We'll never get neo-cons on our side, it's a worthless battle. Go after the other half of the party that isn't bloodthirsty and bring in new blood to the party.

@others:

The idea that Ron doesn't spell out his defense plan is patently absurd. NON-INTERVENTION, with open trade and travel with all nations; and if a nation attacks, declare war, define the enemy, define victory, win and come home.

He's not a hawk, he's not going to scream about how he's going to bomb enemies or turn into Gingrich and holler about what we do to America's enemies.

[EBounding]

He's not a hawk, he's not going to scream about how he's going to bomb enemies or turn into Gingrich and holler about what we do to America's enemies.

I agree that he shouldn't scream about bombing enemies into oblivion. I personally wouldn't like that at all and it would be completely out of character.

But what's the harm in saying that he would invest in missile defense systems, a strong navy in international waters, and a strong Air Force? These are things he's voted for and supported, but he never mentions them in debates. People honestly think he would not do any of these things. So by not defining "Strong National Defense" himself, he's allowing people to come up with their own conclusion. And if people think he's a weak naive isolationist, they're going to think his idea of a strong national defense isn't that strong at all.

[deputydon]

Ron Paul needs to talk about "bleed until bankruptcy" he needs to let America know that it was Bin-Laden's plan for us to stay in war for so long we went bankrupt.

[Todd]

As a former neo-con I'll try to explain why this stuff WILL NOT work on the vast majority of conservative republicans who hold a neo-con-ish foreign policy.

Though, type of stuff will work great on liberals and moderate indepedents but will not work on neo-cons.

Why? To neo-cons this "imagine if they were doing it to you", though I agree with the message, is a wussy / weak / liberal line of thought.

Conservative republicans need to know that they will be safe, that Ron will protect us, that other people with foreign policy experience have endorsed Ron's foreign policy, that the troops support him, that he will go after and be very harsh on terrorists, that he will go to war to protect america if the congress declares a war etc. These are the type of things that need to be highlighted, before its too late...

As a former neocon...i completely agree. They don't give two pisses about what the other guy feels. might makes right in that world. You've got to show how tough you are and not come across soft. I deal with this very often on other Neocon message boards.

[Okie RP fan]

We can debate about converting neocons, but an ad will be meant to help clarify his position to ALL (whether they agree or not, at least it will be clear) and to help undecided voters and independents defend his FP more for their own sake.

Also, it'll give us grassroots a break from the battles we fight daily over this subject.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I agree that he shouldn't scream about bombing enemies into oblivion. I personally wouldn't like that at all and it would be completely out of character.

But what's the harm in saying that he would invest in missile defense systems, a strong navy in international waters, and a strong Air Force? These are things he's voted for and supported, but he never mentions them in debates. People honestly think he would not do any of these things. So by not defining "Strong National Defense" himself, he's allowing people to come up with their own conclusion. And if people think he's a weak naive isolationist, they're going to think his idea of a strong national defense isn't that strong at all.

Not sure he'd support having Naval vessels around the world. Having military guard shipping lanes is a mercantilist idea, and I'd be surprised if Ron held that position.

[Butchie]

We'll never get neo-cons on our side, it's a worthless battle. Go after the other half of the party that isn't bloodthirsty and bring in new blood to the party.

@others:

The idea that Ron doesn't spell out his defense plan is patently absurd. NON-INTERVENTION, with open trade and travel with all nations; and if a nation attacks, declare war, define the enemy, define victory, win and come home.

He's not a hawk, he's not going to scream about how he's going to bomb enemies or turn into Gingrich and holler about what we do to America's enemies.

You obviously don't talk to NeoCons much, I know several of them who aren't "bloodthirsty" and would get on board with Ron in a second if he'd just speak better, understanding there will always be enemies and letting people know you can handle it if someone comes after us does not make you a hawk and it certainly does not turn you into Gingrich.

[Okie RP fan]

Ok, it's time to hit up RevPAC to run an ad.

No word from anyone about a foreign policy ad.

Now that South Carolina is over, it is the perfect time to roll out a foreign policy ad with the details mentioned.

[KetchupMaster]

The ad should also include the Ronald Reagan quote:

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan

[Mckarnin]

I think we need shots of an abandoned domestic base with empty housing and then images of new bases we are building in useless locations. Bring our troops and their families home to domestic bases, have them spend their dollars domestically and keep defense funding strong so they are always prepared to rise in defense of our nation.

[Okie RP fan]

The ad should also include the Ronald Reagan quote:

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan

Putting on the front page.


I think we need shots of an abandoned domestic base with empty housing and then images of new bases we are building in useless locations. Bring our troops and their families home to domestic bases, have them spend their dollars domestically and keep defense funding strong so they are always prepared to rise in defense of our nation.

That could be a great visual to use within the commercial. I really wish some techie people would see this thread, particularly within the campaign or one of the PACs to produce our visions, haha.

[EBounding]

Not sure he'd support having Naval vessels around the world. Having military guard shipping lanes is a mercantilist idea, and I'd be surprised if Ron held that position.

This is why Ron needs to be clear on what the military would look like under his administration because we don't even know for sure. I was just going off of Doug Weade explaining that Paul would protect the "freedom of the seas". Paul also said he would be willing to go to war if the Panama canal was threatened provided Congress declared war.

[tennman]

He really needs to work on his explanation for why he opposed OBL's assassination. He's been asked a million times but seems unprepared every time and hasn't honed his response at all. I agree with him but every-time he's asked the question his response makes me cringe.

Geez yes!

[squirekyle]

Agreed.

[milo10]

See, that's the problem. A SUPER PAC should not be focusing on touting RP's POSITIVES, a SUPER PAC is designed to run negatives, so the campaign can remain clean, and have deniability. What has happened though, is the campaign has been ineffective on the newsletters issues, not addressing them for nearly 2 weeks in any meaningful way, which resulted in a 3rd place finish in Iowa. It also resulted in a Super PAC producing a commercial, that should have been produced immediately by the campaign instead, and run in Iowa to dispell the lamestream media on the issue quickly.
The campaign has not addressed the foreign policy issue, or gone after senior voters, and now Super PACS are having to run ads (that might not be the best) trying to get positive messages out for RP. The campaign has MILLIONS, the Super PACs nowhere near the campaign, and yet the two are producing very different ads.

Why? If the campaign's goal is to simply destroy all Republican candidates and get President Obama reelected (which is likely to happen against anyone but RP anyway), they are doing a great job. If we are to believe as many around here have said, "It's about the message", though, their advertising/ads makes 0 sense.

They have no grassroots person addressing issues with us regularly, and clearly they have ignored all emails on addressing the foreign policy issue in a different way.
I wonder if RP will just stay in this race until the convention, then release another book like he did in 2008?

"An idependent run is not out of the question either."
Hopefully it is, and according to Doug Wead, "It's not going to happen." Why would they want to waste more time/money, when they have money now, and apparently can't even get out ads in a timely manner?

Wow! It is so nice to see the extent to which other people here really understand this. This whole thread is heartening, because the grassroots is waking up to the fact that this whole campaign is deeply flawed. We should have had high-quality 30 and 60 second ads on the topics below months ago!

1. Defense/foreign policy- focus more on defense than golden rule.
2. Social Security - only Ron can keep it solvent.
3. Electability - show polls and other information to show that Ron has very broad support.


For all three, especially the first two, there should also be longer online versions. For Defense, I would like to see something like a roundtable or interview excerpts with individuals like Scheuer, Pape, and Shaffer. Also, a press conference.

For Social Security, a longer video with lots of charts and history. Maybe something close to a documentary.

For electability, something like a mini-documentary showing people from across the political spectrum supporting Ron Paul. Emphasize the breadth and youthfulness of his support, and how much he is respected by independents and progressives, even if they disagree with many of his views. Emphasize how exceptional his integrity has been, how he skipped over a congressional pension, etc.

[Okie RP fan]

I don't know what to do, everyone...

I've sent messages through the "Event Invite" page on the 2012 site, and I tried calling the Ron Paul HQ at the 1-800 number and it's all automated.

Don't know how many more times we can say this, but dropping an honest foreign policy ad would have a good chance of doing great things to the polling numbers.

[EBounding]

I don't know what to do, everyone...

I've sent messages through the "Event Invite" page on the 2012 site, and I tried calling the Ron Paul HQ at the 1-800 number and it's all automated.

Don't know how many more times we can say this, but dropping an honest foreign policy ad would have a good chance of doing great things to the polling numbers.

Did you try e-mailing your state's campaign coordinator? I e-mailed mine with similar concerns and at least got a response within an hour.

[freneticentropy]

We do need FP ads, but we need more. If Paul doesn't do something drastic and do it right now, we lose. Please take a look at my thread in Campaign Suggestions entitled The Paul Doctrine: Changing Perceptions of Republican Voters on Foreign Policy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?354404-The-Paul-Doctrine-on-Foreign-Policy-Changing-perceptions-of-republican-voters.).

Right now, the average voter thinks Paul's FP stance is one of abject capitulation. Of course it's not, but that is the perception. He absolutely has to change this perception or he loses. I hope everyone here will support and put pressure on the campaign to craft a major foreign policy address to explain to the American people how a Paul administration will ensure a peaceful, prosperous, and SAFE America.

Please comment on that thread and other threads about FP to send the campaign a message that this must happen. Please contact the campaign directly and let them know your thoughts. It's too late in the game to keep running the ball down the middle. We have to make a huge play and make it now.

Also, does anyone have any statistics on why people are not voting for Paul? Surely, someone must have done a survey to ask people what their concerns are. I couldn't find anything looking around online. But from talking to conservatives I know personally, it seems to me that foreign policy IS THE ENTIRE ISSUE. Everything else is a side show. If Paul can address this one issue, huge new swaths of voters open up to him.

[Okie RP fan]

Did you try e-mailing your state's campaign coordinator? I e-mailed mine with similar concerns and at least got a response within an hour.

I haven't, and I think the only Ron Paul presence in Oklahoma right now is entirely grassroots and I think some of them share the same concern, but I'm not for certain.

[Ilhaguru]

Paul needs an ad on foreign policy, but even more so we need a www.neutralforeignpolicy.com or a www.ronpaulforeignpolicy.com.

[Highstreet]

We do need FP ads, but we need more. If Paul doesn't do something drastic and do it right now, we lose. Please take a look at my thread in Campaign Suggestions entitled The Paul Doctrine: Changing Perceptions of Republican Voters on Foreign Policy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?354404-The-Paul-Doctrine-on-Foreign-Policy-Changing-perceptions-of-republican-voters.).

Right now, the average voter thinks Paul's FP stance is one of abject capitulation. Of course it's not, but that is the perception. He absolutely has to change this perception or he loses. I hope everyone here will support and put pressure on the campaign to craft a major foreign policy address to explain to the American people how a Paul administration will ensure a peaceful, prosperous, and SAFE America.

Please comment on that thread and other threads about FP to send the campaign a message that this must happen. Please contact the campaign directly and let them know your thoughts. It's too late in the game to keep running the ball down the middle. We have to make a huge play and make it now.

Also, does anyone have any statistics on why people are not voting for Paul? Surely, someone must have done a survey to ask people what their concerns are. I couldn't find anything looking around online. But from talking to conservatives I know personally, it seems to me that foreign policy IS THE ENTIRE ISSUE. Everything else is a side show. If Paul can address this one issue, huge new swaths of voters open up to him.

yes

[Feeding the Abscess]

We do need FP ads, but we need more. If Paul doesn't do something drastic and do it right now, we lose. Please take a look at my thread in Campaign Suggestions entitled The Paul Doctrine: Changing Perceptions of Republican Voters on Foreign Policy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?354404-The-Paul-Doctrine-on-Foreign-Policy-Changing-perceptions-of-republican-voters.).

Right now, the average voter thinks Paul's FP stance is one of abject capitulation. Of course it's not, but that is the perception. He absolutely has to change this perception or he loses. I hope everyone here will support and put pressure on the campaign to craft a major foreign policy address to explain to the American people how a Paul administration will ensure a peaceful, prosperous, and SAFE America.

Please comment on that thread and other threads about FP to send the campaign a message that this must happen. Please contact the campaign directly and let them know your thoughts. It's too late in the game to keep running the ball down the middle. We have to make a huge play and make it now.

Also, does anyone have any statistics on why people are not voting for Paul? Surely, someone must have done a survey to ask people what their concerns are. I couldn't find anything looking around online. But from talking to conservatives I know personally, it seems to me that foreign policy IS THE ENTIRE ISSUE. Everything else is a side show. If Paul can address this one issue, huge new swaths of voters open up to him.

And when Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly (where these people get their ideas) report on Ron Paul cutting Pentagon spending by levels that Obama would never dream of (if those goons bother to report on the address at all), those conservatives you know will go from thinking foreign policy is an issue to thinking Ron Paul is an anti-American terrorist sympathizer.

It is simply unrealistic to expect the media to fairly cover such an event.

[J_White]

yes, what are we waiting for ?
or at least tell us whats the Campaign's plan is on this ?
this is an issue and needs to be addressed, the media is spinning it to our disadvantage every day !

[gb13]

Agreed.

[Feeding the Abscess]

yes, what are we waiting for ?
or at least tell us whats the Campaign's plan is on this ?
this is an issue and needs to be addressed, the media is spinning it to our disadvantage every day !

What would a speech change about the media spin? He's said in interviews and various outlets for thirty years that empire should be cut before the safety net, yet the media to this day tells everyone he wants to shut off Social Security overnight and throw old people out on the street.

[Lord Xar]

I am running into a LOT of "foreign policy" issues with Repubs. I had a discussion with a buddy at lunch today....

We are competing with the radio bobbleheads and Faux news. These people are just regurgitating the same lines... "his foreign policy is dangerous..." "what about Israel".."his isolationism is what caused the nazi's to kill all those jews".. etc.. It is INSANE!!!

So, my thought is.... He isn't gonna change minds during the debates when these repubs are hammered every single day... by the bobbleheads.

I do believe he needs a foreign policy Ad. A one-minute long Ad of Him and perhaps Michael Shuerier(spelling) etc.. and just have a plain discussion looking at the camera and lay out the facts and "blowback" etc.. and his foreign policy actually strengthens Israel etc..

Otherwise, this is an exceedingly uphill battle.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I am running into a LOT of "foreign policy" issues with Repubs. I had a discussion with a buddy at lunch today....

We are competing with the radio bobbleheads and Faux news. These people are just regurgitating the same lines... "his foreign policy is dangerous..." "what about Israel".."his isolationism is what caused the nazi's to kill all those jews".. etc.. It is INSANE!!!

So, my thought is.... He isn't gonna change minds during the debates when these repubs are hammered every single day... by the bobbleheads.

I do believe he needs a foreign policy Ad. A one-minute long Ad of Him and perhaps Michael Shuerier(spelling) etc.. and just have a plain discussion looking at the camera and lay out the facts and "blowback" etc.. and his foreign policy actually strengthens Israel etc..

Otherwise, this is an exceedingly uphill battle.


And when Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly (where these people get their ideas) report on Ron Paul cutting Pentagon spending by levels that Obama would never dream of (if those goons bother to report on the address at all), those conservatives you know will go from thinking foreign policy is an issue to thinking Ron Paul is an anti-American terrorist sympathizer.

I'm going to just start pasting this stuff in every thread.

[AuH20]

Doesn't Ron Paul want to cut defense appropriations below 2001 levels? It doesn't sound so radical when you examine it from that reference point.

[coffeewithchess]

Doesn't Ron Paul want to cut defense appropriations below 2001 levels? It doesn't sound so radical when you examine it from that reference point.

2006 levels actually.

[coffeewithchess]

I am running into a LOT of "foreign policy" issues with Repubs. I had a discussion with a buddy at lunch today....

We are competing with the radio bobbleheads and Faux news. These people are just regurgitating the same lines... "his foreign policy is dangerous..." "what about Israel".."his isolationism is what caused the nazi's to kill all those jews".. etc.. It is INSANE!!!

So, my thought is.... He isn't gonna change minds during the debates when these repubs are hammered every single day... by the bobbleheads.

I do believe he needs a foreign policy Ad. A one-minute long Ad of Him and perhaps Michael Shuerier(spelling) etc.. and just have a plain discussion looking at the camera and lay out the facts and "blowback" etc.. and his foreign policy actually strengthens Israel etc..

Otherwise, this is an exceedingly uphill battle.

I'm dealing with these same people by the boatloads on FB right now. The amount of people that are brainwashed by the media, yet are so freaking lazy they can't click a link...is absolutely amazing. I think if the campaign could just simply show the media for the liars it is, that would help create a distrust of their information to the audience even more. The networks according to FTC guidelines, must run any candidates ad, as long as it doesn't break FTC guidelines for the slot (language/content).

[Godmode7]

Too bad they can't just play this tube:P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc5E-MnDBVk&feature=related

[deputydon]

I really would love for him to give a ten minute speech on just foreign policy. That way he has time to give details on certain aspects. The Paul campaign needs to be shoving that Ronald Reagan quote down everyone's throats. I'm really beginning to think Ron really isn't trying to get the nomination, just get he message out there.

[freneticentropy]

And when Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly (where these people get their ideas) report on Ron Paul cutting Pentagon spending by levels that Obama would never dream of (if those goons bother to report on the address at all), those conservatives you know will go from thinking foreign policy is an issue to thinking Ron Paul is an anti-American terrorist sympathizer.

It is simply unrealistic to expect the media to fairly cover such an event.

You chime in on every single foreign policy thread I participate in with a non-sequitor. Paul has already announced he wants to cut defense spending. Those guys already know he wants to cut defense spending and they already talk about it. The cuts are already in the budget he has proposed which can be read online. So, Paul has explained that he wants to cut. What he hasn't explained is how his foreign policy will be safer for Americans in a way that is digestible to the mainstream republican voter. Then there is the obvious fact, which you keep ignoring, that what he's doing now is losing. He's been trying to get out his message in bits and pieces for years. It's not going to catch on in the next few weeks unless he does something drastic. If he does nothing, he loses. Guaranteed. If he does do something, and the speech is solid, there is at least a chance people will pick up on it and change their minds.

[EBounding]

So, Paul has explained that he wants to cut. What he hasn't explained is how his foreign policy will be safer for Americans in a way that is digestible to the mainstream republican voter.

Just to expand, he needs to make clear what he would like Congress to spend that money on. People think Paul just wants to spend the money on the bases here at home, bring the troops home and talk to other countries. What he needs to explain is how that money will also be spent on the Navy and other defensive weapons systems.

But he won't. Maybe he thinks it goes without saying so he focuses more on what needs to be changed. But it'd clear up a lot of misconceptions about his defense policy.