Prob not from the campaign but-New Ron Paul AD - Establishment Candidates Are All The Same

[sailingaway]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r-KEFvQBig

[coffeewithchess]

You know this isn't from the campaign, because it actually did more than simply call Romney names...it showed him flipflopping like the attack ads should be doing.

$30 million raised/spent, and now we have a Ron Paul adviser saying,
"You can help us decide. Here are some options. And you don’t have to chose just one.
.
1.) Make an all out effort to go for it.
2.) Become the anti-Romney candidate and gather his opponents.
3.) Work with Gingrich to block Romney.
4.) Stay in the race but don’t antagonize the GOP leadership.
5.) Seek a deal with Romney while it still matters.
6.) Prepare for a Third Party run."

1.) Why would we waste time/money on a Third Party run, when the official campaign didn't even attempt to win the Republican nomination right now?
a) No single Romney attack ad, ONLY...like they did with Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum
b) The first one-on-one state of Ron Paul against Mitt Romney, not one single attack ad against Romney...but the campaign spent money running an attack ad against Santorum in Michigan...helping Romney win Michigan.

2) Apparently, a deal is already in the books with Romney, see point #1.

3) Don't antagonize the GOP leadership? Didn't realize trying to get delegates through the process the GOP has setup, by following their own established rules/guidelines is antagonizing

4) Become the anti-Romney? Now? Seriously? Is that a serious point? Like, am I living in the Twilight Zone of politics here? I thought we were trying the entire time to get this to a two man race...now that it's at our feet...they're not even attacking Romney full force?

This folks, should be all the proof you need the official campaign is doing nothing but keeping paychecks now...they are not/have not been doing anything to attack Romney full force, and now they are asking us if they should even do it?

[sailingaway]

I think the campaign was floored by Santa dropping out and is now figuring out what to do. It is much more skeletal than it was at one point, and the organization is focussing on delegates and Ron's speeches. I think we have to see where they come out.

I don't think there is any deal in the works, I think that is number 5 because it is just 'covering bases'. I think Ron just doesn't generally attack people, but has personal feelings about Santorum and Gingrich who were everything he fought, in Congress.

[coffeewithchess]

I think the campaign was floored by Santa dropping out and is now figuring out what to do. It is much more skeletal than it was at one point, and the organization is focussing on delegates and Ron's speeches. I think we have to see where they come out.

I don't think there is any deal in the works, I think that is number 5 because it is just 'covering bases'. I think Ron just doesn't generally attack people, but has personal feelings about Santorum and Gingrich who were everything he fought, in Congress.

Seeing $30 million raised/spent, and allowing somebody like Romney to get the nomination only being called, "moderate" and "flipflopper" is terrible. Sorry, but I seriously see most of the campaign as people looking out for their future careers...not the country.
If anybody can explain the ineptitude at the official campaign HQ of not being prepared for the ONLY issue the media could attack RP on (see newsletters), and explain how the campaign FAILED to seriously address the national security/national defense issue to the majority of voters...all while raising millions more than the other candidates, then perhaps I "see it from their side".

All I have seen, since December, is a campaign in reactionary mode...and a terrible or inept reactionary mode at that...that failed.

Ron doesn't attack PEOPLE's personal lives, but he does attack policy positions...and Romney's differing policy positions are fair game.

I guess we're supposed to be getting our tents ready though, and waiting outside of Barnes & Noble for the next book? Seriously, you raise/spend $30 million and fail to hit the "frontrunner" deemed as such by the media since the beginning of the race, and you fail to address SERIOUS issues that tanked your campaign?

[sailingaway]

He said he was a democrat once in an interview. Media didn't choose to pick up on it because they are pushing the 'alliance' meme to drain Ron's support. I think you are simply wrong, on this.

[coffeewithchess]

He said he was a democrat once in an interview. Media didn't choose to pick up on it because they are pushing the 'alliance' meme to drain Ron's support. I think you are simply wrong, on this.

Wrong how?
The facts are:
1) Not one single Romney ONLY attack ad, like they did with Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum
2) Failing to address the newsletter issue in any "official" way. See Herman Cain holding press conferences to address his "issue" that wasn't even known about...almost immediately, and going on every single news show to talk about...all the while raising $9 million dollars after the first story on his "issue" broke
3) Failing to address foreign policy and the "blames America for 9/11" crap the media spews...all of which are very easily addressed. RP simply sitting in front of the camera talking about it...with a nicely written script and/or talking points that show his true positions on the issues.

We were hearing it out of Iowa, and hearing it out of South Carolina (for sure)...that the voters didn't like RP's foreign policy, and that's only because they knew what they did from the media, and RP's not so polished answers sometimes in debates.

[jolynna]

I agree with coffeewithchess that policy SHOULD be fair game.

Calling Romney a flip-flopper when he is a "Big Brother" paranoid zealot willing to strip away every liberty so nobody can get in the way of his quest for "American Exceptionalism" (imperialism) is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer "hungry".

In my opinion.

[sailingaway]

I think policy IS fair game but when Ron had money to run more ads the strategy was to be the anti Romney. I just don't think my one thing I wish they did and didn't is the be all and end all of whether Ron is a traitor using his supporters and not fighting for them or something.

[jolynna]

I think policy IS fair game but when Ron had money to run more ads the strategy was to be the anti Romney. I just don't think my one thing I wish they did and didn't is the be all and end all of whether Ron is a traitor using his supporters and not fighting for them or something.

I won't say Ron Paul betrayed supporters unless he asks us to support Romney.

Then I'd think he "baited and switched".

Liberty and no war without just cause are WHY I became a Ron Paul supporter. You can't win someone over to the "moral" side and then say that doing immoral things (killing people & stripping away liberties) can "sometimes be compromised on" because "down the road" the end will justify the nasty means.

In my opinion.

[sailingaway]

But he hasn't said to vote for Romney. And cited foreign policy and civil liberties as well as unwillingness to truly address the budget as reasons he might not be able to do so.

So where is the bitterness coming from?

[jolynna]

I give Ron Paul the benefit of doubt unless we are told to "get behind Romney". I can accept that Ron Paul won't be the nominee. If he says "get behind Romney", that will hurt because I've let myself believe Ron Paul is different.

As always, just my opinion.

[coffeewithchess]

I think policy IS fair game but when Ron had money to run more ads the strategy was to be the anti Romney. I just don't think my one thing I wish they did and didn't is the be all and end all of whether Ron is a traitor using his supporters and not fighting for them or something.

I never said Ron was a traitor, but looking at the history/present...the campaign has no plan to win, and is/has been relying on the delegate strategy which is more grassroots than campaign. Delegate strategy = very little money from campaign. In 2008, even when it was clear RP had little/no chance of winning, he remained...but stayed in touring around the country, and then a book was released by him (though I think written by a ghostwriter under his name).
History often repeats itself, and if I were a betting man...I would be betting on it happening again.

When a campaign adviser lists 5 choices for supporters, again, as:
"1.) Make an all out effort to go for it.
2.) Become the anti-Romney candidate and gather his opponents.
3.) Work with Gingrich to block Romney.
4.) Stay in the race but don’t antagonize the GOP leadership.
5.) Seek a deal with Romney while it still matters.
6.) Prepare for a Third Party run."

Somebody, somewhere, in the campaign has been missing something.

If the campaign's strategy was to be the "anti-Romney", then perhaps more than 2 ads that only briefly mention Romney, would have been good?
Santorum attacked Romney, won states.
Gingrich attacked Romney, won South Carolina...but was bludgeoned by Romney in Florida.

The fact is, Ron Paul actually has a RECORD to run on...the other guys don't. The campaign not addressing a few simple issues, was a complete failure.

[sailingaway]

I think the media and party have been completely biased and the difference between a perfect campaign and the one we've had is NOT the reason for our disappointment. I'm looking elsewhere.

Which isn't to say there arent' things I'd have done differently, just none that make me bitter at this point. I'm too busy being furious at the bias.

I think at the time there were cases to be made for both ways, and Ron probably had different advice closer to him, that was plausible. I agree I'd have liked to have seen the ads.

that is why I posted this one.

[jolynna]

But he hasn't said to vote for Romney. And cited foreign policy and civil liberties as well as unwillingness to truly address the budget as reasons he might not be able to do so.

So where is the bitterness coming from?

Sailing, I'll be here to the end supporting Ron Paul. I've never been this excited or enthused about a candidate before. I love being part of this.

I'm just saying which line I won't cross no matter who tells me to cross it. I guess I am saying it here for any campaign person to read so they know that at least this supporter wouldn't approve of the campaign going in Wead's #5 direction.

I'm assuming Wead wrote his post to get feedback.

In my opinion.

[sailingaway]

Sailing, I'll be here to the end supporting Ron Paul. I've never been this excited or enthused about a candidate before. I love being part of this.

I'm just saying which line I won't cross no matter who tells me to cross it. I guess I am saying it here for any campaign person to read so they know that at least this supporter wouldn't approve of the campaign going in Wead's #5 direction.

I'm assuming Wead wrote his post to get feedback.

yeah, and responses are being collected in hot topics so you might want to post your thoughts there, too.

[tennman]

But why didn't the ad list things about Ron Paul like his consistency? His commitment to the constitution, etc? It just throws his name up at the end.

[PaulSoHard]

I don't know about you guys but I'm still going to push as hard as possible for Ron Paul and the greater cause because we all know that no army can stop us when the time comes, and it starts now.

[sailingaway]

But why didn't the ad list things about Ron Paul like his consistency? His commitment to the constitution, etc? It just throws his name up at the end.

It is one guy's idea of an ad, you can make one, too.

[coffeewithchess]

Which isn't to say there arent' things I'd have done differently, just none that make me bitter at this point. I'm too busy being furious at the bias.

I agree with you the media is biased...we already knew this from 2007/08 though.
Also, I think you have seen a few of my videos...addressing the media's stupidity/bias around here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyixR66CQMw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6NkROh0ni4&list=UUEJIVecnc0d2Qo6z89QPQFg&index=13&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N--o1SMnSf0&list=UUEJIVecnc0d2Qo6z89QPQFg&index=16&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_wQCbED2MQ&list=UUEJIVecnc0d2Qo6z89QPQFg&index=23&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qFqoj771GQ&list=UUEJIVecnc0d2Qo6z89QPQFg&index=30&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UFLt7u4Gy0&list=UUEJIVecnc0d2Qo6z89QPQFg&index=47&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0VENRxijL4&list=UUEJIVecnc0d2Qo6z89QPQFg&index=52&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVT3dYTdw4E&list=UUEJIVecnc0d2Qo6z89QPQFg&index=60&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkrjU9dqdMA&feature=BFa&list=UUEJIVecnc0d2Qo6z89QPQFg&lf=plcp

[sailingaway]

Yes, and I like those videos a lot. It is frustrating. I don't have an answer except the internet if we keep it free, eventually, but that won't help us this time. -- or, it DOES help us, but it is still not as used as tv news.

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

Did santorum just say the BS word?

[coffeewithchess]

Yes, and I like those videos a lot. It is frustrating. I don't have an answer except the internet if we keep it free, eventually, but that won't help us this time.

Well, apparently the internet and $30 million dollars isn't good enough. Make that actually $60 million from 2008 and this year's campaign...plus C4L, and the other groups that were started since 2008.
If we know the power of the media, you need to use that power...and denying interviews to the largest "news" show in America is stupidity. Raise money, run 30 second ads...but let the guy that has the largest news show destroy/make fun of/lie about you nightly, with no response from the campaign...because the campaign didn't like the way the last interview was conducted? Sure, it's always a good thing to turn down free media...

Twilight Zone...it's here. Located at:
8000 Forbes Place, Suite 200
Springfield VA 22151

[coffeewithchess]

Did santorum just say the BS word?

Yes, that was news a few weeks back...after the Louisiana Primary.

[kathy88]

Wead is just gauging how we feel.

[PaulConventionWV]

You know this isn't from the campaign, because it actually did more than simply call Romney names...it showed him flipflopping like the attack ads should be doing.

$30 million raised/spent, and now we have a Ron Paul adviser saying,
"You can help us decide. Here are some options. And you don’t have to chose just one.
.
1.) Make an all out effort to go for it.
2.) Become the anti-Romney candidate and gather his opponents.
3.) Work with Gingrich to block Romney.
4.) Stay in the race but don’t antagonize the GOP leadership.
5.) Seek a deal with Romney while it still matters.
6.) Prepare for a Third Party run."

1.) Why would we waste time/money on a Third Party run, when the official campaign didn't even attempt to win the Republican nomination right now?
a) No single Romney attack ad, ONLY...like they did with Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum
b) The first one-on-one state of Ron Paul against Mitt Romney, not one single attack ad against Romney...but the campaign spent money running an attack ad against Santorum in Michigan...helping Romney win Michigan.

2) Apparently, a deal is already in the books with Romney, see point #1.

3) Don't antagonize the GOP leadership? Didn't realize trying to get delegates through the process the GOP has setup, by following their own established rules/guidelines is antagonizing

4) Become the anti-Romney? Now? Seriously? Is that a serious point? Like, am I living in the Twilight Zone of politics here? I thought we were trying the entire time to get this to a two man race...now that it's at our feet...they're not even attacking Romney full force?

This folks, should be all the proof you need the official campaign is doing nothing but keeping paychecks now...they are not/have not been doing anything to attack Romney full force, and now they are asking us if they should even do it?

How can you say that the campaign didn't make an attempt? Those are strong claims. Do you have anything to back them up except your own accusations? Do you have anything from them, saying they weren't attempting?

Who the hell do you think you are?

[PaulConventionWV]

All these critics are like whiny little bitches. Why can't you people get over yourselves and see that the world isn't perfect? Why can't you just see that sometimes it is impossible to have more than one winner? Why can't you stop trying to play armchair quarterback and telling people they should have made such and such a decision when you are not in the least bit qualified to say what the best decision is?

You bunch of freaking hypocrites.

[parocks]

You know this isn't from the campaign, because it actually did more than simply call Romney names...it showed him flipflopping like the attack ads should be doing.

$30 million raised/spent, and now we have a Ron Paul adviser saying,
"You can help us decide. Here are some options. And you don’t have to chose just one.
.
1.) Make an all out effort to go for it.
2.) Become the anti-Romney candidate and gather his opponents.
3.) Work with Gingrich to block Romney.
4.) Stay in the race but don’t antagonize the GOP leadership.
5.) Seek a deal with Romney while it still matters.
6.) Prepare for a Third Party run."

1.) Why would we waste time/money on a Third Party run, when the official campaign didn't even attempt to win the Republican nomination right now?
a) No single Romney attack ad, ONLY...like they did with Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum
b) The first one-on-one state of Ron Paul against Mitt Romney, not one single attack ad against Romney...but the campaign spent money running an attack ad against Santorum in Michigan...helping Romney win Michigan.

2) Apparently, a deal is already in the books with Romney, see point #1.

3) Don't antagonize the GOP leadership? Didn't realize trying to get delegates through the process the GOP has setup, by following their own established rules/guidelines is antagonizing

4) Become the anti-Romney? Now? Seriously? Is that a serious point? Like, am I living in the Twilight Zone of politics here? I thought we were trying the entire time to get this to a two man race...now that it's at our feet...they're not even attacking Romney full force?

This folks, should be all the proof you need the official campaign is doing nothing but keeping paychecks now...they are not/have not been doing anything to attack Romney full force, and now they are asking us if they should even do it?

We should be attacking Romney full force. If you have suspicions that we've been laying off Romney, there does seem to be evidence to support that, and you've provided that evidence.

"Why do people think Romney's electable?"

Do Americans all of a sudden think that Mormon isn't a weird cult anymore?
Do Americans really think that the one candidate who can't attack Obamacare is the one candidate who can beat Obama?
Do Americans really think that the 1% is now popular, and that we should pick a candidate who's "Mr. 1%"?
Do Americans really like bailing out Goldman Sachs, and think the electable nominee is the guy who has taken more money from Goldman Sachs than any other Republican?

Romney IS who Americans hate. How does that make him electable?

[sailingaway]

"Americans" think Mormans are a weird cult?

[coffeewithchess]

How can you say that the campaign didn't make an attempt? Those are strong claims. Do you have anything to back them up except your own accusations? Do you have anything from them, saying they weren't attempting?

Who the hell do you think you are?

Apparently, selective reading runs rampant these days. Go and read all my posts, and if you would like, I can provide you emails/phone records to the RP campaign...though not the actual emails, because I wouldn't want all to be read/known. Dates and times/sent and replies received though, not a problem.
I'm just a little nobody of a supporter, but one that follows the political world like many do...who do you think I am?

What official statement did the campaign release regarding the newsletters, and how many nightly shows did Ron Paul go on to explain the situation in full? Did the official campaign release an ad to dispel the idiotic "racism" charge that along with the "weak foreign policy" claims tanked his Iowa campaign, or was that only a PAC?
Did the Ron Paul campaign release a single Romney only attack ad? Did the Ron Paul campaign repeatedly ignore requests by Ron Paul supporters to address issues such as FOREIGN POLICY sooner, rather than later (or never)...because it was holding back voters?

[parocks]

I'd like a series of 30 second ads. A couple over a kitchen table talking about Romney's electability.

"But, honey, all the people on the tv say that Romney is electable."
"They're wrong. We NEED to say "Obamacare sucks" and we absolutely have to have a nominee who can say that. Obama will say to Romney "Obamacare was based on YOUR Massachusetts program." And we're finished. The tv people are not on our side."

[parocks]

"Americans" think Mormans are a weird cult?

Well, these aren't official ads, these are brutal grassroots ads that I'm talking about.

I believe that doing things that will make his core supporters squirm and squeal is good. Not everyone agrees with this, I'm aware. I'm not talking about an ad that has anything to do with Ron Paul, I'm talking about grassroots ads that are vicious.

[coffeewithchess]

"Americans" think Mormans are a weird cult?

The Southern evangelical voters that voted for Rick Santorum, yes.
http://i.imgur.com/IUClo.jpg

Conversation above from a Facebook post...names removed to protect the uninformed.

[PaulSoHard]

The 10%? I'm guessing foreign policy and The Fed.

[coffeewithchess]

The 10%? I'm guessing foreign policy and The Fed.

Foreign policy most likely...because that's the EXACT lines from Sean Hannity. "I agree with RP on 90% of things, but the 10% is a big one...WE MUST GO BANKRUPT FIGHTING CAVEMEN!"

[sailingaway]

Foreign policy most likely...because that's the EXACT lines from Sean Hannity. "I agree with RP on 90% of things, but the 10% is a big one...WE MUST GO BANKRUPT FIGHTING CAVEMEN!"

lol!

I think that is a great slogan! Signature worthy, even!

[J_White]

you want my opinion Doug ?

ATTACK ROMNEY NOW, with all you got. most of us here have been saying this for months !!
and come out with a solid Foreign Policy ad to clarify his positions !!

[HOLLYWOOD]

The 10%? I'm guessing foreign policy and The Fed.It's Foreign Policy and Legalizing Heroin/Cocaine/Pot... as corporate Main Stream Media has repetitively indoctrinated into the viewers heads. This is why Ron Paul cannot receive more than 5% support from the 55+ age voting groups that are glued to TV/Radio. Both have never been addressed/packaged/presented in a manner of understanding and selling it to the older voting groups.

[Xelaetaks]

If they nailed a foreign policy plan to the public that could be key to actually winning this. They haven't done it so far though.

Saying countries who happen to have some extremists there pose no threat at all isn't gonna win the election. Coming out with a plan or deeper explanation of RP's foreign policy could be key though.

Nothing wrong with some tough talk in relation to terrorism even if a lot of it is exaggerated or caused by blowback, I think what would win the public is some tough talk on defense and more emphasis on it.

[coffeewithchess]

If they nailed a foreign policy plan to the public that could be key to actually winning this. They haven't done it so far though.

Saying countries who happen to have some extremists there pose no threat at all isn't gonna win the election. Coming out with a plan or deeper explanation of RP's foreign policy could be key though.

Nothing wrong with some tough talk in relation to terrorism even if a lot of it is exaggerated or caused by blowback, I think what would win the public is some tough talk on defense and more emphasis on it.

Correct. Most don't seem to even know that RP introduced a bill that would have eliminated/slowed visas from countries like Saudi Arabia...and other countries with known terrorist ties...to America.
See 9/11 history...terrorists come here with visas...get into the system, and become invisible.
Make it so those countries where they are known to be coming from are looked at more closely...common sense, and thus it's "crazy" and most don't even know about it.

Ron Paul has the record...why the crap don't more know about it? $60 million later, I'm still wondering...

[coffeewithchess]

It's Foreign Policy and DECRIMINALIZING AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL Heroin/Cocaine/Pot... as corporate Main Stream Media has repetitively indoctrinated into the viewers heads. This is why Ron Paul cannot receive more than 5% support from the 55+ age voting groups that are glued to TV/Radio. Both have never been addressed/packaged/presented in a manner of understanding and selling it to the older voting groups.

Fixed the one point for you, but yea that would be another one. Simply show how many BILLIONS (or trillion now?) spent on the drug war, show the drug lord that said because drugs are illegal, he's a rich man (in the top 1,000 richest in the world), and show that more government doesn't equal solution.

[PaulConventionWV]

Apparently, selective reading runs rampant these days. Go and read all my posts, and if you would like, I can provide you emails/phone records to the RP campaign...though not the actual emails, because I wouldn't want all to be read/known. Dates and times/sent and replies received though, not a problem.
I'm just a little nobody of a supporter, but one that follows the political world like many do...who do you think I am?

What official statement did the campaign release regarding the newsletters, and how many nightly shows did Ron Paul go on to explain the situation in full? Did the official campaign release an ad to dispel the idiotic "racism" charge that along with the "weak foreign policy" claims tanked his Iowa campaign, or was that only a PAC?
Did the Ron Paul campaign release a single Romney only attack ad? Did the Ron Paul campaign repeatedly ignore requests by Ron Paul supporters to address issues such as FOREIGN POLICY sooner, rather than later (or never)...because it was holding back voters?

You're asking me what official statement the campaign made regarding the newsletters as if it's common knowledge that they SHOULD have issued an "official" statement. I think their decision was an informed one, and until you provide evidence to the contrary, you are just whining about it because you think you're an expert in public relations. The claims that it "tanked his campaign" in Iowa are unfounded and without any support.

Hey, you know, I'm really sorry the Romney strategy didn't work out, but there's really not much they could have done differently. It was probably a sound strategy, but in the end, you can only have one winner and Romney wins because he has the media on his side and tons of cash and tons of rich friends endorsing him. There's really not much the campaign could have done except hope that the delegate strategy works. The campaign repeatedly ignores a lot of stupid requests from know-it-all supporters because the supporters aren't the ones getting paid to be experts in that sort of thing.

The only thing I ask is that you stop having such a loud and vociferous opinion on something you know little about. If you see something you perceive as wrong, before you get all riled up, consider that maybe YOU are the one that's wrong and the people who are actually doing it know what they're doing it because they have way more freaking information than you do.

The campaign isn't perfect, but it's about as competent as any freaking campaign out there. If all 8 campaigns that started the race had equally competent staff, guess what... still only ONE campaign would win the race.

[PaulConventionWV]

Well, these aren't official ads, these are brutal grassroots ads that I'm talking about.

I believe that doing things that will make his core supporters squirm and squeal is good. Not everyone agrees with this, I'm aware. I'm not talking about an ad that has anything to do with Ron Paul, I'm talking about grassroots ads that are vicious.

And who do you think is going to see those? People who spend all day surfing Youtube for another political ad?

[PaulConventionWV]

you want my opinion Doug ?

ATTACK ROMNEY NOW, with all you got. most of us here have been saying this for months !!
and come out with a solid Foreign Policy ad to clarify his positions !!

Attacking Romney isn't going to make one bit of difference now. It would have made very little difference in the first place. I'm sorry for the harsh truth, but it's time to lay down the way the world works. Romney is rich and has a lot of powerful friends in powerful positions. He has the media on his side, and the familiarity that he needed to win. He's also a better politician than Ron Paul, but you can't really blame anyone for that except possibly Ron Paul himself.

[PaulConventionWV]

Correct. Most don't seem to even know that RP introduced a bill that would have eliminated/slowed visas from countries like Saudi Arabia...and other countries with known terrorist ties...to America.
See 9/11 history...terrorists come here with visas...get into the system, and become invisible.
Make it so those countries where they are known to be coming from are looked at more closely...common sense, and thus it's "crazy" and most don't even know about it.

Ron Paul has the record...why the crap don't more know about it? $60 million later, I'm still wondering...

Did you really ever expect a win? I'm not saying you couldn't have reasonably hoped, but to EXPECT a win when there are 7 other campaigns in the race, some with way more funding and favorability no matter how you "relate" to the public. If you donated EXPECTING that money to go toward a win, then you must realize that a lot of other people donated to other campaigns. Only one can win, and a lot of people are going to be disappointed. You just can't please everyone in an election. I mean, what did you expect, really?

Your assertions that people don't know about Ron Paul's record are unfounded. Most people know who Ron Paul is, and those who care about politics usually know what he stands for. They may have misconceptions, but I doubt those misconceptions are just misunderstanding. They really don't want to believe what Ron is saying. We can't change those peoples' minds until we change the propaganda that is perpetrated in the media. It's just a simple fact that if someone is seen as unpopular in the media, many are going to see him that way just to fit in because fitting is what makes the most sense to those people. The simple truth is that people know who Ron Paul is and what he wants for America, and they still reject him because they don't like his ideas. A few ads were never going to change that. See how much good the ads did this time despite how expertly made most of them were. You're just playing the blame game when the culprit isn't the campaign. It's the political environment in this country which is kept intact by the media that is keeping people like Ron Paul from gaining much traction in an election. We have done a great job overcoming that, but we can only do so much in such a short amount of time.

[PaulConventionWV]

Fixed the one point for you, but yea that would be another one. Simply show how many BILLIONS (or trillion now?) spent on the drug war, show the drug lord that said because drugs are illegal, he's a rich man (in the top 1,000 richest in the world), and show that more government doesn't equal solution.

I've argued with voters bringing up as many points as I could about how the drug war is wasteful and people will just never buy it. They are so entrenched in their worldview that they are unwilling to change. That's what's killing our campaign, not the campaign itself.

[speciallyblend]

I've argued with voters bringing up as many points as I could about how the drug war is wasteful and people will just never buy it. They are so entrenched in their worldview that they are unwilling to change. That's what's killing our campaign, not the campaign itself.

if anything the gop will give us some great comedy. When obama and romney debate mandated healthcare gonna be better then brewsters millions, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LPdTXRjIKQ<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LPdTXRjIKQ">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LPdTXRjIKQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LPdTXRjIKQ)