PDA

View Full Version : Time for something Bold to Get Attention




RPit
04-24-2012, 10:31 PM
Although this should have been done long time back, its still worth a shot given that we really don't have anything 'more to lose'....

This is Havax's idea: Idea: Release "Foreign Policy Plan" and Hold Press Conference

I think the campaign had many missteps one of them being addressing the Foreign Policy in a forceful way.

How many of you have heard from these Republicans who don't support Ron but say they support Rand? For god sake even Hannity is on board with Rand. There is not too much of a difference between them but the major one is Foreign Policy.

I will say this, America is in under IMMENSE FEAR. FEAR is a POWERFUL controlling state of mind. Although most of them like Ron's domestic policy they do not agree with his Foreign Policy especially when they think "He'd let Iran build a nuclear"... "he doesn't give a shit about Israel" etc....

If anything Ron needs to play more 'strength'.. Act like a hawk but in speech only...

"I will go to war with Iran if it becomes a national security threat according to our intelligence, and I'll ask Congress to declare war."
This statement is what they want to hear.. They don't want to hear him defending Iran. Period. (The above line isn't a lie either :) ) Anytime they try to make him 'defend' Iran (which is usually what he does) he needs to pivot it (anyone watch Game Change?)

If they 'pester him more':

"Currently our intelligence agencies have determined that Iran has not taken the necessary steps to build a weapon. Since we know this we don't want to have another Iraq War where there were no weapons. So we need to keep a watchful eye on them and I'll instruct our Intelligence to monitor Iran closely, and if Iran takes the steps and moves towards building the bomb and we determine to be a threat to this nation, I will ask Congress to declare war and take out their nuclear capability. DESTROY it. And get out. Also if Israel believes that it is in its interest to attack Iran, we will let Israel do what it thinks is right. I will not stop Israel from defending themselves. We have no right to tell Israel what to do, if its in their best interests they should do it. If they say Jerusalem is their capital, we should build our embassy in Jerusalem. Its really that simple. We need to recognize Israel's sovereignty. And as I said, if our intelligence ever find any action by Iran that is a threat to this county, I'll put it before Congress, and show Iran that America will decisively destroy any threat to its citizens with our full military power."

In Politics you ALWAYS have to sugarcoat things to make them sound 'good'.. To these Republicans war sounds good. "Strength" (fear if you ask me) sounds good.

None of what I said above is 'a lie'. But it sounds hawkish. This really is Ron's position. He needs to sound like a hawk.

It may be that this could convince people to vote for him. In the Republican party there really is an 'anti-Romney' mood but in that same party there is also an anti-Paul mood, which we already know first hand by establishment trying to keep us out, but they are only anti-Paul primarily because of foreign policy. This could sway those anti-Pauls to come our way. And then we just might become the 'anti-Romney' which we still haven't become. Also given the fact now we have Rasmussen poll showing we can beat Obama.

Its really a time for a bold move. Nothing is going to get us any wins unless the campaign does something bold. And the boldest move right now is to pacify the anti-Paul vote turn it into pro-Paul and bring that anti-Romney vote along.

You wonder why we're low in Texas. Well because of foreign policy. The campaign can't continue to ignore the fact that there is a reason we aren't getting the votes our way. Why is Gingrich polling higher in Texas than us.. I made numbers of threads saying the same thing. Anti-Romney vote will NEVER come our way for 2 reasons:

1. They think we can't beat Obama. So there is no point in voting for us because the nomination process is to select someone who CAN (irrespective of how conservative they are)

2. Republicans are still warmongers (more correctly UNDER FEAR of dying)

They need to go after this.. No amount of 'anti-Romney' ads will do anything significant to address the 2 issues above.

floridasun1983
04-24-2012, 10:57 PM
I've been calling for them to do something "bold" for months now. They haven't.

I agree with you, but I think the chances of winning PowerBall are much better than them doing something bold at this point.

AdamL
04-24-2012, 11:03 PM
That would have been a good thing to do before the primaries today, but would look pretty silly now. Unfortunately, I think the official campaign gave up on legitimately trying to win the nomination awhile ago - that became pretty obvious when Ron was wasting time and money in unwinnable, far-off states like Texas and California instead of campaigning in the states that were actually holding primaries. I wouldn't expect them to do anything bold at this point to try to gain support. If anything, they're going to scale way back on whatever efforts they may have been making. It's all up to us now.

Paulistinian
04-24-2012, 11:16 PM
Ron Paul needs to go on every television program, every radio show (YES SEAN HANNITY TOO) and CALL MITT ROMNEY OUT for crowning himself the nominee before the race is over! THIS is WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. I have never made suggestions about what Ron Paul needs to do, I think his campaign has that all sorted out but after tonight I'm hoping they're reading this forum. Ron Paul needs to challenge Romney to a 1 on 1 debate and imply that he is a coward if he does not accept.

Paulistinian
04-24-2012, 11:18 PM
That would have been a good thing to do before the primaries today, but would look pretty silly now. Unfortunately, I think the official campaign gave up on legitimately trying to win the nomination awhile ago - that became pretty obvious when Ron was wasting time and money in unwinnable, far-off states like Texas and California instead of campaigning in the states that were actually holding primaries. I wouldn't expect them to do anything bold at this point to try to gain support. If anything, they're going to scale way back on whatever efforts they may have been making. It's all up to us now.
Campaign knows they can clean house in California and Texas, maybe walk away with at worst 1/3 of the delegates out of California (California gives proportional congressional delegates, 3 delegates per district) and Texas is proportional and he can clean house there as well. I think campaigning in Texas and California was a smart move, but he needs to FINALLY CHALLENGE ROMNEY. It's just the 2 of them, it's now or never.

AdamL
04-24-2012, 11:43 PM
Campaign knows they can clean house in California and Texas, maybe walk away with at worst 1/3 of the delegates out of California (California gives proportional congressional delegates, 3 delegates per district) and Texas is proportional and he can clean house there as well. I think campaigning in Texas and California was a smart move, but he needs to FINALLY CHALLENGE ROMNEY. It's just the 2 of them, it's now or never.

I really disagree that Ron has a significant amount of support in either of those states, but putting that aside - How does letting Romney completely steamroll us in the first 5 states to vote since Santorum dropped out help us in Texas and California? It's demoralizing to whatever supporters we do have there and certainly doesn't give anyone else who might consider supporting Paul any reason to think that Romney doesn't already have the nomination locked up.

Credit to Gingrich where it's due, he's been trolling my state pretty hard and has been all over the local news around here for the past 2 weeks. Ron will probably just hold a couple of rallies at colleges here at the last minute if he even comes at all. Pretty much everyone I talk to thinks he dropped out months ago.

jersdreams
04-24-2012, 11:54 PM
Campaign knows they can clean house in California and Texas, maybe walk away with at worst 1/3 of the delegates out of California (California gives proportional congressional delegates, 3 delegates per district) and Texas is proportional and he can clean house there as well. I think campaigning in Texas and California was a smart move, but he needs to FINALLY CHALLENGE ROMNEY. It's just the 2 of them, it's now or never.

Wrong. California has winner take all congressional districts. Nothing is proportional in California. You have to win a CD to get delegates. California's electorate is similar to New York for Republicans...

What specific CDs do you think Paul can win? A third....that means you see him winning 18 congressional districts at least....maybe 19-20 considering the 10 at large winner take all delegates for winning the state.

Natural Citizen
04-25-2012, 12:01 AM
Credit to Gingrich where it's due, he's been trolling my state pretty hard and has been all over the local news around here for the past 2 weeks.

Just be sure to give it where it's truly due. :rolleyes:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/planetary-resources-asteroid-mining/

Newt's cause wasn't really ever to become President. Follow the money.

parocks
04-25-2012, 12:27 AM
That would have been a good thing to do before the primaries today, but would look pretty silly now. Unfortunately, I think the official campaign gave up on legitimately trying to win the nomination awhile ago - that became pretty obvious when Ron was wasting time and money in unwinnable, far-off states like Texas and California instead of campaigning in the states that were actually holding primaries. I wouldn't expect them to do anything bold at this point to try to gain support. If anything, they're going to scale way back on whatever efforts they may have been making. It's all up to us now.

These states were Romney states. He did spend some money in RI on tv, and got some delegates out of it apparently. Pennsylvania should've been about individual delegate races. But we weren't going to get much more than that.

We spend time and effort on conventions, county, district, state, and we get delegates that way. We don't have much money. And working the delegates convention style is what we're doing. And that costs money.

The money is drying up because we're not winning. And we're not winning because we don't have the money. RI is a good example I think 24% Paul 6% Gingrich 6% Santorum. According to CNN, that's 3 delegates for us. And RI is not a particularly good state for Ron Paul. RI is right next to MA. There's a lot of states coming up that don't have a 75% Newport (RI), a 67% Mongomery County (PA), a 60% New Castle County (DE), a 84% Darien (CT), a 76% Westchester County (NY).

Mitt Romney does phenominally well with the top 1%. It's almost comical. Those are ridiculous percentages in the richest parts of the county.

Ron Paul should do better in the next primaries. He should be getting some delegates in May. Louisiana Caucus, that should be good.

parocks
04-25-2012, 01:24 AM
Wrong. California has winner take all congressional districts. Nothing is proportional in California. You have to win a CD to get delegates. California's electorate is similar to New York for Republicans...

What specific CDs do you think Paul can win? A third....that means you see him winning 18 congressional districts at least....maybe 19-20 considering the 10 at large winner take all delegates for winning the state.


What kind of primary is California? Open primary? Closed? When was the voter registration deadline.

The numbers out of NY indicated that a brute force GOTV and a brute force voter registration in NYC might have been useful.

It's not that we did well there (we did poorly), but the numbers that were needed to win were small in certain CDs.

So, to California, do the same thing, if the conditions are the same. There are likely a lot of CDs with very few Republicans. Do voter registration there, Do GOTV there.
In those hugely Democrat districts. Los Angeles for one. The specific conditions in NY were favorable in some cases, unfavorable in others. The Presidential race was the only race on the ballot. Very low turnout. But, no same day registration, closed primary.

*************************************

Bronx
Romney 823
Paul 214

Brooklyn
Mitt Romney 2,969
Ron Paul 663

Manhattan
Mitt Romney 3,877
Ron Paul 736

Queens
Mitt Romney 4,030
Ron Paul 845

Staten Island
Mitt Romney 2,583
Ron Paul 391


(14.5K)
***********************

Nassau
Mitt Romney 5,345
Ron Paul 687

Suffolk
Mitt Romney 12,930
Ron Paul 2,060

Westchester
Mitt Romney 6,336
Ron Paul 728


nassau + suffolk - 1-4. approx 18,000 votes wins 8 delegates 2-3K votes per delegate.

queens, brooklyn, staten island, manhattan, bronx - 5-15 (11 CDs, 22 delegates)
approx 14.5K votes in those 11 CDs. 440 votes per delegate in NYC. We might've gotten very few votes there, but getting 1500 votes in those NYC
CDs would get a win, and 2 delegates.

How much money is a delegate worth? This is where brute force GOTV is called for.

parocks
04-25-2012, 01:27 AM
Ron Paul needs to go on every television program, every radio show (YES SEAN HANNITY TOO) and CALL MITT ROMNEY OUT for crowning himself the nominee before the race is over! THIS is WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. I have never made suggestions about what Ron Paul needs to do, I think his campaign has that all sorted out but after tonight I'm hoping they're reading this forum. Ron Paul needs to challenge Romney to a 1 on 1 debate and imply that he is a coward if he does not accept.

Attack Romney, yes.

J_White
04-25-2012, 01:30 AM
we have beaten this horse to death, but probably the campaign is not interested in doing this.
they are also not interested in exposing Romney or having an electability ad.
Any explanation would be good, but i dont know the reason,unfortunately.

Liberty74
04-25-2012, 05:00 AM
The campaign isn't going to do anything bold. They haven't yet and they're not going to start. You will see no attacks on Mitt either. It will all be over soon. Very unfortunate.

No Free Beer
04-25-2012, 07:07 AM
Won't happen. The Romney train has already started.

Ivash
04-25-2012, 07:27 AM
At this point attacking Romney or pointing out Paul's 'electability' probably wouldn't do much. Attacking Romney would just look petty, and I don't think many people would believe he is all that electable given that he's won only one territory and no states. I think people would laugh at him if he tried to advance that argument.

WilliamC
04-25-2012, 07:56 AM
At this point attacking Romney or pointing out Paul's 'electability' probably wouldn't do much. Attacking Romney would just look petty, and I don't think many people would believe he is all that electable given that he's won only one territory and no states. I think people would laugh at him if he tried to advance that argument.

Very astute.

Ron Paul is about advancing his message, the message of liberty and limited government and returning power to the States and to the People and radically changing the political and economic systems currently reigning over us.

He's not about dirty politics, which is what I get from most of the attack Romney crowd. And he has repeatedly stated that Romney is part of the system just as much as Gingrich and Santorum and Obama as well.

frickettz
04-25-2012, 08:45 AM
Very astute.

Ron Paul is about advancing his message, the message of liberty and limited government and returning power to the States and to the People and radically changing the political and economic systems currently reigning over us.

He's not about dirty politics, which is what I get from most of the attack Romney crowd. And he has repeatedly stated that Romney is part of the system just as much as Gingrich and Santorum and Obama as well.

True but the difference with Santorum and Gingrich is that the campaign DID attack them. We can't deny the fact that they've lashed out at everyone BUT Romney, probably because him and Ron get a long.. but c'mon, you can't just say "we're friendly but we disagree on policies". He should at least point out those differences, specifically pick into Romney's policies and show how you contrast those views and why they're wrong. It doesn't have to be 'dirty'.

Ivash
04-25-2012, 08:59 AM
True but the difference with Santorum and Gingrich is that the campaign DID attack them. We can't deny the fact that they've lashed out at everyone BUT Romney, probably because him and Ron get a long.. but c'mon, you can't just say "we're friendly but we disagree on policies". He should at least point out those differences, specifically pick into Romney's policies and show how you contrast those views and why they're wrong. It doesn't have to be 'dirty'.

Yeah, I was going to say... Paul could have attacked Romney before and not looked petty. It would simply have been all in the spirit of the campaign. But to attack now... I think it is too late to do that without looking like a sore loser.

WilliamC
04-25-2012, 09:06 AM
Ron Paul can very much now focus on Romney and Romney's record now that Gingrich has announced he is suspending his campaign, and I hope he does, but there is a difference between this and what I think of as 'attack' adds.

Ron Paul can't be all stick though, he has to dangle some carrot out their as well, and I just don't see him 'attacking' Romney as some think he should do but I have seen him repeatedly lump Romney in with all the rest of the candidates and Obama, so how that isn't campaigning against him I don't know.

And besides, if every there was a candidate who could 'flip' more towards Ron Paul's position to get themselves elected it would be Romney, so that is a tool to be used to advance the cause of liberty in general. Poisoning the well with too negative an attack would not seem to be the ideal strategy.

But never should Paul compromise our principles and I haven't seen anything to indicate he will.