If Thomas Massie won in 4th District,

[peluski17]

why didn't Ron Paul?

If more voters voted for Thomas Massie in 4th District, how come Ron Paul's vote totals aren't higher? One could say both are mutually exclusive, but I feel there could and possibly should be evidence of correlation.

[floridasun1983]

The answer is pretty simple; the campaign has not properly communicated Ron Paul to America. There are a bunch of theories as to why that is, but that's the tall and the short of it.

[AlexG]

Because Thomas Massie didn't run against Romney and the national MSM

[neverseen]

Agreed... Thomas Massie's brand doesn't mean the same thing to people as Ron Paul's brand. When people hear I'm a Paul guy, they think something about me already... when people say they are a Massie guy they say, who? oh cool, yah i'll vote for him too, why not. lol

[brushfire]

Because, according to the media, Ron Paul dropped out.

[FriedChicken]

... this is the same kind of question as "if there are so many tea partiers in Indiana, why didn't Ron get more of the vote?"

The answer is because the Tea Party voters are still glued to the tv. (fox)

[Sola_Fide]

There are many, many factors in play. It would be hard to list them all.

[LibertyEagle]

The answer is pretty simple; the campaign has not properly communicated Ron Paul to America. There are a bunch of theories as to why that is, but that's the tall and the short of it.

Ron Paul also would have needed to communicate "properly" to America. I'm not sure what you expected the campaign to use to advertise across America, since fundraising pretty much dried up after Iowa.

Everything can be improved upon, I agree, but this constant bashing of the campaign, while putting Dr. Paul on a pedestal with regard to some people's idea of the message, is really off-base, in my opinion.

[klamath]

Massie is not running for the comander in chief office, RP is. RP never addressed how he would defend the country the whole time he was running so many people figured he never had a plan to defend the country.

[aksmith]

Ron Paul also would have needed to communicate "properly" to America. I'm not sure what you expected the campaign to use to advertise across America, since fundraising pretty much dried up after Iowa.

Everything can be improved upon, I agree, but this constant bashing of the campaign, while putting Dr. Paul on a pedestal with regard to some people's idea of the message, is really off-base, in my opinion.

It would have been prudent to put the campaign on national TV early and often. This can be done these days in some relatively inexpensive ways. Using Google tv ads, you can buy nationwide cable ads for very little money. But the campaign is ans was full of some very traditional thinkers. It's certainly too late to do this now, but for next time, it would be nice to think that they might have learned their lesson. Instead of spending money in South Carolina, it might have been nice to be saturating cable nationally all the way through. that obviates the need for buying in every local market in the states you are interested. And the "scatter" from advertising in states that have later primaries and caucuses is even a positive. And like I said, you can continue right through the entire campaign hitting states that haven't voted yet, and even those who have already voted and are going to convention. That keeps the name out there. Maybe Rand needs to use a different strategy for next time?

[mczerone]

Massie is not running for the comander in chief office, RP is. RP never addressed how he would defend the country the whole time he was running so many people figured he never had a plan to defend the country.

What?!?

RP clearly said that he would defend the nation abroad with diplomacy and at home with forceful defense at the borders. It was the slanderous media take on Ron that never publicized his stance and made it sound like he was just going to disband the military to let China invade.

You sound just like a CNN reporter that claimed that RP "never addressed" the newsletters; you're ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.

[Voluntary Man]

because Mucus O'Hannibaugh didn't tell Dumbf#@kians to NOT vote for Massie!

[jemuf]

"Originally Posted by klamath View Post
Massie is not running for the comander in chief office, RP is. RP never addressed how he would defend the country the whole time he was running so many people figured he never had a plan to defend the country."


What?!?

RP clearly said that he would defend the nation abroad with diplomacy and at home with forceful defense at the borders. It was the slanderous media take on Ron that never publicized his stance and made it sound like he was just going to disband the military to let China invade.

You sound just like a CNN reporter that claimed that RP "never addressed" the newsletters; you're ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.

Thank you.

[seawolf]

Last Monday's e-mail was a dreadful piece put out by our Campaign brain-trust of Jesse and John.

Many threads on both the RP Forums and the Daily Paul had eyewitnesses who reported talking to numerous voters in both Arkansas and Kentucky today. These voters were genuinely surprised when told that Ron Paul was still an active candidate. After last Monday's press release and the media's take of it, they were convinced Ron has suspended his Campaign. As a result, they told the eyewitnesses that they had voted for someone else.

Many RP Supporters' worst fears after last Monday's "Strategic Press Release" are now realized and confirmed. Two primaries, both whom, with some "active Campaigning", probably would have resulted in reaching the magic 15% threshold for delegates, were wasted tonight. Thank our Campaign Strategists for their political intellect. Ron didl not come close to 15% tonight in either State.

I hope Jesse and John are sleeping well.....I know Jesse is after the press reported this week that his salary and bonus haul from the Campaign thus far is over $586,000.00 and rising. Nice work if you can get it.

And one wonders why many in the RP Nation tonight are not very happy warriors for Liberty!!!

[BenIsForRon]

The answer is actually very simple. Just about every republican voter watches Fox News. Fox News has slandered Ron Paul for years, and they haven't had a chance to with Massie.

[rp08orbust]

Probably for the same reasons that polls a year ago showed Ron Paul competitive in the race for K-Bailout's US Senate seat but doing as poorly as ever in Texas for the Republican presidential nomination.

[mczerone]

Last Monday's e-mail was a dreadful piece put out by our Campaign brain-trust of Jesse and John.

Many threads on both the RP Forums and the Daily Paul had eyewitnesses who reported talking to numerous voters in both Arkansas and Kentucky today. These voters were genuinely surprised when told that Ron Paul was still an active candidate. After last Monday's press release and the media's take of it, they were convinced Ron has suspended his Campaign. As a result, they told the eyewitnesses that they had voted for someone else.

Many RP Supporters' worst fears after last Monday's "Strategic Press Release" are now realized and confirmed. Two primaries, both whom, with some "active Campaigning", probably would have resulted in reaching the magic 15% threshold for delegates, were wasted tonight. Thank our Campaign Strategists for their political intellect. Ron didl not come close to 15% tonight in either State.

I hope Jesse and John are sleeping well.....I know Jesse is after the press reported this week that his salary and bonus haul from the Campaign thus far is over $586,000.00 and rising. Nice work if you can get it.

And one wonders why many in the RP Nation tonight are not very happy warriors for Liberty!!!

Not to derail too much, but since Benton's pay was brought up: I understand hiring someone close to you to be in your campaign. I understand paying exorbitant amounts of money to secure the best talent possible. But I don't understand paying exorbitant amounts of money to someone close to you. If you're not competing in the wider labor pool for top-notch campaign staff, it doesn't make sense to pay more than a living wage to someone who you would be able to get anyway.

Maybe this whole "RP2012" thing really was just about enriching the Paul family coffers. Well, at least Paul won't run again so I won't have to wrestle with donating or not.

[Brett85]

What?!?

RP clearly said that he would defend the nation abroad with diplomacy and at home with forceful defense at the borders. It was the slanderous media take on Ron that never publicized his stance and made it sound like he was just going to disband the military to let China invade.

You sound just like a CNN reporter that claimed that RP "never addressed" the newsletters; you're ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.

No, klamath is correct. Ron never put forth a vision on how he would defend our country. He said that a border fence would be "used to keep us in," which didn't give GOP voters much confidence that he supports border security or a strong homeland security. I agree strongly with Ron's foreign policy views, but his overall view/plans on national security sounded weak, or simply non existent.

[mczerone]

No, klamath is correct. Ron never put forth a vision on how he would defend our country. He said that a border fence would be "used to keep us in," which didn't give GOP voters much confidence that he supports border security or a strong homeland security. I agree strongly with Ron's foreign policy views, but his overall view/plans on national security sounded weak, or simply non existant.

I'm not going to go find the debate footage for you, but I vividly remember him saying that we should be putting our diplomats to work to secure our nations peace, that the troops would be pulled back and stationed at home to defend the homeland from attack, and that he would vigorously fight any war that was declared by Congress with a specific enemy and specific goals.

Sorry you missed it. You must have been watching FoxNews.

[Brett85]

I'm not going to go find the debate footage for you, but I vividly remember him saying that we should be putting our diplomats to work to secure our nations peace, that the troops would be pulled back and stationed at home to defend the homeland from attack, and that he would vigorously fight any war that was declared by Congress with a specific enemy and specific goals.

Sorry you missed it. You must have been watching FoxNews.

I don't remember hearing that during any debate. He went back and forth on the issue of border security, even saying during one Fox News interview that he opposed sending our troops to the border. But, even if he had said what you claimed he said, a national security stategy has to be more detailed than simply border security. He could've talked about his vision more and included things like missile defense, how he would use our military to defend our country here at home, developing high tech weapons systems, etc.

But, he didn't do any of that. He just conceded the issue and allowed GOP voters to believe he was weak on national defense.

[peluski17]

After looking at the numbers both received almost the same amount of votes.

Paul 22071
Massie 19684

[Brett85]

That's but one example of why liberty candidates like Rand, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie are having success, and Ron isn't. It's all in the messaging.

[trey4sports]

That's but one example of why liberty candidates like Rand, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie are having success, and Ron isn't. It's all in the messaging.

yeah, it's ashame you have to water down a good message to get elected. shows the stupidity of the people in this country.

[floridasun1983]

Politicians spend most of their efforts creating a public perception of themselves. That IS the point of the campaign. Obama painted himself as the candidate of "Hope and Change," McCain was the "Maverick," Romney has painted himself as the "businessman who can get American back to work," and so on and so forth. Ron's campaign did some of this early on but after Iowa they seemed to all but quit (the Big Dog ad was our high water mark). The attempts to "sell" Ron just stopped.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Massie didn't run as a Ron Paul Republican. He ran as a Rand Paul Republican.

[Karsten]

4 years ago Ron Paul won his congressional primary by a huge margin, and most people who voted for him for congress in tx 14 did NOT vote for him for president. SAME MAN.

[Karsten]

yeah, it's ashame you have to water down a good message to get elected. shows the stupidity of the people in this country.

And why I would never win. I wouldn't water anything down and I wouldn't be considered conservative enough on social issues.

[J_White]

and guess how they got that idea last week ?


Because, according to the media, Ron Paul dropped out.

[J_White]

hmm, quite true.
probably the campaign realized that if they cant take Iowa, all else would be only harder ?
it just showed the power of the media and the "social CONservatives".


Politicians spend most of their efforts creating a public perception of themselves. That IS the point of the campaign. Obama painted himself as the candidate of "Hope and Change," McCain was the "Maverick," Romney has painted himself as the "businessman who can get American back to work," and so on and so forth. Ron's campaign did some of this early on but after Iowa they seemed to all but quit (the Big Dog ad was our high water mark). The attempts to "sell" Ron just stopped.

[specsaregood]

Massie is not running for the comander in chief office, RP is.

There are a LOT of people, who adamantly oppose a Dr. Paul presidency but will grudgingly admit they are very happy to have him in congress. Hell, you could even get limbaugh and hannity to say that.

[thoughtomator]

The media has conditioned many people to tune out anything associated with the name Ron Paul. But they will stomp and cheer for the same exact message associated with a different name.

It's OK. The message is what needs to be taken into the hearts of the people, and the change we want flows from there. Build, build, build those bridges.

[Sola_Fide]

Massie didn't run as a Ron Paul Republican. He ran as a Rand Paul Republican.

I'm not so sure about that. I witnessed a good number of average conservatives have a noticeable gut check with some of their positions...especially what they believed about civil liberties and war. Purely anecdotal, yes I know...but I did witness it and hear it several times.


If anything, Rand had already softened so many people to Ron's rock solid positions that Thomas Massie was a no-brainer. This is the power of a figure like Rand Paul. We need the Rand Pauls in the liberty movement every bit as much as we need the Ron Pauls.


Here is what Thomas said tonight. Couldn't agree more with this assessment:


"Some people want to make this race about the tea party," Massie said after securing the victory. "Good campaigns and good government are about building coalitions. This is a coalition of the tea party, the liberty movement and grassroots Ronald Reagan Republicans. And we have one thing in common: We want less government, not more."

[musicmax]

After looking at the numbers both received almost the same amount of votes.

Paul 22071
Massie 19684

The difference being that Massie got 19K in ONE district out of Kentucky's SIX districts. RP got 22K in the whole STATE.

[speciallyblend]

Because, according to the media, Ron Paul dropped out.

well i would love to blame the media on this one. The rphq opened the door for this! so i have to blame the ron paul campaign and not the media for allowing this meme to be brought out endorsed by the ron paul campaign. I can only hope it is a false flag operation created by the rphq because that is how the media got ahold of this meme from rphq!

[drummergirl]

How about fraud?

[The Free Hornet]

well i would love to blame the media on this one. The rphq opened the door for this! so i have to blame the ron paul campaign and not the media for allowing this meme to be brought out endorsed by the ron paul campaign. I can only hope it is a false flag operation created by the rphq because that is how the media got ahold of this meme from rphq!

The media read what they wanted to read. Even before Iowa, people asked me, "Is Ron Paul still running?". People that buy newspapers, listen to news radio, and vote Republican. As concerns the primary state pissing contests, I don't think the campaign's latest releases had much affect. But who the hell knows because they are not even polling any more. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html)

I hope the delegate strategy works but - more importantly - I hope the 15% or so that voted Ron Paul do not go back. Their apathy cannot be allowed to relapse. Me too - not that I was ever clinically apathetic as I only lacked hope not feeling, concern, and interest.

[LibertyEagle]

Not to derail too much, but since Benton's pay was brought up: I understand hiring someone close to you to be in your campaign. I understand paying exorbitant amounts of money to secure the best talent possible. But I don't understand paying exorbitant amounts of money to someone close to you. If you're not competing in the wider labor pool for top-notch campaign staff, it doesn't make sense to pay more than a living wage to someone who you would be able to get anyway.

Maybe this whole "RP2012" thing really was just about enriching the Paul family coffers. Well, at least Paul won't run again so I won't have to wrestle with donating or not.

Before you make a bigger ass of yourself, I suggest you check your facts a bit more. That money that some here seem to think was all salary, was not; the vast majority of it was reimbursements. Since you have been a member here since 2008, you must have seen these same kind of accusations flying around then and also saw how they fell flat on their faces. So, I find it rather odd that you are spreading this bullshit this time around.

[speciallyblend]

The media read what they wanted to read. Even before Iowa, people asked me, "Is Ron Paul still running?". People that buy newspapers, listen to news radio, and vote Republican. As concerns the primary state pissing contests, I don't think the campaign's latest releases had much affect. But who the hell knows because they are not even polling any more. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html)

I hope the delegate strategy works but - more importantly - I hope the 15% or so that voted Ron Paul do not go back. Their apathy cannot be allowed to relapse. Me too - not that I was ever clinically apathetic as I only lacked hope not feeling, concern, and interest.

i hear ya,

[LibertyEagle]

Last Monday's e-mail was a dreadful piece put out by our Campaign brain-trust of Jesse and John.

Many threads on both the RP Forums and the Daily Paul had eyewitnesses who reported talking to numerous voters in both Arkansas and Kentucky today. These voters were genuinely surprised when told that Ron Paul was still an active candidate. After last Monday's press release and the media's take of it, they were convinced Ron has suspended his Campaign. As a result, they told the eyewitnesses that they had voted for someone else.

Many RP Supporters' worst fears after last Monday's "Strategic Press Release" are now realized and confirmed. Two primaries, both whom, with some "active Campaigning", probably would have resulted in reaching the magic 15% threshold for delegates, were wasted tonight. Thank our Campaign Strategists for their political intellect. Ron didl not come close to 15% tonight in either State.

I hope Jesse and John are sleeping well.....I know Jesse is after the press reported this week that his salary and bonus haul from the Campaign thus far is over $586,000.00 and rising. Nice work if you can get it.

And one wonders why many in the RP Nation tonight are not very happy warriors for Liberty!!!

Are you hoping that if you repeat this lie enough that everyone will believe it? You were another one who was here during the last election when the same kind of accusations were being thrown around. You also must remember how the people so vociferous about the insults were wiping egg off their faces for days, when the truth was discovered.

I wasn't happy with Ron's note either; nor the press release surrounding it. But, that's no reason to make this whole situation worse by spreading untruths.

[EBounding]

RP clearly said that he would defend the nation abroad with diplomacy and at home with forceful defense at the borders.

Yes, but he never said how he would defend the nation's borders. He was very clear in what he wouldn't do (warmongering, intervention), but he never really explained what national defense would look like instead under his administration. He said that he wouldn't cut national defense, but he never explained to the people what he wouldn't be cutting. So people just assumed he was lying.

The fact is, most of us aren't entirely sure what national defense would look like with Paul as CiC. All we know is it would be Constitutional and would yield peace.

.... oh well....

[cindy25]

the same can be said about Ron winning his house seat , Rand in the senate, Justin in the house.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yes, but he never said how he would defend the nation's borders. He was very clear in what he wouldn't do (warmongering, intervention), but he never really explained what national defense would look like instead under his administration. He said that he wouldn't cut national defense, but he never explained to the people what he wouldn't be cutting. So people just assumed he was lying.

The fact is, most of us aren't entirely sure what national defense would look like with Paul as CiC. All we know is it would be Constitutional and would yield peace.

.... oh well....

On the one hand, Ron rails against central planning in every speech he ever makes.

On the other hand... his supporters want him to extol the virtues of central planning!

Romney's never given a speech about how he'd defend the country. I've never heard of any president or presidential candidate laying out such a plan.

[EBounding]

Romney's never given a speech about how he'd defend the country. I've never heard of any president or presidential candidate laying out such a plan.

Romney said he would have this "giant invincible army" (paraphrasing) and went on to explain all the ships and weapons he would expand with money we don't have. Paul never explained (at least in a national debate) what he would still like to see funded instead of the wars. The only thing he explained was what he would do in hypothetical scenarios, like with the Panama Canal. But I don't think even that was mentioned in a debate.

Paul (or us now) has to explain how he'd defend the country because people think more wars = more national defense. That paradigm has to be broken.

[klamath]

What?!?

RP clearly said that he would defend the nation abroad with diplomacy and at home with forceful defense at the borders. It was the slanderous media take on Ron that never publicized his stance and made it sound like he was just going to disband the military to let China invade.

You sound just like a CNN reporter that claimed that RP "never addressed" the newsletters; you're ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.Nope. He never put a defence plan together like he did his economic plan. He didn't even need his economic plan as most republicans were on board with him on that. ("I agree with everthing except his foreign policy") He said he would defend the country but not how he would defend the country. That is like saying I am going to cut unemployment. Yeaw everyone wants unemployment cut but they disagree how you are going to do it unless you sell them on how you can do it. RP didn't and never tried.
The only weapons system he mentioned was an experimental aircraft that could get to anyplace in the world in an hour. It failed. That looks uninformed and weak.

[sailingaway]

Because, according to the media, Ron Paul dropped out.

this, also the pac that was supporting Ron in TX went to support Massie in KY, right at the time the campaign email came out saying they weren't going to spend more mone on primary states. I'm pretty sure the timing wasn't accidental. The founder of the PAC is a Texas student.

Also, Rand didn't campaign for Ron there, and did Massie even endorse Ron? and Ron didn't campaign there.

but every day in the week before the primary there were stories in KY papers about how Romney was now the only one running that Santorum Paul and Gingrich 'would be on the ballot even though they dropped out'. I was grinding my teeth.

[sailingaway]

the same can be said about Ron winning his house seat , Rand in the senate, Justin in the house.

No, Ron was running in first place for the Senate seat in TX when Hutchison said she wasn't running. He didn't want it and went for another presidential run. But if he had used his capital in that way I'm pretty sure he would have gotten it. It is just that discussing it we even didn't see reason for him to leave seniority in the house and a subcommittee for a junior Senate position where he'd be put on low flow toilet committees as long as they could get away with it -- or until he retired.

We have enough strength and money to combat media on a statewide race, but apparently not yet on a nationwide race.

[brandon]

I don't know why you expect correlation. I'd be willing to bet if you poll the district you will find the percent of people that know Massie was endorsed by Ron Paul is smaller than the percent of people that voted for Ron Paul.

[Occam's Banana]

Romney's never given a speech about how he'd defend the country. I've never heard of any president or presidential candidate laying out such a plan.

Exactly! RP might have given a better presentation of the substance of his NatDef "plan." But I doubt it would have mattered much.

When it comes down to it, it's all about impressions, not substance. And Ron Paul doesn't do impressions ...

[BUSHLIED]

Not to derail too much, but since Benton's pay was brought up: I understand hiring someone close to you to be in your campaign. I understand paying exorbitant amounts of money to secure the best talent possible. But I don't understand paying exorbitant amounts of money to someone close to you. If you're not competing in the wider labor pool for top-notch campaign staff, it doesn't make sense to pay more than a living wage to someone who you would be able to get anyway.

Maybe this whole "RP2012" thing really was just about enriching the Paul family coffers. Well, at least Paul won't run again so I won't have to wrestle with donating or not.

Certainly one aspect to consider...it'll hurt Rand a little for sure.

[Ivash]

Are you hoping that if you repeat this lie enough that everyone will believe it? You were another one who was here during the last election when the same kind of accusations were being thrown around. You also must remember how the people so vociferous about the insults were wiping egg off their faces for days, when the truth was discovered.

I wasn't happy with Ron's note either; nor the press release surrounding it. But, that's no reason to make this whole situation worse by spreading untruths.

Or, you know, instead of it being a lie they might actually believe it...

[klamath]

On the one hand, Ron rails against central planning in every speech he ever makes.

On the other hand... his supporters want him to extol the virtues of central planning!

[B]Romney's never given a speech about how he'd defend the country. I've never heard of any president or presidential candidate laying out such a plan.
As pointed out Romney DID give a speach but he didn't have to. RP is the only one that is calling for the scrapping of 75 years of American defense posture. Every other candidate basically says I support the the status quo defense posture with a few twicks and people accept that so RP's position is the one that needs to be sold to the american people.
Be proud though. RP followed your advise and we have TWO war mongering candidates in the fall.

[peluski17]

I don't know why you expect correlation. I'd be willing to bet if you poll the district you will find the percent of people that know Massie was endorsed by Ron Paul is smaller than the percent of people that voted for Ron Paul.

I'm basing my expectation of correlation on the assumption that those who voted for Thomas Massie also voted for Ron Paul. I'll need to take a closer look at the numbers, but based on the results this assumption is false.

[sailingaway]

That's but one example of why liberty candidates like Rand, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie are having success, and Ron isn't. It's all in the messaging.

In a GOP primary in the south. but there is a lot of competition for those votes, and would the Texas student PAC donor who funded his ads have been excited enough to do that by that messaging? Or did it take Ron's?

--
edit

Saw this later. As I thought, the guy who funded Massie's ads was a Ron Paul supporter turned onto Massie by other Paul supporters: http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/ron-pauls-supporters-turn-attention-to-down-ballot-2370748.html

[sailingaway]

I'm basing my expectation of correlation on the assumption that those who voted for Thomas Massie also voted for Ron Paul. I'll need to take a closer look at the numbers, but based on the results this assumption is false.

Massie hadn't been demonized country wide, but it is more than that. Ron always won his own district easily, and was tied for first in polling for a Senate seat in TX before he showed he wasn't interested. In a presidential election you are picking your favorite in a country, the competition is a lot greater than for a congressional district, in terms of having options more refined to your tastes. You really can't compare them.

I think it is terrific some of the people I supported in KY won, but what Ron is is the pied piper. He wakes people up to the possibilities in the first place, and there is nothing else like him, so there is no competition once you realize he is what you want.

Rand will do better in the GOP primary, I predict, but he may have the up and down swings the others had this time, the big difference will be Ron's organization, if it gets behind Rand, will keep him from ever bottoming out as the others did, until the next updraft comes. the rest remains to be seen.

[TheTyke]

As someone pointed out, in his home district in 2008, Ron got 75%+ of the vote for congress, but only 14% by the same people for President. There are a lot of factors, but I think the biggest is the "inevitability" image painted for these candidates.

Rand and Thomas were successful not only because they were properly funded and had volunteers applying all their efforts to a small area, but also because people were convinced they could win and were legitimate contenders for the area.

[sailingaway]

As pointed out Romney DID give a speach but he didn't have to. RP is the only one that is calling for the scrapping of 75 years of American defense posture. Every other candidate basically says I support the the status quo defense posture with a few twicks and people accept that so RP's position is the one that needs to be sold to the american people.
Be proud though. RP followed your advise and we have TWO war mongering candidates in the fall.

correlation not causation. We also have people on the left now woken up as he woke people on the right up in 2008. Not that I agree with your phrasing of what Ron is doing.

[The Free Hornet]

Yes, but he never said how he would defend the nation's borders. He was very clear in what he wouldn't do (warmongering, intervention), but he never really explained what national defense would look like instead under his administration. He said that he wouldn't cut national defense, but he never explained to the people what he wouldn't be cutting. So people just assumed he was lying.

Without consulting any notes, news stories, campaign material, what would 'national defense' look like under:

Romney?
Gingrich?
Santorum?
Perry?
Bachmann?
Cain?

What were their clear visions?

With Ron Paul, I recall

1) Subs/tridents
2) bringing troops home
3) not engaging forces needlessly or providing military welfare

With the other candidates, some were pro-fence others were anti-fence, but only Ron Paul would ensure the resources are here domestically if want a militarized fence.

We maintain our nuke arsenal with about 50 billion dollars (5% of the trillion or so budget - depending on how you do the math) and every other weapon in comparison including the fresh-faced recruits who will soon lose their limbs is a drop in the ocean. We have decommissioned two thirds of our megatonnage of destruction as the military budget has gone up and cost to human lives has skyrocketed. What the hell do you want from Paul? Affirmation of this strategy? Building billion dollar planes that will likely be outmatched by million dollar drones?

We not only have wasted trillions on the wrong wars but we are wasting hundreds of billions if not trillions on the last wars. If we had built up prior to WW2, would we have built the correct weapons? Our total defense budget ought to be halved, halved again, and halved again.

If America actually needed defense domestically, we could go from one gun behind every blade of grass to two guns. 300 million people multiplied by $1000 for personal armaments is only $300 billion. We don't lack for the ability to defend ourselves. The only lacking was the amount of power ceded to the MIC, PIC, Fed, and DC ruling juggernaut (surveillance, privacy, civil rights, due process). They want to keep power and expand power and that is what the press AND the RPF detractors mean by "clear" vision for national defense. That is what was meant by "weak on national defense" by the press or neocons.

If I have any criticism for the campaign it would be that these mofos weren't called out more so and at every opportunity.



The fact is, most of us aren't entirely sure what national defense would look like with Paul as CiC. All we know is it would be Constitutional and would yield peace.

[Bastiat's The Law]

That's but one example of why liberty candidates like Rand, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie are having success, and Ron isn't. It's all in the messaging.
This is the crux of the matter. We didn't get our message out there. It takes time to educate voters so they see where Dr. Paul is coming from. Newt was fond of using Lincoln–Douglas Debates to get his message out there and garner attention. The Paul campaign should've held economic and foreign policy summits with experts in those fields all across the early states. It would also give voters a glimpse of what type of Presidential cabinet Ron Paul would surround himself with.

[RonPaulMall]

Without consulting any notes, news stories, campaign material, what would 'national defense' look like under:

Romney?
Gingrich?
Santorum?
Perry?
Bachmann?
Cain?

What were their clear visions?

With Ron Paul, I recall

1) Subs/tridents
2) bringing troops home
3) not engaging forces needlessly or providing military welfare

With the other candidates, some were pro-fence others were anti-fence, but only Ron Paul would ensure the resources are here domestically if want a militarized fence.

Democracy is about securing votes, and the vast majority of voters are stupid and uniformed. Facts might get you sliver of the electorate, but it will never be enough to win an election nationwide assuming the current size and demographics of the United States. Ron Paul's problem is perception. The way he frames foreign policy turns off the majority of the electorate. The typical Republican thinks he's a terrorist loving hippie. It isn't the policy, it is the message. The only way to successfully sell non-interventionism to the masses is through nationalist rhetoric, not internationalist rhetoric. Ron Paul puts himself in the position of the people we are bombing and asks how we'd feel if they did that to us. Intellectually, a great argument, but a sure loser with the American public. Ron Paul is honestly and genuinely disgusted at the massive number of innocent civilians killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The average American cares more about the life of a stray cat than they do an innocent Pakistani teen. The good news is the same policy can be sold in a way that appeals to the masses. Instead of arguing how Afghans feel when we blow up their buildings and murder their children, you ask "why are we wasting American resources on these darn furigners!" "American tax dollars should be spent fixing failing bridges in America, not building bridges in Kabul!" "Why are American soldiers dying to prop up the corrupt government of Harmid Karzi and keep a bunch of fat Saudi Princes on the throne?" The average American is never going to accept that what America does overseas is generally evil. Arguing that point is a losing proposition. Rand Paul and Thomas Massie understand the way to properly sell non-interventionism. Pat Buchanan understood it too. His FP isn't much different than Ron's, but you never hear him referred to as "weak" or "terrorist loving". To the contrary, he's usually slurred as some kind of macho right wing Nazi.

[EBounding]

Without consulting any notes, news stories, campaign material, what would 'national defense' look like under:

Romney?
Gingrich?
Santorum?
Perry?
Bachmann?
Cain?

Their "vision" is to spend whatever amount necessary to have the strongest military on Earth, to defeat dictators, liberate the oppressed, and fight terrorism. Basically the same policy for the past several decades.

I think you completely misunderstood what I said though. I don't endorse/believe these things at all. I agree with everything you said. I just understand the point of view of the "except his foreign policy" people. They think Paul is just going to pull the troops in and have no plan for national defense.

Paul never really said "Yes, we won't have overseas bases, but here's why overseas bases make us weaker and why my plan is superior". He could have went on to explain how the US military's capabilities dwarf any other nation. He never linked gun rights to national defense in any debate that I recall. He didn't detail what he would like to see in a defense budget instead of the status quo. I think if he listed off all the things that would still be funded, it would have satisfied a lot of people. Yes, he said that submarines are useful weapons, but not in any national debate.

[Brett85]

On the one hand, Ron rails against central planning in every speech he ever makes.

On the other hand... his supporters want him to extol the virtues of central planning!

Romney's never given a speech about how he'd defend the country. I've never heard of any president or presidential candidate laying out such a plan.

Most people believe that the federal government has a duty to provide for the common defense, even libertarians. The fact that Ron would get criticized for "central planning" for coming out with a national defense strategy illustrates why he never had a chance to win over conservative Republicans.

Romney has put out a very detailed "national defense" strategy. Unfortunately, it looks much more like "offense" than it does "defense."

[The Free Hornet]

They think Paul is just going to pull the troops in and have no plan for national defense.

No. They think he is going to end the fed, stop deficit spending, follow the constitution, spend within our means (including defense), and end the IRS. "Defense" is a smoke screen and I wasn't fooled.


Democracy is about securing votes, and the vast majority of voters are stupid and uniformed.

Yeah, maybe he should have promised to bomb GE and send a drone after Bernanke. That could have gotten votes.