PDA

View Full Version : The Republican Base Must Be Won




brianf31
01-04-2008, 11:13 PM
Ron Paul attracts a lot of independent and libertarian minded folks. That's terrific, but he can't win w/o capturing a considerable amount of the GOP base. Just won't happen, even if he did run as an independent. Coming from that base, let me tell you how I came around. Maybe it will help to build a road map for capturing the base.

I'm a poster child for the GOP. White Southern male, college educated professional and even an evangelical Christian (oh my!). RNC card carrying member that voted for the Bushes all 4 times and for Dole in the middle. Never voted for a Democrat in my entire life, not even in a local election.

I thought the GOP was sincere when they courted the Religious Right. Thought the Contract With America and Gingrich were brilliant. I knew we were justified to attack in the Middle East to protect our foreign interests.

But then I started to notice something wasn't right. NAFTA just didn't seem right. There weren't any WMD's in Iraq. Why is a R president spending money like it's going out of style? They haven't done a darn thing with Social Security, and I'll never collect a dime of it!

And the straw that broke the camel's back: amnesty for illegal aliens. I have been betrayed. A latent anger began to build.

The GOP has been hijacked by neoconservatives (never knew the term until a year ago). I can't ever vote for socialist Democrats, so who will I support?

And then I found Paul...

So there you have it. Hit the base with the things that alienated me and you will win them to Paul. Talk about:

- The crumbling dollar, credit crisis
- Drastically reducing taxes and spending by shrinking federal Govt
- How we can't afford foreign wars for other countries
- The changing fabric of the country.
- How RP will work to eliminate IRS, etc.

Don't reach out to the GOP base with talk about:
- Legalizing marijuana
- Gay marriage
- Anti-war philosophy ( I know the difference between isolationism and non-intervention, but there was no difference a year ago)
- Denigrating evangelicals; that's a good way to lose the ENTIRE SOUTH.

Those libertarian ideas take a LONG TIME to accept (if you ever can), and you'll only lose them if you push it too hard.

That's my journey and my opinion on how to capture crucial support. So go reach out to your Red State friends. No offense intended to the L's and I's. of course:)

Real_CaGeD
01-04-2008, 11:22 PM
"I am the REAL CONSERVATIVE" RP

I am a true Right Winger from Georgia. I understand your trouble with some of the platform. What you must understand is that conservatism is not what the tv has told you it is. First the msm started PC and made "right wing" mean something horrible. The msm and cfr then replaced conservatives with compassionate conservatives, the neocons.

The issues you have trouble with are truely conservative. One day we could have a discussion on the fact that on the horizontal political scale the right wing is the founding documents, and Global empire and war for the MIC are everything the founding ideology is against.

5, because I have been trying to get the grassroots to embrace the R base by using the word conservative, and Republican.

Dave Wood
01-04-2008, 11:27 PM
Ron Paul attracts a lot of independent and libertarian minded folks. That's terrific, but he can't win w/o capturing a considerable amount of the GOP base. Just won't happen, even if he did run as an independent. Coming from that base, let me tell you how I came around. Maybe it will help to build a road map for capturing the base.

I'm a poster child for the GOP. White Southern male, college educated professional and even an evangelical Christian (oh my!). RNC card carrying member that voted for the Bushes all 4 times and for Dole in the middle. Never voted for a Democrat in my entire life, not even in a local election.

I thought the GOP was sincere when they courted the Religious Right. Thought the Contract With America and Gingrich were brilliant. I knew we were justified to attack in the Middle East to protect our foreign interests.

But then I started to notice something wasn't right. NAFTA just didn't seem right. There weren't any WMD's in Iraq. Why is a R president spending money like it's going out of style? They haven't done a darn thing with Social Security, and I'll never collect a dime of it!

And the straw that broke the camel's back: amnesty for illegal aliens. I have been betrayed. A latent anger began to build.

The GOP has been hijacked by neoconservatives (never knew the term until a year ago). I can't ever vote for socialist Democrats, so who will I support?

And then I found Paul...

So there you have it. Hit the base with the things that alienated me and you will win them to Paul. Talk about:

- The crumbling dollar, credit crisis
- Drastically reducing taxes and spending by shrinking federal Govt
- How we can't afford foreign wars for other countries
- The changing fabric of the country.
- How RP will work to eliminate IRS, etc.

Don't reach out to the GOP base with talk about:
- Legalizing marijuana
- Gay marriage
- Anti-war philosophy ( I know the difference between isolationism and non-intervention, but there was no difference a year ago)
- Denigrating evangelicals; that's a good way to lose the ENTIRE SOUTH.

Those libertarian ideas take a LONG TIME to accept (if you ever can), and you'll only lose them if you push it too hard.

That's my journey and my opinion on how to capture crucial support. So go reach out to your Red State friends. No offense intended to the L's and I's. of course:)

Like your post Brian and welcome! You make sense but where exactly do you find the old GOP base?

Real_CaGeD
01-04-2008, 11:36 PM
Bump to the top, and will do so all night because I am tired of this forum ignoring threads with the words conservative and Republican.

Brad Zink
01-04-2008, 11:36 PM
If you could find printouts of those who voted Republican in 2004, you would have a really good demographic to target.

Real_CaGeD
01-04-2008, 11:37 PM
If you could find printouts of those who voted Republican in 2004, you would have a really good demographic to target.

I am sure HQ has the data.

TTB
01-04-2008, 11:38 PM
I have always been a Ron Paul fan and a constitutionalist. I even supported GWB in 2000 thinking that he would implement a truly humble foreign policy. But then when he started promoting preemptive war I asked one question: Where is the incontrovertible proof that Iraq is an imminent threat to us? As we found out, it was all a complete sham.

I have a similar background as the OP and would like to second his suggestions. Most of the Republican base doesn't even know they are no longer Republican. Do not write them off. I would suggest that in closed primary states, the message be tailored to the Republican base as the OP suggets. However, in open primaries, the message can be broadened (i.e. target some of Obama's support, Independents, etc...)

Just my 2 cents.

Here's a good quote (from Otto Von Bismark) to use when discussing the Iraq war with a member of the Republican base:

"Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death."

The Iraq war is the ONLY sticking point for my Mom's conversion to Ron Paul. I already have won over my Dad, two sisters and two brothers. Four more siblings to go + in-laws. :)

Tom

Real_CaGeD
01-04-2008, 11:42 PM
I have always been a Ron Paul fan and a constitutionalist. I even supported GWB in 2000 thinking that he would implement a truly humble foreign policy. But then when he started promoting preemptive war I asked one question: Where is the incontrovertible proof that Iraq is an imminent threat to us? As we found out, it was all a complete sham.

I have a similar background as the OP and would like to second his suggestions. Most of the Republican base doesn't even know they are no longer Republican. Do not write them off. I would suggest that in closed primary states, the message be tailored to the Republican base as the OP suggets. However, in open primaries, the message can be broadened (i.e. target some of Obama's support, Independents, etc...)

Just my 2 cents.

Here's a good quote (from Otto Von Bismark) to use when discussing the Iraq war with a member of the Republican base:

"Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death."

The Iraq war is the ONLY sticking point for my Mom's conversion to Ron Paul. I already have won over my Dad, two sisters and two brothers. Four more siblings to go + in-laws. :)

Tom

Populism to garner democratic support is exactly the wrong thing to do to bring the shattered R party to RP at this time. Plus, you would have to lie to get a Democrat to vote for RP, unless that Democrat is a single issue voter(war) and knows the D's are lying their asses off.

Dave Wood
01-04-2008, 11:44 PM
Why havent you posted here before Tom? I mean more than twice? Your very clear, most of the republican base doesnt know that they are actually Democrats now. LOL All thanks to our corporate brainwashing box (tv).

LFOD
01-04-2008, 11:46 PM
Good input, thanks. We need a consistent message about the war that unites both the strong anti-war people, and the Republican base that's fed up with Bush. Sounds like emphasizing "we can't afford it" might do the trick. Ron Paul does say this consistently. I like the approach of defusing the issue by saying "even if you support the war, the fact is we can't afford it."

Right now I think they're shying away from the war in the current ads. Mistake.

Ron2Win
01-04-2008, 11:47 PM
Welcome aboard. Thank you for your support and suggestions.

Now, please get on the phone and talk to 10 of your family members and neighbors and everyone about the good Dr.

Bern
01-04-2008, 11:47 PM
Nice post. See the first 2 links in my sig for more ideas on reaching the Republican base.

Real_CaGeD
01-04-2008, 11:50 PM
He IS the real conservative candidate.

TwiLeXia
01-04-2008, 11:50 PM
Great post. We need to show the republican base what it ONCE was, and what has happened to it, and get them to realize that they have been controlled.

Spirit of '76
01-04-2008, 11:50 PM
Great post.

See my similar thoughts here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=75080

Real_CaGeD
01-04-2008, 11:53 PM
Usurp,To take over or occupy without right.

Conservatism,com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm" the founding ideologies.

The Republican party has been usurped.

Scott Wilson
01-04-2008, 11:53 PM
http://voters.ronpaul2008.com/


Signup as a precinct captain. You will get a list of every registered voter in your precinct to follow up with.

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-04-2008, 11:59 PM
RP will never, ever win over the evangelical and Christian sheep. His stance on legal drugs alone would prevent them from ever supporting him.

Forget the GOP and focus on independents for a third party run.

Real_CaGeD
01-05-2008, 12:02 AM
The 10% from Iowa are the Republican party brain trust.

"This is only the beggining."

Real_CaGeD
01-05-2008, 12:03 AM
RP will never, ever win over the evangelical and Christian sheep. His stance on legal drugs alone would prevent them from ever supporting him.

Forget the GOP and focus on independents for a third party run.

You fail to understand there is a fight for the Republican party under way. You are not tuned in to the discussion within the party.

Spirit of '76
01-05-2008, 12:08 AM
You fail to understand there is a fight for the Republican party under way. You are not tuned in to the discussion within the party.

Exactly.

Real_CaGeD
01-05-2008, 12:16 AM
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080105/FRONTPAGE/801050301


While Ron Paul mostly has been depicted in the media as a political oddity whose following is limited to libertarians and bloggers, Paul's past shows he knows how to win tough campaigns - even when he has to fight his own party's power brokers, as he did to win a congressional seat in 1996.

It was just two years after the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, led by Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America. Republicans were trying to expand their first House majority in decades. But Paul was hardly the kind of reliable partisan the party wanted to boost its ranks. Although he had served as a Republican congressman in the late 1970s and '80s, he had run for president against George H.W. Bush as the Libertarian Party's nominee in 1988, and he had a reputation for harboring quirky passions, such as restoring the gold standard for U.S. currency.

He visited the state's Republican congressmen in Washington to discuss his plans before announcing his candidacy. The Texas delegation could have decided to help Paul with valuable financial support and endorsements.

Paul said in an interview that he thought they'd be happy to have another Republican in the delegation, but that's not what happened. "I didn't think they were going to do what they did," he said.

What they did, to hear Paul tell the story, was to recruit Greg Laughlin, the incumbent Democrat, to run as a Republican.

Laughlin said that he had a good relationship with many of the Republican activists in Texas long before his switch and had considered becoming a

Republican soon after the party's resounding 1994 victory in the national elections. Either way, Laughlin's party switch was the first sign of trouble for Paul's nascent bid.

Both Texas senators endorsed Laughlin in the primary, as did Gingrich, who was then the House speaker. Both George Bushes campaigned for Laughlin.

But Paul won the Republican nomination, and then the seat. And he did so in much the same style he's employed in his current presidential campaign. He combined a folksy manner with a savvy political strategy. His ideals inspired dedication in his supporters and staff. He drew on the support of longtime backers who shared his libertarian philosophy, while tailoring his stump speech to mainstream Republicans.

"He was a very competent, very savvy opponent," Laughlin said. "One observer said to me he was almost deceptive in how he delivered his message."

Personal campaigning

In January 1996, Tom Lizardo was preparing to fly to Texas to start working for Paul's campaign. The night before his flight, Paul called him and said that he was polling at 6 percent, far behind Laughlin, at 44. Lizardo came anyway.

"He was the type of person who struck me very clearly as capable of taking an uphill battle and doing something with it," said Lizardo, who is now Paul's chief of staff. Lizardo met Paul in the 1980s, as a member of a conservative activist group called the Young Americans for Freedom.

Paul's district in southeastern Texas comprised 22 counties and bordered the expensive media markets of Houston and Austin. Most of the population was white, conservative and church-going.

Every weekend, Lizardo joined Paul on the campaign trail across the Texas plains, where Paul liked to listen to elevator music or financial news as he drove his pickup truck to the next stop.

Paul's family often joined him in his campaign travels. His 11-year-old granddaughters wore red, white and blue dresses sewn by his wife, Carol. Local supporters would meet the family, she said, and help with the campaign.

"We would all fan out," Carol Paul said. "Two of our granddaughters might go to a door, with one of their moms. And they'd say, 'I'm Laura and I'm Valori, and our granddad's walking in the neighborhood. Would you like to meet him? He's running for Congress.' "

That approach usually worked, Carol Paul said. The adult chaperone would hand out campaign literature while the girls ran to fetch their grandfather. Older grandchildren would sing and play the guitar.

Lizardo said that voters who lived hours away from the Paul family home in Lake Jackson would recognize Ron Paul, a former obstetrician, as the man who delivered their children.

"It had a lot to do with personal connection in the end," Lizardo said.

Paul produced and distributed 30,000 copies of a video describing his political positions and biography. In it, his wife told the story of the family's move to Texas after Paul's medical internship in Detroit and talked about his joy in delivering babies. Paul said that the primary job of the federal government was to defend the country, not control education. The video was interspersed with words of praise from Ronald Reagan, The Wall Street Journal, and Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. (After the release of the video, former attorney general Edwin Meese flew to Texas to clarify that Reagan had not endorsed Paul for the primary. Like most other Republicans, Meese endorsed Laughlin.)

In the video, Paul did not mention his Libertarian run for president eight years earlier, but he did explain his belief that a limited federal government was in line with the Constitution.

Laughlin said that was consistent with the approach Paul took during 1996 campaign.

"When he was asked about his run for president, he said that it was an experiment," Laughlin said. "He was back in the Republican Party."

Casting a wide net

Even as he courted voters as a traditional Republican, Paul looked beyond the party and the state of Texas for support and money. Throughout the campaign, Paul raised money from a nationwide base of supporters dating to his Libertarian Party days. Starting in the 1970s, Paul's Foundation for Rational Economic Education (FREE) published and mailed a newsletter to thousands of people. One adviser said that Paul had 100,000 subscribers in the late 1970s.

Paul began FREE when he was first elected to Congress in 1976 as a Republican in a special election. His policies appealed to members of the Libertarian Party, as well as Republicans who supported a limited government. He said that he ran to raise awareness about an American dollar that he said would plummet because the gold standard had been ended five years earlier. Paul also wrote several books that called for a return to a sound currency. Through the foundation, Paul was able to keep in touch with many like-minded people across the country.

Many of them lived outside Paul's district, which stretched from the west side of Austin, south of Houston to Corpus Christi on the Gulf Coast. The Dallas Morning News reported that more than 60 percent of Paul's funding in the 1996 race came from outside Texas.

"He was offering them something that was bigger than his congressional district," said Hans Kaiser, Paul's pollster for the 1996 race. "He wanted to get rid of taxes, and he meant it. And he wanted the government to get out of lives, and he meant it."

Kaiser has advised campaigns across the country. Many local candidates try to build the national base that Paul had in 1996, he said.

"It is really hard to do," Kaiser said. "You have to have a national cause to raise money through a national audience."

The fact that Paul could raise money without the support of Republican leadership in Washington helped him remain independent, said Mark Elam, who managed Paul's 1996 congressional campaign.

But Laughlin, his main competitor, complained about the strategy.

"He was running a national campaign against me," Laughlin said. "It wouldn't have mattered who I was."

Playing rough

Despite the folksy image he portrayed during the campaign, Paul wasn't above engaging in political combat. Laughlin had a reputation for accepting trips from lobbyists, and Paul and his advisers made sure voters knew about it.

"We just had one little ad that we put on," said Carol Paul. "And it had one little man in an airplane, and it said, 'He went here,' and the airplane flies to one side of the screen, and then 'he went here,' and then, 'he went here,' and then, 'He went here.' "

The negativity went both ways. Laughlin tried to attack Paul by highlighting and exaggerating what would happen if Paul's ideals of a strictly limited federal government became policy.

"It has made for facile fodder, that he is pro-drugs, and he wants everybody to smoke pot," Kaiser said. "The case was less about defending Ron and more about saying what he was for, and contrasting him with Laughlin, the former Democrat."

And Paul portrayed Laughlin as a Washington insider, detached from the interests of the district's voters.

Paul finished second in the primary with 32 percent, compared with Laughlin's 43 percent. Texas, like many Southern states, requires a runoff if no candidate polls over 50 percent in a primary.

A runoff election was scheduled for April, and the pressure against Paul from the Republican establishment only increased. The week before the race, former president George H.W. Bush endorsed Laughlin. His son, then-Gov. George W. Bush, recorded radio ads for Laughlin and flew to the candidate's hometown to help him campaign.

The governor told the crowd that Laughlin was a welcome addition to the Republican Party.

But in the end, Paul capitalized on Laughlin's Democratic past to edge past him in the runoff and become the party's nominee. The National Republican Congressional Committee had printed a brochure condemning Laughlin as corrupt when he ran as a Democrat less than two years earlier. "We weren't doing all that great," Paul said. "And somebody brought me this brochure by the NRCC blasting this guy. So all we did was, we reproduced the whole thing."

Laughlin's Democratic past led to a low turnout, Kaiser said.

"There wasn't that much enthusiasm to come out and vote for somebody who the Republicans had been excoriating for the past couple of races," Kaiser said.

Laughlin said that Paul won the runoff because he successfully organized Libertarians and others who were dissatisfied with Washington.

"He comes across very sincere, and he really attracts those who are against something that goes on in the government," Laughlin said. "Everybody has something they don't like that goes on in the government."

The Democratic nominee was an attorney named Charles "Lefty" Morris. Before the general election that November, governor Bush issued a short written endorsement of Paul, who went on to win by a margin of 6,000 votes out of almost 200,000 cast.

"Ron stopped to see him after the election," Carol Paul said. "Bush just leaned back, had his feet up on the desk, and said, 'Well, you ran one hell of a race!' "

------ End of article

By ETHAN WILENSKY-LANFORD

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080105/FRONTPAGE/801050301

Real_CaGeD
01-05-2008, 12:30 AM
Yawn.

Real_CaGeD
01-05-2008, 12:45 AM
Elephants have a long memory, and big ears.

Grandson of Liberty
01-05-2008, 12:54 AM
bump for a great post

rjl
01-05-2008, 01:08 AM
Everyone that believes the Republican base must be won, I agree. The project I'm working on, Operation Broadcast Freedom, has two MAJOR endorsement ads planned that will definitely appeal to the conservative base. We're holding back on names but one ad will be focused on illegal immigration and the other will be geared toward Christian voters. These ads are certain to have an impact, but we need funding. We can pretty much get one done with what we have now (we're shooting next week), but we need funding to get the other ad shot and edited.

Robert

http://www.operationbroadcastfreedom.com

wildflower
01-05-2008, 01:13 AM
Very good post, and welcome to the forums! I've been saying the same thing.

..and what you said here is also something I've been trying to say:


Don't reach out to the GOP base with talk about:
- Legalizing marijuana
- Gay marriage
- Anti-war philosophy ( I know the difference between isolationism and non-intervention, but there was no difference a year ago)
- Denigrating evangelicals; that's a good way to lose the ENTIRE SOUTH.

Exactly, know your audience. And people need to remember, Dr. Paul is going for the Republican nomination (I know i'm being Captain Obvious, but from reading some posts here, evidently some people seem to forget that). You don't win over Republicans by bashing Christians, or talking about how great drugs are, and by writing off all Republicans and being hateful towards the very people you want to REACH! Thanks again for your post.




RP will never, ever win over the evangelical and Christian sheep. His stance on legal drugs alone would prevent them from ever supporting him.

Forget the GOP and focus on independents for a third party run.

First of all, you're being extremely offensive to a lot of people. There are a lot of Christians on this forum, and Dr. Paul himself is a Christian. Second, every post I see of yours is negative, and that doesn't help the campaign- it is divisive and brings people down. Paul is a Republican. He is running for the Republican nomination. Christians absolutely CAN be brought in - as I said, there are lots of Christians already here. But you WONT bring in anyone new if you go around calling them idiots all the time.

If you have been paying attention, you would know that all sorts of people CAN and DO come over to RP. There are a lot of people on this forum who describe themselves as "former neocons" who were for the war and Bush. There are former democrats, there are all kinds of people. His message applies to ANYONE who loves this country and wants to see the constitution restored, limited government and protection of our inalienable rights.

Your negative, defeatist attitude that we can't win christians, we can't win republicans, etc, etc... is counterproductive. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The OP, myself, and many others here are living examples that you're wrong - I used to be against drug legalization and I also disagreed with Dr. Paul on a couple other things. But he has changed my mind on a few issues. And even if people don't agree with him on 100% of the issues, they might agree with him on 80%, and that's better than voting for a phony establishment "lesser of two evils" candidate who you can't trust to uphold anything.

People CAN be won over, but you have to change your own attitude and be positive. Dr. Paul has a fantastic message, go out there and inform people instead of sitting online bashing them instead.

< / rant >

TNFreedom
01-05-2008, 01:17 AM
-" Denigrating evangelicals; that's a good way to lose the ENTIRE SOUTH."

You got it brother. Nail on the head. Correct me if I'm wrong but Dr. Paul is trying to win the Republican nomination correct? Listen up people in this forum...there is WAY to much Christian bashing going on here. Those in this movement doing the negative Christian talking need to realize that you represent the EXTREME minority in your beliefs if you consider yourself a Republican. This type of negativity is a really good way to INSTANTLY loose ALL support from the non "X-files" support base of the Ron Paul movement. If some of the negative anti-Christian posts that I have read in this forum were ever seen by the mainstream public it would be very very harmful to the Ron Paul campaign. I think we should all be very careful about what we say, especially if it is something that Dr. Paul wouldn't agree with.

NeoconPaulsupporter
01-05-2008, 01:34 AM
RP will never, ever win over the evangelical and Christian sheep. His stance on legal drugs alone would prevent them from ever supporting him.

Forget the GOP and focus on independents for a third party run.

Uh, even if by some stretch of the imagination Ron Paul can win the Republican primary, without attracting a respectable portion of the Republican base, he's probably going to face Obama. Obama gets Democrat AND INDEPENDENT votes. Ron Paul will lose, and badly, against Obama. Ron Paul has to start attracting some of the Republican base. And hopefully, when all this is said and done, Ron Paul might even be a reasonable anti-Democrat vote for traditional Republicans.

NeoconPaulsupporter
01-05-2008, 01:39 AM
I'm going to repeat myself in summary.

Ron Paul is PROBABLY not going to win the nomination without attracting more of the base.

Ron Paul WON'T beat Obama (yes, I think Obama will win the Dem. nomination), period, if the traditional Republican base stays home rather than cast a vote for Ron Paul. If Hillary was to win the Nomination, sure, I could see them showing up just to cast Anti-Clinton votes. But Obama doesn't inspire that kind of, well, hatred.

Spirit of '76
01-05-2008, 02:56 AM
*bump for a great thread*

pickfair
01-05-2008, 08:19 AM
Well, I guess the best solution is this: youngsters go after other youngsters!! Those of you who are down in the South surrounded by Huckabee-leaning Republicans, go after them! To sum it up, let's get them ALL! We ARE everywhere, and a close 5th in a state full of cornfields is not going to stop us. This is, after all, a rEVOLution. :D

ecliptic
01-05-2008, 08:39 AM
RP will never, ever win over the evangelical and Christian sheep. His stance on legal drugs alone would prevent them from ever supporting him.

Forget the GOP and focus on independents for a third party run.

I remember not too far back plenty of "Ron Paul will never be a viable candidate" type of talk. We aren't hearing that anymore... much of the "old paradigm" thinking can be safely thrown out the window at this point...

The hypocrisy of Christians being vehemently against marijuana despite persistent claims that Jesus himself smoked the plant and the oldest bibles contained the statement attributed to Jesus that "all plants are good"....

"making pot illegal is like saying God made a mistake!"

- comedian Bill Hicks


"Forget the GOP" ... that is the single worst idea I have ever seen on this forum!

ecliptic
01-06-2008, 01:41 PM
Ron Paul ... can't win w/o capturing a considerable amount of the GOP base. Just won't happen, even if he did run as an independent.
... I started to notice something wasn't right. NAFTA just didn't seem right. There weren't any WMD's in Iraq. Why is a R president spending money like it's going out of style? They haven't done a darn thing with Social Security, and I'll never collect a dime of it! And the straw that broke the camel's back: amnesty for illegal aliens. I have been betrayed. A latent anger began to build.

... So there you have it. Hit the base with the things that alienated me and you will win them to Paul. Talk about:

- The crumbling dollar, credit crisis
- Drastically reducing taxes and spending by shrinking federal Govt
- How we can't afford foreign wars for other countries
- The changing fabric of the country.
- How RP will work to eliminate IRS, etc.

Don't reach out to the GOP base with talk about:
- Legalizing marijuana
- Gay marriage
- Anti-war philosophy ( I know the difference between isolationism and non-intervention, but there was no difference a year ago)
- Denigrating evangelicals; that's a good way to lose the ENTIRE SOUTH.

Those libertarian ideas take a LONG TIME to accept (if you ever can), and you'll only lose them if you push it too hard.

That's my journey and my opinion on how to capture crucial support. So go reach out to your Red State friends. No offense intended to the L's and I's. of course:)

That concept - of targeting specific groups with a "tailored" message... certainly worked for politicians who preceded us... { with a few notable exceptions a pack of slimy liars with no spines }

But my problem is with honesty. If you de-emphasize certain parts of your platform that's maybe ok... and maybe that's all your suggesting?

... but to omit significant parts of your platform is plain dishonest and I want no part of that. Sooner or later the "left out" parts of your platform are gonna be thrown in your face. Then you have to weazel and worm your way through explaining why you left that out - making you look like all the other CFR clones.


In matters of principals, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current. (http://www.quotationsbook.com/quote/32403/)
- Thomas Jefferson

Antonius Stone
01-06-2008, 01:44 PM
Ron Paul is also probably the only genuine christian running for potus so make sure you spread that info around the republican base

Liberty Star
01-06-2008, 02:00 PM
I disagree here, RP only needs to win 20% and growing Republican base that has already turned anti Iraq war. If he can capture that support which he should as the only anti Iraq war Republican, he can afford to ignore pro war evangelical part of base and invest rest of effort to target independent/dem anti Iraq war segments. Effective execution there will put him ahead of all other Republicans in a very divided GOP field. Rep base does not have to be won to win.

seapilot
01-06-2008, 02:28 PM
Ron Paul in the general will capture the Republican base, because they will vote for anybody with an "R" next to thier name and will never vote for a big spending democrat though some love big spending republicans.

By the time the general rolls around our economy is not going to be very pretty and will be the most important issue on every voters mind. Ron Paul nailed the high price of oil question in the ABC debate, people will realize that spending too much money on big government is the problem.

If this was mid 90s and people were voting on a new face and not big problems Obama would win in a landslide. Today Obama would lose badly in a one on one debate on the current economy with Ron Paul.

freelance
01-06-2008, 02:33 PM
Ron Paul attracts a lot of independent and libertarian minded folks. That's terrific, but he can't win w/o capturing a considerable amount of the GOP base. Just won't happen, even if he did run as an independent. Coming from that base, let me tell you how I came around. Maybe it will help to build a road map for capturing the base.

I'm a poster child for the GOP. White Southern male, college educated professional and even an evangelical Christian (oh my!). RNC card carrying member that voted for the Bushes all 4 times and for Dole in the middle. Never voted for a Democrat in my entire life, not even in a local election.

I thought the GOP was sincere when they courted the Religious Right. Thought the Contract With America and Gingrich were brilliant. I knew we were justified to attack in the Middle East to protect our foreign interests.

But then I started to notice something wasn't right. NAFTA just didn't seem right. There weren't any WMD's in Iraq. Why is a R president spending money like it's going out of style? They haven't done a darn thing with Social Security, and I'll never collect a dime of it!

And the straw that broke the camel's back: amnesty for illegal aliens. I have been betrayed. A latent anger began to build.

The GOP has been hijacked by neoconservatives (never knew the term until a year ago). I can't ever vote for socialist Democrats, so who will I support?

And then I found Paul...

So there you have it. Hit the base with the things that alienated me and you will win them to Paul. Talk about:

- The crumbling dollar, credit crisis
- Drastically reducing taxes and spending by shrinking federal Govt
- How we can't afford foreign wars for other countries
- The changing fabric of the country.
- How RP will work to eliminate IRS, etc.

Don't reach out to the GOP base with talk about:
- Legalizing marijuana
- Gay marriage
- Anti-war philosophy ( I know the difference between isolationism and non-intervention, but there was no difference a year ago)
- Denigrating evangelicals; that's a good way to lose the ENTIRE SOUTH.

Those libertarian ideas take a LONG TIME to accept (if you ever can), and you'll only lose them if you push it too hard.

That's my journey and my opinion on how to capture crucial support. So go reach out to your Red State friends. No offense intended to the L's and I's. of course:)

Welcome to the forums!

How on earth do you suggest that we reach this demographic? Never mind reach, how about "just get to listen?"

Spirit of '76
01-06-2008, 02:47 PM
How on earth do you suggest that we reach this demographic? Never mind reach, how about "just get to listen?"

It's quite simple, really. Go to their meetings, be respectful, show them that Ron Paul supporters are good people with good values and want to be good neighbors, and people will listen.

I go to my County Republican Club meetings, and they've asked me several times to speak on behalf of my candidate, invited me to state GOP functions where I spoke in front of the entire WV GOP leadership (including the Secretary of State), they've asked me to be a poll worker, suggested I run for office... and all while I made no bones about being a Ron Paul supporter.

I've talked to old people who "just want a good family man" and brighten up when I tell them that Ron's been married to the same lady for 50 years and has 18 grandchildren.

I've talked to a guy who ran for the House of Delegates here last year, a Mormon who support[ed?] Mitt Romney, and when I brought up Michael Scheuer, he said, "I really like that guy!" So I sent him Scheuer's articles on Ron, and he came back to me saying, "I'm not sure at this point, but I'll definitely support him if he gets the nomination."

I spoke at a GOP picnic, and afterwards I had people come up and take bumperstickers and slimjims, and a guy playing in the band there came up and told me, "Ron's my man." He was wearing an "Air Force Dad" tshirt, and I assure you other people took notice.

Republicans are looking for a good conservative leader. Most of them just don't even know that Ron is an option, and they're not going to find out if we don't get out there and show it to them.

TNFreedom
01-06-2008, 03:04 PM
It's quite simple, really. Go to their meetings, be respectful, show them that Ron Paul supporters are good people with good values and want to be good neighbors, and people will listen.

I go to my County Republican Club meetings, and they've asked me several times to speak on behalf of my candidate, invited me to state GOP functions where I spoke in front of the entire WV GOP leadership (including the Secretary of State), they've asked me to be a poll worker, suggested I run for office... and all while I made no bones about being a Ron Paul supporter.

I've talked to old people who "just want a good family man" and brighten up when I tell them that Ron's been married to the same lady for 50 years and has 18 grandchildren.

I've talked to a guy who ran for the House of Delegates here last year, a Mormon who support[ed?] Mitt Romney, and when I brought up Michael Scheuer, he said, "I really like that guy!" So I sent him Scheuer's articles on Ron, and he came back to me saying, "I'm not sure at this point, but I'll definitely support him if he gets the nomination."

I spoke at a GOP picnic, and afterwards I had people come up and take bumperstickers and slimjims, and a guy playing in the band there came up and told me, "Ron's my man." He was wearing an "Air Force Dad" tshirt, and I assure you other people took notice.

Republicans are looking for a good conservative leader. Most of them just don't even know that Ron is an option, and they're not going to find out if we don't get out there and show it to them.

Wow. Couldn't have said it better. Great work sir with what you have been doing, you truly understand the big picture of an election - telling anybody and everybody with ears how awesome out candidate is! I haven't met a single Republican that hasn't liked what they heard about Ron Paul once I've gotten them to listen for a second. Once again, great work!

N13
01-06-2008, 03:09 PM
The problem with the Republican base is that they are pro war.

If you are against the continuation of Bush's wars then you are an enemy. Nothing else you have to say matters. They are the 30% who will go down with the ship.

takadi
01-06-2008, 03:10 PM
"The Republican base must be won"

No it doesn't

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=78817

Spirit of '76
01-06-2008, 03:12 PM
Thanks! :) I hope lots of people step up to the plate and reach out to the Republican base. They're hungry for leadership.

Spirit of '76
01-06-2008, 03:12 PM
The problem with the Republican base is that they are pro war.

If you are against the continuation of Bush's wars then you are an enemy. Nothing else you have to say matters. They are the 30% who will go down with the ship.

Spoken like someone who hasn't even tried to reach them...

My experience in talking with the Republican base directly is that many of them associate anti-war attitudes with liberalism, because that's all they've heard so far. When they are presented with a conservative argument against the war, many are receptive.

Spirit of '76
01-06-2008, 03:15 PM
"The Republican base must be won"

No it doesn't

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=78817

Not every state has caucuses with open registration at the door or open primaries. Please don't make the mistake of assuming that what works in Jefferson County, Iowa will work everywhere else.

N13
01-06-2008, 03:21 PM
Spoken like someone who hasn't even tried to reach them...

My experience in talking with the Republican base directly is that many of them associate anti-war attitudes with liberalism, because that's all they've heard so far. When they are presented with a conservative argument against the war, many are receptive.

I have a vast array of arguments at my disposal to sway them to us. It usually works. I find that fear of loss is a greater motivator than anything else. So I never take the foreign policy approach to the war. I say "How is your candidate going to pay for their war, with increased taxes or increased debt." Then I tell them the effect that has on our economy.

I'm not against the effort to convert them. I'm all for it.

Statistically speaking, all RP supporters should be aware of the reality that most Republicans are Pro-War. Without the proper cultural engineering, they will remain steadfast with their views and choose one of the pro-war stooges.

TNFreedom
01-06-2008, 03:23 PM
The problem with the Republican base is that they are pro war.

If you are against the continuation of Bush's wars then you are an enemy. Nothing else you have to say matters. They are the 30% who will go down with the ship.

They think they are pro war because that is what they have been programmed to think because we have had to work so hard to defend ourselves against liberals for the past five years. I agree that when they hear an anti-war message they tend to shut down because they instantly assume that you are a liberal, thats just a result of the programming. Most of my friends dont love war or nation building they just think thats the stance you have to take to be republican, never mind the fact that war is not a conservative position. Dr. Paul needs to explain WHY he is against the war to differentiate himself from the liberal position. In my opinion as a new member of this movement that is THE NUMBER ONE thing that has to be done immediately if Dr. Paul is going to make anymore inroads in the Republican party. I wrote a better post about this the other day...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=75937

N13
01-06-2008, 03:25 PM
Thanks! :) I hope lots of people step up to the plate and reach out to the Republican base. They're hungry for leadership.

Did you see this thread?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=78092


The Republicans only have one viable leader IMO.

N13
01-06-2008, 03:30 PM
They think they are pro war because that is what they have been programmed to think because we have had to work so hard to defend ourselves against liberals for the past five years. I agree that when they hear an anti-war message they tend to shut down because they instantly assume that you are a liberal, thats just a result of the programming. Most of my friends dont love war or nation building they just think thats the stance you have to take to be republican, never mind the fact that war is not a conservative position. Dr. Paul needs to explain WHY he is against the war to differentiate himself from the liberal position. In my opinion as a new member of this movement that is THE NUMBER ONE thing that has to be done immediately if Dr. Paul is going to make anymore inroads in the Republican party. I wrote a better post about this the other day...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=75937

I agree and this is why I try to turn it into a financial and economic issue. I have had more success pursuing it that way than trying to do what Dr. Paul does to the Ghoul. Not that RP is wrong. Its a pragmatic decision for me.

RP's way get's this initial reaction: So you are saying that 9-11 was our fault?

I do better taking the economic approach with the debt, deficit, inflation, declining dollar, bankrupcy, OPPORTUNITY COST method. It works like a champ.

You can even give them a lollipop at the end when you explain how you can lower and eventually eliminate the income tax by making government smaller.

Spirit of '76
01-06-2008, 03:31 PM
I have a vast array of arguments at my disposal to sway them to us. It usually works. I find that fear of loss is a greater motivator than anything else. So I never take the foreign policy approach to the war. I say "How is your candidate going to pay for their war, with increased taxes or increased debt." Then I tell them the effect that has on our economy.

I'm not against the effort to convert them. I'm all for it.

Statistically speaking, all RP supporters should be aware of the reality that most Republicans are Pro-War. Without the proper cultural engineering, they will remain steadfast with their views and choose one of the pro-war stooges.

You're correct. One of the arguments I've used when foreign policy comes up (its success is questionable, but it's worth a shot) is that a few weeks back Dick Cheney (I always refer to him as "the Vice President" or "Vice President Cheney") gave an interview with the Politico in which he said that Iraq will be stable, self-governing, and ready to defend itself by January of 2009.

I tell them that means that by the time President Paul takes office, it will be unnecessary to remain in Iraq; therefore they can in good conscience vote for the candidate with the best ideas on the economy, Ron Paul. ;)



Did you see this thread?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=78092


The Republicans only have one viable leader IMO.

Good stuff.

Spirit of '76
01-06-2008, 03:34 PM
Also, when speaking to Republican groups about Ron, I don't specifically mention the Iraq war. I just say something like, "Congressman Paul understands that America's interests are better served by defending our own borders than by borrowing money from China and Saudi Arabia to enforce UN resolutions in the Middle East."

N13
01-06-2008, 03:39 PM
You're correct. One of the arguments I've used when foreign policy comes up (its success is questionable, but it's worth a shot) is that a few weeks back Dick Cheney (I always refer to him as "the Vice President" or "Vice President Cheney") gave an interview with the Politico in which he said that Iraq will be stable, self-governing, and ready to defend itself by January of 2009.

I tell them that means that by the time President Paul takes office, it will be unnecessary to remain in Iraq; therefore they can in good conscience vote for the candidate with the best ideas on the economy, Ron Paul. ;)

Good stuff.

I'd be grateful if you posted in that thread.

On Big Dick Cheney, nobody trusts him. I would never include him in the underpinnings of an argument for RP. Maybe to a Cheney fan who would yield to his predictions...I just don't know anyone who likes or respects him:confused:

But you are right to get past the war issue however difficult, and focus on RP's views on the economy, monetary policy, spending, taxes, inflation, and the debt. People have little resistance to these issues and would like some prosperity in their lives.

TNFreedom
01-06-2008, 03:42 PM
I agree and this is why I try to turn it into a financial and economic issue. I have had more success pursuing it that way than trying to do what Dr. Paul does to the Ghoul. Not that RP is wrong. Its a pragmatic decision for me.

RP's way get's this initial reaction: So you are saying that 9-11 was our fault?

I do better taking the economic approach with the debt, deficit, inflation, declining dollar, bankrupcy, OPPORTUNITY COST method. It works like a champ.

You can even give them a lollipop at the end when you explain how you can lower and eventually eliminate the income tax by making government smaller.

Yes EXACTLY! He really needs to do a commercial explaining that way. "Yes I am against the war but its not because I am liberal, in fact I am the most conservative guy in this race....I am against the war because its costing Xbillion dollars per day, we're not accomplishing anything and we have many many problems here at home that are being neglected because our resources are being wasted over seas."

The Republican base doesn't want to like this war, they just need a reason to be against it and not be lumped in with the horrible little liberal creatures on the other side.

N13
01-06-2008, 04:02 PM
Yes EXACTLY! He really needs to do a commercial explaining that way. "Yes I am against the war but its not because I am liberal, in fact I am the most conservative guy in this race....I am against the war because its costing Xbillion dollars per day, we're not accomplishing anything and we have many many problems here at home that are being neglected because our resources are being wasted over seas."

The Republican base doesn't want to like this war, they just need a reason to be against it and not be lumped in with the horrible little liberal creatures on the other side.

Right, and then you can turn it against the Democrats by showing how they are going to take that money and spend it elsewhere, ie. Not solve the real problem.

Its not the war, its the economy. The Democrats are for big Government. How are they going to pay for it? By ending the war. How does that solve the economic problems? It doesn't.

This is why Ron Paul can beat the Democrats. He just has to get over the Republican hurdle.

Spirit of '76
01-06-2008, 04:04 PM
I'd be grateful if you posted in that thread.

Will do. I'm packing up and getting ready to head out right now...



On Big Dick Cheney, nobody trusts him. I would never include him in the underpinnings of an argument for RP. Maybe to a Cheney fan who would yield to his predictions...I just don't know anyone who likes or respects him:confused:


Yeah, you're mostly right, but I still meet a shocking number of people who have faith in this administration. I figure an appeal to authority can't hurt.

VoluntaryMan
01-06-2008, 04:22 PM
The problem is that the "Republican base" is no longer populated by conservatives, but by neocons (yes, Virginia, ther is a HUGE difference). Neocons are pro-military, pro-commerce, and pro-police -- not unlike Hiltler and Mussolini -- while conservatives are pro militia (civilian + 2nd Amendment), pro freemarket, and pro rule of law (i.e., the law as a tool of the people for restraining the gov't, not the other way around). The big obstacle is in convincing neocons that they are counterfeit conservatives. There is frequently too much cognitive dissonance to overcome. Consequently, it's easier to go after what seem like counter-intuitive alliances, all the time hoping that these wooden dummy (Pinnocchio-esque) conservatives (neocons) will eventually wakeup to become real conservatives. It isn't Ron Paul who is out of line with the base; it is the base that is out of line with Ron Paul. The same is true of Ron Paul as was true of Ron Reagan: as Reagan once said (explaining why he was no longer a Democrat), he didn't leave his party, his party left him.