Campaign idea - "Rand Paul Was Right" ???

[Anti-Neocon]

I think this is something that can go viral on the Internet if we post it in a lot of different places, as well as on the campaign trail, if a campaign was made around this slogan, illustrating how his foreign policy ideas were proven right through history (namely not messing up Iraq, Libya, and Syria).

We need to make people want him as a commander in chief above all other options by showing he is uniquely qualified compared to the other non-Trump competitors. Trump will hopefully dig his own grave and it's all about getting his supporters to go to us when they get sick of him.

It's hard to explain in detail in debates or interviews so if there was something on the internet that he could point to "RandWasRight.com" I think this would help make him come off as authoritative which is what is appealing to people at this time (see: Trump). Even if people don't actually go to the website, it will still give him an air of credibility.

All his neocon opponents are successfully "not letting a good crisis go to waste", even though the crisis was actually created by their policies. Rand is approaching the topic of foreign policy in too intellectual of a manner now in a way that just floats above the average TV idiot's head. They want ideas that work, and Rand needs to show that his ideas were right above all.

The slogan itself doesn't have to be specifically this, but something of this nature can really help him especially when he puts himself on one side and Clinton, Rubio, Bush, etc on the other side. It gives him cred as both a foreign policy expert and immunity against ad hominem attacks, as well as "outsider" cred via separation from the establishment.

[carlton]

If you can brainstorm a good video idea and compile the right clips, I can make a vid. AND we can tie the video to also promote the Dec. 16 moneybomb too.

[wizardwatson]

How about "Is" right?

"was right" from a marketing angle conveys that "no one listens to Rand" and reinforces the impression of unelectability and could be perceived as an appeal to victimhood.

[Virgil]

How about "Is" right?

"was right" from a marketing angle conveys that "no one listens to Rand" and reinforces the impression of unelectability and could be perceived as an appeal to victimhood.

What he said.

[dusman]

I think this is something that can go viral on the Internet if we post it in a lot of different places, as well as on the campaign trail, if a campaign was made around this slogan, illustrating how his foreign policy ideas were proven right through history (namely not messing up Iraq, Libya, and Syria).

We need to make people want him as a commander in chief above all other options by showing he is uniquely qualified compared to the other non-Trump competitors. Trump will hopefully dig his own grave and it's all about getting his supporters to go to us when they get sick of him.

It's hard to explain in detail in debates or interviews so if there was something on the internet that he could point to "RandWasRight.com" I think this would help make him come off as authoritative which is what is appealing to people at this time (see: Trump). Even if people don't actually go to the website, it will still give him an air of credibility.

All his neocon opponents are successfully "not letting a good crisis go to waste", even though the crisis was actually created by their policies. Rand is approaching the topic of foreign policy in too intellectual of a manner now in a way that just floats above the average TV idiot's head. They want ideas that work, and Rand needs to show that his ideas were right above all.

The slogan itself doesn't have to be specifically this, but something of this nature can really help him especially when he puts himself on one side and Clinton, Rubio, Bush, etc on the other side. It gives him cred as both a foreign policy expert and immunity against ad hominem attacks, as well as "outsider" cred via separation from the establishment.

Rand is going to need to reframe the debate on foreign policy to be fully vindicated on his position. I think he needs to pose a very specific question directly to Rubio, Cruz, Trump and the others... "Are you implying that you will act unilaterally as Commander in Chief to take us to war?". No matter the answer, it is a win-win for Rand.

If they answer yes, Rand should have them by the balls. He could point out not even Bush went that far in response to 9/11 (half true) and got an AUMF. I'd want him to say "If I'm not the nominee and you act unilaterally to take us to war, If I'm not the one leading the effort in the Senate to impeach you under the law for violating the Constitution, you can be certain someone will and such measure will gain bipartisan support. I will vote yes on that. A Republican president taking us into an illegal war will be the quickest path to the destruction of the party and I will not have it. I seem to be the only one on the stage willing to put my money where my mouth is by pushing a resolution to declare war. Aren't we at war or is this just a battle of words about who carries the biggest stick?"

If they answer no, Rand has the upper hand by being the only one on the stage to call for a declaration of war. I'd want him to say "I've been called a committed isolationist. There is nothing isolationist about calling for the first declaration of war since WWII. I'm the only one on stage to call for such measure. It would give the president full power to respond militarily. I think Obama is weak on foreign policy because he has yet to come to Congress to get authorization to even engage any ISIS threat. It would appear if anyone is a committed isolationist, it is Obama."

No one in the GOP wants to hear about a less-aggressive response to ISIS, so I think Rand needs to avoid rhetoric that implies that. The GOP might pay attention to the possibility that their candidate's rhetoric might actually lead to impeachment. I don't think most in the populace understands that side of the argument... but moreso believe the President can do that and want someone who will say they can. Saying he'd lead efforts to impeach would be a very ballsy position to take, but it would show unwavering commitment to the true role of the presidency, while at the same time putting the others in an unusual position of advocating for illegal war that would damage the party in a very real way.

With that said, I'd love to see a video along these lines of argument. Non-intervention is a difficult position to argue from when there is a widely perceived, existential threat. But I think Rand is very close to the right way to approach it. I think a video should take the other candidate's rhetoric and call it out for what it is - illegal, dangerous, and a threat to the future of the GOP.

[nikcers]

-Senior Western official: Links between Turkey and ISIS are now 'undeniable'


http://uk.businessinsider.com/links-between-turkey-and-isis-are-now-undeniable-2015-7?IR=T


-There is no US-led war on ISIS



http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/23/tracking-isis-to-dcs-doorsteps/

There is no US-led war on ISIS, and what's worse, it appears that the US, through all of its allies, from across the Persian Gulf to Eastern Europe and even within Washington itself, are involved in feeding ISIS, not fighting it.

While the US has tried to add in a layer of extra plausible deniability to its story by claiming Nusra and ISIS are at odds with one another, the fact is Nusra and ISIS still fight together on the same battlefield toward the same objectives.
German broadcaster Deutsche Welle videotaped hundreds of trucks pouring over the Turkish border, bound for ISIS in Syria as part of its story, "ISIS and Turkey's porous borders".

[Anti-Neocon]

How about "Is" right?

"was right" from a marketing angle conveys that "no one listens to Rand" and reinforces the impression of unelectability and could be perceived as an appeal to victimhood.

I disagree with this. With our current political state and everyone going for these "outsider" types, being the lone guy "telling it like it is" has a whole ton of appeal. While Hillary, Rubio and Bush were out saying this, this and this, Rand Paul was standing alone against Washington in his calls to prioritize the fight against ISIS.

"Rand Paul IS right" can follow from there, but the GOP base wants a sort of hero type who they sincerely believe will stand up against the machine when it matters most.

Also, there is the secondary front (which some may even consider primary) of the war of ideas. If we want non-interventionism to represent a larger portion of the GOP, we need to show how non-interventionists were right and interventionists were wrong. We need to re-build a passionate base to Ron's level while also countering neocon propaganda in the war of ideas. If 80% of the primary voters want American blood spilled in a fight against ISIS, Rand is simply not going to win. Rand needs to sell a smart approach to defeating ISIS and make the voters see his as stronger than his opposition. That is where his past record can help in tapping into a little of their sentiments with his "declare war against ISIS" bill but if Rand is going to think he will get anywhere by sounding like a neocon, there are plenty more neocons to choose from. He needs to win by turning the people against neocons. It's the best shot.

Another phrase that he may do well to use is "long term victory" or "long term complete victory" as opposed to "victory on paper" which really is a vacuum and a "breeding ground for new terrorist movements".

[WTLaw]

I disagree with this. With our current political state and everyone going for these "outsider" types, being the lone guy "telling it like it is" has a whole ton of appeal. While Hillary, Rubio and Bush were out saying this, this and this, Rand Paul was standing alone against Washington in his calls to prioritize the fight against ISIS.

"Rand Paul IS right" can follow from there, but the GOP base wants a sort of hero type who they sincerely believe will stand up against the machine when it matters most.

Also, there is the secondary front (which some may even consider primary) of the war of ideas. If we want non-interventionism to represent a larger portion of the GOP, we need to show how non-interventionists were right and interventionists were wrong. We need to re-build a passionate base to Ron's level while also countering neocon propaganda in the war of ideas. If 80% of the primary voters want American blood spilled in a fight against ISIS, Rand is simply not going to win. Rand needs to sell a smart approach to defeating ISIS and make the voters see his as stronger than his opposition. That is where his past record can help in tapping into a little of their sentiments with his "declare war against ISIS" bill but if Rand is going to think he will get anywhere by sounding like a neocon, there are plenty more neocons to choose from. He needs to win by turning the people against neocons. It's the best shot.

Another phrase that he may do well to use is "long term victory" or "long term complete victory" as opposed to "victory on paper" which really is a vacuum and a "breeding ground for new terrorist movements".

He does need to tell it like it is. I like the idea a lot. I might go with Rand Paul was right, as in order to reinforce this we need something demonstrable. Its hard to get people to buy a is, but a was is historical record. If we can prove he was, we can then prove he is.

And he needs documentation. Like for each of the opposition candidates, we need to know just which wars they would have involved us in. For Lindsay Graham it would be ridiculously long. But jeez, what is Cruz's take on Syria? I read it the other day, and it was actually complicated and contradictory - he is getting it have it both ways, and you dont get to do that if you are in the sunlight.

[LawnWake]

I like it when he debates it. I like it when he brings it up in debates and interviews. But I don't think I support a campaign video about this issue in the primaries, especially after Paris. I don't think it would stick. That's more of a ad idea against Hillary, I believe.

[Crashland]

I'm starting to get the vibe that Rand's noninterventionism is playing out like his minority outreach. It's absolutely the right thing to do but you just can't make the damn GOP voters swallow it. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. Although if Rand is going down, I'd rather he go down with a bang and a resounding rebuke of the GOP.

[RandPaul4Prez]

If you can brainstorm a good video idea and compile the right clips, I can make a vid. AND we can tie the video to also promote the Dec. 16 moneybomb too.

<<< can also whip up a good video edit. Video editor 12 + years.

[Anti-Neocon]

I'm starting to get the vibe that Rand's noninterventionism is playing out like his minority outreach. It's absolutely the right thing to do but you just can't make the damn GOP voters swallow it. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. Although if Rand is going down, I'd rather he go down with a bang and a resounding rebuke of the GOP.

I don't think it's the policy so much that they can't swallow (they really don't understand policy all that well), but Rand tries too hard to make the intellectual appeal through logic and logic is lost on idiots. The idiots look at things on a continuum of weak to strong. Rand need to look like the strong one, and for example in Libya you have good footage of Obama, Hillary and (hopefully) Rubio loving the idea of toppling Gaddafi, while Rand said what a mess it would make.

Cruz had that scuffle with Rand about who had the more "Reaganesque" foreign policy (I know yuck, but that stuff sells) and Michael Reagan took Rand's side. For Cruz you can just have a montage of him mentioning Reagan's name 5000 times and then have a voiceover for what Michael Reagan said and then show Rand talking about "peace through strength".

There's a lot of other stuff out there but this brainstorming can be important.

[statist slayer]

Suggestion for video itself: Cut from clips of Hillary and Rubio supporting intervention in Libya and Syria to clips of refugees streaming into Europe.

[carlton]

Here's what I got so far as per the ideas brought up on this thread. This is just a rough cut and I got more polishing to do (musics too loud, needs better transitions, etc). Any suggestions?

[statist slayer]

Overall, a good first pass!

Brief suggestions:

The text at the beginning is too long and goes by too fast. The message is correct, but ideally there would be as little text as possible. Also, make sure to use correct grammar to make it seem professional.

The music is ok, but the melody is awfully long. I think music that is more rhythmic or blends into the background more would be better. Also, the music shouldn't be so eerie when Rand is speaking.

The ISIS beheading clip is perfect. I still think a clip of the refugee wave or, more pertinently, a boat laden with refugees, would be effective.

Find clips of Rand in which he isn't stuttering. This is one of his biggest problems as a candidate and it superficially makes him seem weak.