“[Ron Paul] does not, in the ads running in early primary states and intended to introduce him to traditional Republicans there, mention his opposition to the Iraq War.”
If true, this is a major mistake. The reason for Paul’s rising popularity is his unique confluence of antiwar and anti-Big Government views: without the former, the latter loses its punch. Methinks the Ron Paul Revolution needs … a revolution from within.
There will be more ads to come. I’m reasonably sure he’ll go to the war issue, they must just think it’s strategically better to not lead with it. I hope they know what they’re doing.
I read somewhere that only 40% of voters have ever heard of Ron Paul. I was robo-polled by Rasmussen and I had to hit several extra buttons to even be able to answer a poll for the guy.
It seems to me that the money/gold issue is a better issue for Ron Paul right now. The Iraq war is kind of over.
If somehow he were to get the nomination he would hammer the war issue against the Democrats day in and day out. Maybe he is worried republicans have been to indoctrinated over the last two terms with the patriot, support troops, kill the towel head mantras, but there is certainly a significant portion of republicans out there that dont believe in that, and he should get all of their attention. Without the Antiwar, no big government (and mean it, by providing examples, not just say it automatically like republican candidates have been for a few decades now) then Ron Paul might as well be named Sam Brownback or Tancredo, or “Fringe Candidate no. 4″
Actually the stat I would be hammering home the most if I were Paul is the fact that the Troops support him, not just the other way around. That could be a helpful turning point for many republicans to know just who the Troops like.
“that the Troops support him” and that he is opposed to the war… in the same add.
That could really do the trick.
Has Rush commented on this military support for Ron Paul? Of course this will be dismissed by him as being the view of “phoney soldiers.” (Notice the plural form of that comment which means he was not talking about one person but many.) I seldom listen to him except by accident but today I did read his comments on the insult he voiced against ALL our troops. Funny watching him wiggle out of all this but so far he seems to once again be successful calling all those who disagree with this war he supports (for others to fight, naturally) calling them liars. Was I experiencing a bad dream when I heard about “musroom clouds” and air attacks against Washington?
I think the Paulster’s campaign is trying to ease the voters into his candidacy by bolstering his Conservative credentials with them first (pro-life, guns-rights, small-government) and then letting them know his anti-war stance. The people hearing these ads will probably have never heard of him before and not know his positions. They probably only know the names of the top 4 and are dying for a truly conservative alternative. Perhaps this is phase 1 in the plan.
It may be that the Paul strategists feel that his opposition to the war is sufficiently well-known and they want to guard against a one-note campaign. If they were to cease talking about the war altogether that would be a major mistake, however.
Ron Paul does not have to mention his opposition to war in his paid advertising. His antiwar stand is a constant in the debates and in news coverage of his campaign.
His advertising will show there is more to his opposition to big government.
For regular news on the campaign go to http://www.libertariansforpaul.com
This news is very troubling indeed. Granted, I don’t know the first thing about running a political campaign, but it seems like an intentional effort to suppress knowledge of RP’s anti-war principles. Very worrisome.
I see no problem at all. In fact, I think it’s a GOOD idea to introduce voters to other important issues as well. For Ron to win, we need a broad coalition…and essentially, libertarian politics *is* all about coalition building.
This is really much ado about nothing. Congressman Paul has never hid his antiwar credentials. Maybe he should of put them upfront in his ad, but I don’t really think this is as big as it’s being made. I have no doubt he will continue to campaign the way he has from the very beginning.
I believe that it was on this site that I saw the statistic that 51% of the Iowan Republicans that PLAN ON CAUCASING want the US completely out of Iraq in 6 months. I think that neither the Republican leadership nor MSM is in touch with this reality. I don’t think that this is an issue that will impede his progress. As was mentioned in other comments, Dr Paul has never hid his antiwar credentials, and, in fact, some of the other issues are really more important. For instance, the Federal Reserve is the root of US foreign policy (see Murray Rothbard’s The New Deal and the International Monetary System).
Right on target.It was a mistake for John Dean to state that if elected the first thing he would do would be to fire Greenspan.The money immeadietly dried up. The same will happen to Ron Paul. I hope not but beware.
Dr Paul’s anti war stance, while laudable, is not enough to win him the nomination. He needs to appeal to the party base. One way of doing that is to make traditional conservative noises. If the Paul campaign’s nascent success is due entirely to its opposition to Bush’s Iraq adventure, he truly doesn’t have a chance of winning the nomination, much less the presidency. That Iraq is a clusterf**k is a well known fact. While our federal government’s crazed taxing and spending practices are less understood as a sign of what ails us.
Dr Paul’s anti war stance, while laudable, is not enough to win him the nomination. He needs to appeal to the party base. One way of doing that is to make traditional conservative noises. If the Paul campaign’s nascent success is due entirely to its opposition to Bush’s Iraq adventure, he truly doesn’t have a chance of winning the nomination, much less the presidency. That Iraq is a clusterfuck is a well known fact. While our federal government’s crazed taxing and spending practices are less understood as a sign of what ails us.
Paul is also running another, more aggressive ad.
Narrator: “What do these so-called Republican frontrunners for President support? Amnesty for illegal aliens like liberals? Out of control spending like the Democrats? Nationbuilding overseas? Wasn’t that Bill Clinton’s policy? Flip flopping on the issues? What’s Republican about any of that? The Real Republican is Ron Paul.”
Paul: The Republicans are losing because they are not keeping their promise to end big government at home and nationbuilding overseas. My record is different.
Narrator: “Yes, Ron Paul’s record is different. Ron Paul has never voted for a tax increase or an unbalanced budget. Ron Paul voted against amnesty for illegal aliens. Ron Paul voted against nationbuilding overseas. Ron Paul follows the Constitution. Not the lawyers, not the lobbyists, not the latest poll.
That’s a kick-ass ad! My donations put to good use! RP is going to start his very own “surge” in the polls after that one
For what it is worth, when expats ask me why I am a fan of Ron Paul here, the very first thing I mention is his opposition to the war.
Everything else is extremely important, but secondary.
War is the health of the state, yea?
Typical Raimondo going off half-cocked.
This is not a “major mistake”, since “traditional Republicans” that he will be introduced to are not as anti-war as Paul’s existing support base.
Nobody who supports Paul now does so because of a TV ad; they do so because of the Internet or word-of-mouth. All of these people are aware of the anti-war message.
Old GOP fogies with land-lines who watch network news are less likely to be drawn by anti-war messages and more likely to be drawn by themes of low-tax, pro-life, immigration, etc. They do make up a significant part of primary voters.
I would say it’s shrewd marketing rather than abandonment of principle.
Ditto, bro-han.
Not that I agree with the half-cocked statement about Justin Raimondo due to his sexual preference. You, sir, are a hatemonger.
Just to clarify, Justin, along with Eric, are American Heroes and I mean no disrespect with my lame jokes.
I hope this posts…
Take a look at the difference between people searching Google for Ron Paul, and news references to him compared to the other candidates. His message does seem to be gaining interest that is not being reflected in media reports.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2C+hillary+clinton%2C+barack+obama%2C+rudy+giuliani%2C+fred+thomas&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2007&sort=0
(scroll to the right to see the current spike).
This ad (from the Ron Paul site) clearly mentions the Paul’s foreign policy position:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/files/RonPaul_RealGOP.mp3
I’m sure the Ron Paul team did some careful analysis before deciding the content of Ron Paul commercials. Certainly, Ron Paul’s first big challenge is name recognition. His second is credibility. After all, if you are standing on a stage with 8 liars and three liars offstage as interviewers, it’s pretty hard to convince the audience you are the only one telling the truth.
The primary purpose of Ron Paul’s ads right now should be to give the public enough of a taste to learn more.
Nobody ever won their freedom by being a pansy. And the problem with getting millions of dollars is you attract a lot of pansies. Welcome to the Ron Paul campaign . . . can’t wait for the matching funds.
Certainly Ron Paul is tailoring his message to his audience. He’s a professional politician. It’s entirely to be expected from someone who is part of the business-as-usual machine in Washington.
But wouldn’t you rather support a Libertarian candidate whose antiwar position comes out front and center, consistently, no matter what audience he’s addressing, a real Libertarian with a solid Libertarian Presidential campaign?
George Phillies http://www.phillies2008.org isn’t ashamed to be against Bush’s war In Iraq, and he takes other solid Libertarian positions that conservatives won’t: He is pro-choice. He speaks openly in favor of equal marriage rights and military service rights for GLBT citizens. He favors smaller government.
Carolyn,
With all due respect to you and George Phillies, good and solid compadres, all, there is more than enough room in this Presidential race for both a superb, tested (L?)libertarian Republican AND a pure Libertarian, and I say that AS a Libertarian. I savor having the options. I should be SOOO racked by indecision on Election Day, 2008!!! Ron has shown his integrity and earned my vote and support by refusing the perquisites of high office and being steadfast to high Libertarian standards and principles, despite being in office as a Republican. There is a certain sweet joy (with a wink and tip of the hat to Thomas DiLorenzo, Lew Rockwell, et al) to watching that skillful statesman turn the Republican brontosaurus into a potential vehicle of Constitutional restoration. He is NOT a professional politician. He has a life! He is also a political artist and aficionado. He has outflanked every one of his Republican opponents and public (and even party rank and file) momentum is headed in his direction. The only question is if it will arrive like the cavalry in time. Keep your options open for opportunity! It’s been a long time coming. Embrace it.
One theory of advertising is that its sole purpose is to convince the listener/viewer of the permanence/viability of the company/candidate, and that they never get a message, only awareness. Beyond that, a positive image (Ron Paul has delivered 4,000 babies, has been married to the same woman for 50 years, and rescues puppies in his spare time).
Listeners virtually never get the details, and never remember them: in my entire lifetime, I remember nothing from any ad about any product’s detail except that there is one that I’m quite sure is applied directly to the forehead (I think the ad was for a hammer). You cannot both introduce and defend a position in a brief ad. Ads, like money, are mainly to prove you are worth noticing.
That said, I’m with Justin. I agree with those who say he should mention that “he is the candidate that the troops support.” Very clever, true, and bound to make people remember him. A brief ad can have one of his best antiwar lines in debates or speeches and the cheering audience or crowd, which also communicates that he has support without more detail than can be absorbed. You can fit this in 30 seconds and then close with his slogan (Come Home, America for my wife’s delicious fish sticks).