Comments on: Ron Paul’s Big Mistake

By: Rich LaFleur

Rich LaFleur — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:18:12 +0000

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.

By: Less Antman

Less Antman — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:45:22 +0000

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).

By: Chris Kierst

Chris Kierst — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:01:05 +0000

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.

By: Carolyn Marbry

Carolyn Marbry — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 09:00:53 +0000

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.

By: Powell Gammill

Powell Gammill — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:48:30 +0000

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.

By: Robert Fallin

Robert Fallin — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:31:34 +0000

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.

By: wellbasically

wellbasically — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:59:36 +0000

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.

By: Stephen Gordon

Stephen Gordon — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:20:06 +0000

This ad (from the Ron Paul site) clearly mentions the Paul’s foreign policy position:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/files/RonPaul_RealGOP.mp3

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:43:02 +0000

Just to clarify, Justin, along with Eric, are American Heroes and I mean no disrespect with my lame jokes.

By: Gary

Gary — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:42:22 +0000

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).