Bring Back Ross Perot 30-minute Infomercial

[MrZach]

Ross Perot almost won the general election as an independent because of those things. On a FRIDAY NIGHT he garnered 10.9 million viewers.

Ron Paul should put together some professional looking infomercials and highlight the following:

WORKING TITLE:
The Decline of An Empire: Rescuing The American Dream
From the 9/11 & The Patriot Act to Iraq and The Housing Market Collapse

The history of the decline of our Civil Liberties and how his opponents are supporting this, not stopping it. Much like in this video.

What is REALLY happening in Iraq (including with the surge): How the Iraqis want us out, American troop presence IS the factor inciting violence and unrest, and they Iraqis ARE READY to take over security but we won't let them - in other words, the country won't decline into chaos.

Plus a bonus: Show the studies that show how the only areas violence went down after the surge was the areas we pulled troops out of! It was a total setup - the administration KNOWS that our presence is what is causing the violence and the surge was just a way to throw more $$ at the military industrial complex!

Transition this into what the war is costing us - show REAL numbers, then explain the concept of the American Empire, show how unnecessary our bases in all these other countries are - show what THEY cost us - show the cost of propping up dictators in other countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. Explain how that undermines Israeli security, etc.

Then this is the perfect time to transition into our deficit and the fact that the largest crisis facing out nation is paying off our national debt and that we are in CRISIS. Tie this into our economic problems. Show that if we cut back our spending overseas, pay off the national debt by such-and-such date, we can rescue Social Security, and eventually end the need for the income tax by 20??. People seem to think he'd get rid of everything overnight - that is the strongest objection to Ron Paul. Project dates!!!

BACK THIS ALL UP WITH CHARTS AND NUMBERS. THAT IS RON PAUL'S MAIN PROBLEM - PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE NUMBERS AND HE WON'T USE REAL NUMBERS - PEOPLE THINK HE'S NUTS - YOU HAVE TO SHOW THEM!!!

Finish by explaining what the Federal Reserve is doing to "fix" our economic problems and how it is hurting us. Explain what the point of the gold standard is and when it went away and what Reagen said about it, etc. - many people don't get this and think it is crazy and that we've been off it over a hundreds of years...

If Ron Paul were to put together an Infomercial like this and run it like Ross Perot did, that would be FANTASTIC!!! The only problem is it would cost a TON of money... Still, I think that (especially if he wend independent) this kind of strategy could be the key to his success.

The key is going to be presenting factual data (REAL NUMBERS AND REALISTIC PROJECTIONS) and schnazzing it up and dramatizing it with real images, footage, and even including quotes from other experts confirming what he has to say.

Better yet - how about the grassroots produce one - we can put as much $$ into it as we want and all we have to do is not specifically plug Ron Paul - we just look at ALL the candidates and their positions and now it is GREAT TELEVISION that happens to make Ron Paul look exceptionally good!

It has to be EXTREMELY professional looking though. None of this stuff we're been passing out on DVD's that are YouTube video clips and crap. This has to be broadcast television quality and ENTERTAINING - can't be boring like the Ross Perot stuff was - that way we can pull in even MORE viewers!!!

 

[nodope0695]

Speaking of that....where our 3 one hour documentaries from the billionaire?

 

[Stockli]

Agreed. This is what this campaign is seriously lacking. It doesn't matter how many people hear about Ron Paul if they don't understand the underlying issues along with Ron's stance on the solutions. We need a way to both interest, and educate the average American voter. This has to be well-advertised and broadcast at a time in which the most viewers can be reached.

 

[RageAgainstDC]

this would be great if we went independent. Too late to save the GOP nod though.

 

[KevinR]

don't know what Perot's stances were, but maybe Ron can announce him as his chosen VP and use his billions to his advantage :]

 

[MrZach]

don't know what Perot's stances were, but maybe Ron can announce him as his chosen VP and use his billions to his advantage :]

Sadly, Perot is 78 years old and in no shape to be a VP...

Too bad Michael Bloomberg can't be brought on board. His political positions need some work...

Too bad he and Ron Paul would majorly clash on Abortion Rights, government subsidies (stem cell research), gun control, amnesty, the National ID card, and the Patriot Act...

In other words, he's McCain 2.0.

 

[coboman]

INFOMERCIALS! How didn't I think of that... Wait, I did think of that.

And we all BEGGED for good looking infomercials for months during last year, when they would have worked for something.

We insisted, and proposed, and begged... until they came up with the Iowa 30 minute special, which annoyed every pro-choice person here. And didn't work for anything.

Welcome to October 2007 when this was a good idea. Now, it wouldn't make any difference.

 

[literatim]

You begged on a forum that the official campaign doesn't read. In fact, they avoid this forum like the plague.

 

[intelliot]

Has anyone ever won the presidency as an independent? Seems like an extremely long shot to me.

 

[coboman]

You begged on a forum that the official campaign doesn't read. In fact, they avoid this forum like the plague.

No. We contacted the official campaign.
There was a HUGE voice for the infomercials. There were even companies that were willing to do it without profit (Hollywood closeups).
There were serious plans presented, and multiple approaches to the official campaign, and they were all met with disdain.

I am very happy that Ron Paul won't be our next president, because if he was planning to run the country as he ran his campaign, it would have been a disaster.

As his campaign was (yes, past tense).

He had loads of money, and all the resources were wasted in things that didn't get one vote. The one thing that could have changed people's minds, the infomercials, were never even considered.

 

[MrZach]

We should learn from this guy...

Ross Perot's 1992 presidential candidacy (from Wikipedia)

On February 20, 1992, he appeared on CNN's Larry King Live and announced his intention to run if his supporters could get his name on the ballot in all 50 states. With such declared policies as balancing the federal budget, firm pro-choice stance, expansion of the war on drugs, ending outsourcing of jobs, opposition to gun control, belief in protectionism on trade, his support of the Environmental Protection Agency and enacting electronic direct democracy via "electronic town halls," he became a potential candidate and soon polled roughly even with the two major party candidates.

Perot's candidacy received increasing media attention when the competitive phase of the primary season ended for the two major parties. President George H.W. Bush was losing support, and Democratic nominee Bill Clinton was still suffering from the numerous scandal allegations made in the previous months. With the insurgent candidacies of Republican Pat Buchanan and Democrat Jerry Brown winding down, Perot was the natural beneficiary of populist resentment toward establishment politicians. On May 25, 1992 he was featured on the cover of Time Magazine with the title "Waiting for Perot", an allusion to Samuel Beckett's play Waiting for Godot.

With several months to go until the Democratic and Republican conventions, Perot filled the vacuum of election news, as his supporters began petition drives to get him on the ballot in all 50 states. This sense of momentum was reinforced when Perot hired two savvy campaign managers in Democrat Hamilton Jordan and Republican Ed Rollins.

Accompanying the surge in support for Perot was increased scrutiny of his background. Reports surfaced of Perot hiring private investigators to obtain personal information about business and political adversaries. His temperament was brought into question by some who claimed that he exhibited irritability and an authoritarian management style. Around the same time, Perot was criticized for a remark made during a speech at the NAACP convention. Perot was sympathizing with the plight of African Americans during tough economic times, but referred to his audience as "you people", a phrase that was loudly objected to by some members of the audience, and deemed insensitive by the media.

These developments had an adverse impact on Perot's campaign and his approval rating in opinion polls was no longer rising. On July 16, 1992, Perot reconsidered running for the presidency, even if he was not placed on all 50 state ballots. At that time he was only on 24 state ballots. He was encouraged by the selection of the Democratic party ticket of Bill Clinton and Al Gore at the Democratic National Convention.

Nevertheless, in September he qualified for all 50 state ballots. On October 1, he announced his intention to start running again. He explained his earlier withdrawal by claiming that Republican operatives had wanted to reveal compromising photos of his daughter, which would disrupt her wedding, and he wanted to spare her from embarrassment. Scott Barnes, a private investigator and security consultant who had testified to that effect and supported Perot's story would later, in 1997, reveal that he had tricked Perot into believing that it was true, but it was a hoax he created with others outside any political campaign. Barnes was a Perot supporter, and believed if it were revealed Republicans were involved in dirty tricks, it would harm Bush's candidacy.

He campaigned in 16 states and spent an estimated $65.4 million of his own money. Perot employed the innovative strategy of purchasing half-hour blocks of time on major networks for infomercial-type campaign ads; these ads garnered more viewership than many sitcoms, with one Friday night program in October attracting 10.5 million viewers.[7]

Perot's running mate was retired Vice Admiral James Stockdale, a well-respected former Vietnam prisoner of war (POW). Perot was a long-time supporter of POWs. In December 1969 he organized and flew to North Vietnam in an attempt to deliver 30-tons of supplies to beleaguered American POWs in North Vietnam. Although North Vietnam blocked the flights, the effort was instrumental in bringing the plight of those POWs to the world's attention and their captors soon began treating them better.[2]

At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton). Just prior to the debates, Perot received 7-9% support in nationwide polls. It is likely that the debates played a significant role in his ultimate receipt of 19% of the popular vote. Although his answers during the debates were often general, many Democrats and Republicans conceded that Perot won at least the first debate. In debate he is noted to have said: "Keep in mind our Constitution predates the Industrial Revolution. Our founders did not know about electricity, the train, telephones, radio, television, automobiles, airplanes, rockets, nuclear weapons, satellites, or space exploration. There's a lot they didn't know about. It would be interesting to see what kind of document they'd draft today. Just keeping it frozen in time won't hack it."

Perot denounced Congress for its inaction. Washington, Perot said,

… has become a town filled with sound bites, shell games, handlers, media stuntmen who posture, create images, talk, shoot off Roman candles, but don't ever accomplish anything. We need deeds, not words, in this city.[citation needed]

In July, while Perot was pondering whether to run for office, his supporters established a campaign organization United We Stand America. Perot was late in making formal policy proposals, but most of what he did call for were intended to reduce the deficit. He wanted a gasoline tax increase and some cutbacks of Social Security.

In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote - approximately 19,741,065 votes - (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Perot managed to finish second in two states: In Maine, Perot received 30.44% of the vote to Bush's 30.39% (Clinton won Maine with 38.77%); In Utah, Perot received 27.34% of the vote to Clinton's 24.65% (Bush won Utah with 43.36%).

According to Ronald Rapoport and Walter Stone (2005), Perot's appeal came from two sources. First was his outsider, crusading zeal that made the major parties seem reactionary. Second, he adopted specific positions that had been abandoned by both parties — he was nationalistic and isolationist; he was conservative in social policy. He opposed free trade. He was above all a crusader for a balanced budget, as he warned of the horrors of the national debt.

A detailed analysis of the voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning over $50,000 annually).[8]

Based on his performance in the popular vote in 1992, Perot was entitled to receive federal election funding for 1996. Perot remained in the public eye after the election and championed opposition to NAFTA, urging voters to listen for the "giant sucking sound" of American jobs heading south to Mexico should NAFTA be ratified.

 

[MrZach]

INFOMERCIALS! How didn't I think of that... Wait, I did think of that.

And we all BEGGED for good looking infomercials for months during last year, when they would have worked for something.

We insisted, and proposed, and begged... until they came up with the Iowa 30 minute special, which annoyed every pro-choice person here. And didn't work for anything.

Welcome to October 2007 when this was a good idea. Now, it wouldn't make any difference.

I think Ron Paul needs to clarify and perhaps "back off" his Pro-Life stance and explain that it is a states rights issue that he wants decided by the states and that is why he wants Roe vs. Wade to be repealed. I don't mean back off as in back down, but at least make sure he's not advocating a federal ban on abortion which I think scars the crap out of a lot of people.

In fact, this is just me, but if I was running for president, I would tell all the Pro-Life people out there - "Look guys, I agree with you 100%, but this is just like the slavery issue in England you have to win the hearts and minds of the nation first before you can expect lawmakers to have the power to support you. In a democracy, our power comes from the people, and if you want us to have the power to make abortion illegal, you have to get the people in together on this."

I think the Pro-Life movement has a LOT of convincing to do among the American people before they will ever be able to make any inroads politically. In the meantime, they should seriously table the issue and stop focusing so much money and effort on politics and start working on real people...

 

[MrZach]

Why can't an independent organization be formed and produce one on our own? Just make it candidate neutral and issue specific. In fact, invite all the candidates to speak on it about their positions on the issues! =o)

 

[literatim]

I think Ron Paul needs to clarify and perhaps "back off" his Pro-Life stance and explain that it is a states rights issue that he wants decided by the states and that is why he wants Roe vs. Wade to be repealed. I don't mean back off as in back down, but at least make sure he's not advocating a federal ban on abortion which I think scars the crap out of a lot of people.

In fact, this is just me, but if I was running for president, I would tell all the Pro-Life people out there - "Look guys, I agree with you 100%, but this is just like the slavery issue in England you have to win the hearts and minds of the nation first before you can expect lawmakers to have the power to support you. In a democracy, our power comes from the people, and if you want us to have the power to make abortion illegal, you have to get the people in together on this."

I think the Pro-Life movement has a LOT of convincing to do among the American people before they will ever be able to make any inroads politically. In the meantime, they should seriously table the issue and stop focusing so much money and effort on politics and start working on real people...

He is running for the nomination of the Republican Party.

 

[nodope0695]

You begged on a forum that the official campaign doesn't read. In fact, they avoid this forum like the plague.

Why do they avoid this forum? Anyway, if I have a comment or and idea for the campaign, I do this thing that was invented before the internet...I PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL THEM.

 

[Airborn]

No. We contacted the official campaign.
There was a HUGE voice for the infomercials. There were even companies that were willing to do it without profit (Hollywood closeups).
There were serious plans presented, and multiple approaches to the official campaign, and they were all met with disdain.

I am very happy that Ron Paul won't be our next president, because if he was planning to run the country as he ran his campaign, it would have been a disaster.

As his campaign was (yes, past tense).

He had loads of money, and all the resources were wasted in things that didn't get one vote. The one thing that could have changed people's minds, the infomercials, were never even considered.

then WHAT THE HELL are you doing here? Leave

 

[MrZach]

He is running for the nomination of the Republican Party.

And the Republican Party needs/wants a leader to tell them what to do. Sometimes, you have to show people you sympathize with them while instructing them on what is *really* in their best interest.

Telling pro-lifers that they will accomplish more if they re-direct their energies into people rather than politics shouldn't be that controversial. It is already a very common theme among pastors, and conservative authors and talk-show hosts across America.

For a politician to say, "I agree with you, but I'm powerless to do anything about it yet - you need to help me win the ideological battle in people's hearts and minds." wouldn't kill them.

 

[propanes]

then WHAT THE HELL are you doing here? Leave

Sorry, the campaign Ron or someone(s) is running isn't a good demonstration of money management and value.

 

[Airborn]

Sorry, the campaign Ron or someone(s) is running isn't a good demonstration of money management and value.

If you feel Ron shouldn't be President, you shouldn't even be here. Why bother browsing and posting on the forum for RON PAUL if you feel that way.

 

[Jimmy]

Ron Paul wants to get his message out...this is it. LOTS of folks never heard of Ron Paul and many more heard of him but don't know really what he stands for. MOST of America has NO idea whats going on behind the scenes in goverment....

I say Ron puts together an infomercial and lets it all hang out. Tell the American people everything he knows about the corruption in goverment....where this country is heading....the works!! Want to get the message out? Get more support for this type movement?? Let the American people GLUED to there televisions the straight info about whats going on....a SHOCKER and WAKEUP of a Ron Paul speech.....It makes the most sense at this point....I think this revolution would fund it if they see it happening and people watching!!! I know I would help. We NEED this....if were going out....Lets go out with a BANG!!!