*Foreign Policy Ad Extremely Vital at this Point*

[AuH20]

Doesn't Ron Paul want to cut defense appropriations below 2001 levels? It doesn't sound so radical when you examine it from that reference point.

 

[coffeewithchess]

Doesn't Ron Paul want to cut defense appropriations below 2001 levels? It doesn't sound so radical when you examine it from that reference point.

2006 levels actually.

 

[coffeewithchess]

I am running into a LOT of "foreign policy" issues with Repubs. I had a discussion with a buddy at lunch today....

We are competing with the radio bobbleheads and Faux news. These people are just regurgitating the same lines... "his foreign policy is dangerous..." "what about Israel".."his isolationism is what caused the nazi's to kill all those jews".. etc.. It is INSANE!!!

So, my thought is.... He isn't gonna change minds during the debates when these repubs are hammered every single day... by the bobbleheads.

I do believe he needs a foreign policy Ad. A one-minute long Ad of Him and perhaps Michael Shuerier(spelling) etc.. and just have a plain discussion looking at the camera and lay out the facts and "blowback" etc.. and his foreign policy actually strengthens Israel etc..

Otherwise, this is an exceedingly uphill battle.

I'm dealing with these same people by the boatloads on FB right now. The amount of people that are brainwashed by the media, yet are so freaking lazy they can't click a link...is absolutely amazing. I think if the campaign could just simply show the media for the liars it is, that would help create a distrust of their information to the audience even more. The networks according to FTC guidelines, must run any candidates ad, as long as it doesn't break FTC guidelines for the slot (language/content).

 

[Godmode7]

Too bad they can't just play this tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc5E-MnDBVk&feature=related

 

[deputydon]

I really would love for him to give a ten minute speech on just foreign policy. That way he has time to give details on certain aspects. The Paul campaign needs to be shoving that Ronald Reagan quote down everyone's throats. I'm really beginning to think Ron really isn't trying to get the nomination, just get he message out there.

 

[freneticentropy]

And when Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly (where these people get their ideas) report on Ron Paul cutting Pentagon spending by levels that Obama would never dream of (if those goons bother to report on the address at all), those conservatives you know will go from thinking foreign policy is an issue to thinking Ron Paul is an anti-American terrorist sympathizer.

It is simply unrealistic to expect the media to fairly cover such an event.

You chime in on every single foreign policy thread I participate in with a non-sequitor. Paul has already announced he wants to cut defense spending. Those guys already know he wants to cut defense spending and they already talk about it. The cuts are already in the budget he has proposed which can be read online. So, Paul has explained that he wants to cut. What he hasn't explained is how his foreign policy will be safer for Americans in a way that is digestible to the mainstream republican voter. Then there is the obvious fact, which you keep ignoring, that what he's doing now is losing. He's been trying to get out his message in bits and pieces for years. It's not going to catch on in the next few weeks unless he does something drastic. If he does nothing, he loses. Guaranteed. If he does do something, and the speech is solid, there is at least a chance people will pick up on it and change their minds.

 

[EBounding]

So, Paul has explained that he wants to cut. What he hasn't explained is how his foreign policy will be safer for Americans in a way that is digestible to the mainstream republican voter.

Just to expand, he needs to make clear what he would like Congress to spend that money on. People think Paul just wants to spend the money on the bases here at home, bring the troops home and talk to other countries. What he needs to explain is how that money will also be spent on the Navy and other defensive weapons systems.

But he won't. Maybe he thinks it goes without saying so he focuses more on what needs to be changed. But it'd clear up a lot of misconceptions about his defense policy.