Foreign Policy Video - Planning Thread - Chainspell & FreeTraveler

Free traveler,

I do like this graphic and your notion of zooming out. It would be a nice big zoom.

I came across this clip to toss in your bag of tricks. It shows Ben Stein, like Santorum, being unable/unwilling to think critically about root causes. He comes across as silly. He's never in his life heard anyone ask why people do bad things. The exchange gets pretty silly with Paul continually asking him to think about the why. He tries the because-they're-psycho, which he must quickly realize sounds like toddler-level discourse because he jumps right to accusations of anti-antisemitism. Anyway, the clip is so intrinsically silly, it may be good fodder for you.



Paul: If you dismiss motivation for why they hate us, we can never resolve this. There's hate on both sides. We have to ask the question, "Why do they hate?" They usually come up with a reason, and we're foolish not to take that into consideration.

Ben: I never heard anything quite like that in my whole life. What he's saying basically is we are doing something wrong by defending ourselves. These terrorists are trying to kill the government of Yemen. We've got to help defend them; they're our friends. We can't just let Al-Qaeda run wild. If we try to stop them, that's not sufficent provo--

Paul: Why?

Ben: Why should we stop them? Because they're terrorists and murderers. And they're very anti-American.

Paul: Why? Why are they terrorists?

Ben: We should stop terrorists and murders, surely congressmen, you--

Paul: Why?

Ben: They're terrorist and murders because they're pyscho.
 
@wistfulthinker: I really like this quote. We'll probably fit it in somehow. 14 seconds 0:50 - 1:05

I'm thinking it fits in after item 4) in the OP, maybe just voice under the chart that would already be up, showing his foreign affairs experience.
Paul: If you dismiss motivation for why they hate us, we can never resolve this. There's hate on both sides. We have to ask the question, "Why do they hate?" They usually come up with a reason, and we're foolish not to take that into consideration.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Latest Update: For this video, believe it or not, we're going to try to hit that 89 second mark they gave the good doctor in the foreign policy debate. :p We figure it will make a good discussion point and help push the video viral. We may well do more, longer foreign policy videos to expand on the points made in this one.

See the original post for the current script and plan.

We have 36 seconds left to cover as much of these two points as possible, plus or minus a few seconds, preferably with video of Dr. Paul. We can adjust the opening and wrapup if necessary. One video clip that covered both would be great! A combination of voiceover and video could also be made to work.

2) Statements that support his desire for a strong national defense, his distaste for nation-building, and the crippling cost of empire, in money and in lives. If there's a triple-play segment out there, that would be ideal, otherwise we'll address the three points separately as needed. (Note example of USSR) [5,7,10,14]

3) His plan to save domestic programs and strengthen our borders by scaling back the empire. [13]

Additional information we're looking for:

All candidates' federal foreign affairs experience, in years. Obama gets credit for his presidency, 4 years I guess. We need to know how long Ron's been on the House Foreign Affairs Committee counting to the end of his current term, and I think Bachmann is also on there. We'll need to research the rest of the candidates; Santorum may have some experience from the Senate. Not sure about Gingrich. Romney, Perry and Cain will get goose eggs.

Military service, in years, for all other candidates. We've got Ron's 5 years in the Air Force and Air National Guard covered. Santorum and Perry served, IIRC.

A catchy title and opening sequence idea. 3 seconds of time there.

A powerful quote from Dr. Paul and wrapup for the video. We've allocated 10 seconds. Maybe something about his sane foreign policy and stable views.

We want to focus on items that have widespread appeal to all primary voters, and destroy the perception that he's an isolationist, lacks knowledge of foreign affairs, or would sacrifice our defense. We welcome any and all contributions to the cause.

Think short but sweet and powerful soundbytes.

Hope everybody's enjoying this process. :)
 
Last edited:
FreeTraveler said:
@wistfulthinker: I really like this quote. We'll probably fit it in somehow. 14 seconds 0:50 - 1:05

I'm thinking it fits in after item 4) in the OP, maybe just voice under the chart that would already be up, showing his foreign affairs experience.
Click to expand...

Paul: If you dismiss motivation for why they hate us, we can never resolve this. There's hate on both sides. We have to ask the question, "Why do they hate?" They usually come up with a reason, and we're foolish not to take that into consideration.
Click to expand...

IMO, that clip = red meat for die hard Paul supports but doesn't play well to those on the fence. It's not a 'presidential' moment whatsoever.

Given the theme of the video (re: "Ron Paul = super strong on defense - here's why") and the aim is to broaden our base among GOP voters in Iowa & NH, I think every point listed in the first post = pitch perfect.

While the "they fight us here because we're over there" argument certainly hits home with me (and lots of others RPF members), in my experience, it's still a very hard pill to swallow for the typical tea-partier. It doesn't matter whether it's 100% true or not... they're still not ready to buy it. So why push it when for many, it will simply cause them confusion/consternation/etc.

#2) Statements that support his desire for a strong national defense, his distaste for nation-building, and the crippling cost of empire, in money and in lives. If there's a triple-play segment out there, that would be ideal, otherwise we'll address the three points separately as needed. (Note example of USSR) [5,7,10,14]

#3) His plan to save domestic programs and strengthen our borders by scaling back the empire. [13]
Click to expand...

Both of these points = homeruns that few if any fiscally conservative voters will find disagreement with when the others

Re: #2) -
  • couple potential moments from this video (especially because it shows Ron 4 years ago dressing the other candidates down + saying the same things he's saying now. E.g. "Oil was 27 dollars when we went over there" etc.)
 
i just +repped everyone! thanks so much for your contribution :)

just a quick note about our conv, before we forget. I only managed to copy the last 20 minutes:

9:20 PM [Chainspell] well i think it will just be a play with words
9:21 PM [FreeTraveler] I think 4 directly addresses it. Particularly with a graph that shows the other candidate have less experience in foreign policy. I see where 5 and 6 don't do that as well.
9:21 PM [Chainspell] to say something like "he knows what he's talking about because he's served in house foreign affairs committee" "he knows what hes talking about because hes been in the military
9:21 PM [Chainspell] etc
9:22 PM [FreeTraveler] yeah, I'll think on it. I see the weakness now.
9:22 PM [Chainspell] hehe cool* *
9:23 PM [FreeTraveler] If people don't like his policy, it's easy to dismiss. It's harder to dismiss if they know he's been dealing with foreign policy from a congressional standpoint, imo.
9:23 PM [FreeTraveler] and it's the same logic for the other two points, but not as strong.
9:23 PM [Chainspell] yeah
9:23 PM [Chainspell] and that hes right
9:24 PM [FreeTraveler] You have to give his position a second thought if you find out he's been in the middle of it for X years. not so much with service and support, but Congressional oversite.
9:24 PM [FreeTraveler] That's as close as you get to being involved in policy next to the President and Secretary of State.
9:25 PM [Chainspell] a lot of people dont know that
9:25 PM [FreeTraveler] Oh, that's a knowledge trap that got me then.
9:27 PM [Chainspell] i think the driving message should be "he knows what hes talking about, he knows what to do,
9:27 PM [Chainspell] oh
9:28 PM [Chainspell] and that hes right"
9:28 PM [Chainspell] *
9:28 PM [FreeTraveler] Yeah, 1-3 was "here's what he wants to do, 4-6 here's why he knows what he's talking about.
9:28 PM [Chainspell] i think you have to spell it out for people
9:28 PM [FreeTraveler] Otherwise, Cain's plan is just as good as his.
9:29 PM [FreeTraveler] Cain can rattle all day about foreign policy, but he's talking out of his hat.
9:29 PM [Chainspell] *cain
9:30 PM [FreeTraveler] Ron's been involved in foreign policy for years. That's the big difference between him and Cain. He can back up his ideas with experience in the field.
9:30 PM [FreeTraveler] *cain indeed.
9:30 PM [Chainspell] *
9:30 PM [FreeTraveler] that's the idea behind 4-6 in a nutshell. Maybe we need something to transition between the two sections to make that point somehow.
9:31 PM [Chainspell] hmm
9:31 PM [Chainspell] i dont know about bullet points* *
9:32 PM [FreeTraveler] what bullet points?
9:32 PM [Chainspell] *basically it's 3 bullet points
9:33 PM [Chainspell] trust him because: military support, hes in congress, he was in military
9:33 PM [FreeTraveler] yeah, kinda.
9:34 PM [FreeTraveler] second point is foreign affairs committee, not just congress, but that's the general idea.
9:35 PM [Chainspell] yeah
9:35 PM [FreeTraveler] foreign affairs committee says he's been involved in foreign policy; he has experience in that specific field. The other two aren't nearly so closely related.
9:35 PM [Chainspell] hmm
9:35 PM [Chainspell] i dont know
9:36 PM [Chainspell] everybody's preaching the same message
9:36 PM [Chainspell] basically that message you're trying to make
9:36 PM [Chainspell] and nobody still gets it
9:36 PM [FreeTraveler] Troop support just says the boots on the ground think he knows what he's doing. Military service says been there done that, so he knows what he's asking the troops to do.
9:36 PM [Chainspell] not the dumb ignorant people
9:36 PM [FreeTraveler] So I gotta find a better way to say it, so the dumb ignorant people get it, is that what you're saying?* *
9:37 PM [Chainspell] i guess you have to spell it out for them. help them connect the dots
9:37 PM [FreeTraveler] look, dumbasses, he's worked with presidents setting foreign policy before, so he's not just making shit up, like all the other candidates.
9:37 PM [FreeTraveler] how's that?* *
9:37 PM [Chainspell] *
9:37 PM [Chainspell] yeah
9:38 PM [Chainspell] but nicer* *
9:38 PM [FreeTraveler] Ron Paul has experience in foreign policy, having served for X years...
9:38 PM [FreeTraveler] on the house Foreign Affairs committee...
9:38 PM [Chainspell] yeah sounds good
9:38 PM [FreeTraveler] I was on #4.
9:39 PM [Chainspell] hmm it sounded more complicated
9:39 PM [FreeTraveler] Troops on the ground think Dr. Paul's foreign policy makes sense, and that's why he receives more donations...
9:39 PM [Chainspell] yeah i like that one
9:39 PM [FreeTraveler] Of course it did. That's why I'm the writer and you're the artist.
9:39 PM [Chainspell] i love that one
9:39 PM [FreeTraveler] It's my job to make the complex simple.
9:40 PM [FreeTraveler] Write 'em down and post the changes in the thread. I'm going to bed soon.
9:40 PM [Chainspell] hehe okay
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Splice Ron Paul videos with Michael Scheuer videos, its been begging to be done for months!





 
eric21, you beat me to it. we need to explain Blowback to your average republicans. we need to make them understand that Iran can just as easily buy a nulclear weapon and that preventing them from building one is not going make us any safer, but quite the opposite, as we all know.
foreign policy is a major hurdle for this campaign and i applaud you guys for taking the time to do this. we just need to put ourselves in the shoes of a neo-con and thin, what is important and what can persuade us?
 
What I really wanted Chainspell to make note of: :D
Ron Paul has experience in foreign policy, having served for X years on the house Foreign Affairs committee...
Troops on the ground think Dr. Paul's foreign policy makes sense, and that's why he receives more donations...
Click to expand...
WD-NY, I'm bouncing back and forth on that motivation clip, but note that it's NOT the "they hate us because we're over there" clip. It's a much milder form, simply saying we need to understand their motivation. It doesn't even say what that motivation is. It's a very mild version of "pay attention, folks."

That said, it probably won't make the cut, because as I mentioned above: (emphasis mine)
We have 36 seconds left to cover as much of these two points as possible.
Click to expand...
I'm watching the vids you posted links to, and there's some good stuff in there. Thanks!

From the letter WD-NY posted in #24:
Support them by bringing them home to our shores, to protect our borders and defend our country. Ensure that they are rested and equipped to repel any real credible attack. Re-unite them with their families. And, make sure they no longer play policeman in dangerous foreign civil wars.
Click to expand...
That's exactly the message we're looking for. I'm gonna go digging and see if he read this into the Congressional Record from the House floor. If he did, that may take care of most of #2 and #3.

Even if he didn't, that quote shows perfectly what we're looking for. He's got a ton in there. Strong national defense, his distaste for nation-building, and strengthening our borders. That leaves only the crippling cost of empire, in money and in lives, and the better use of those funds to protect domestic programs.

And here's 11 seconds that could take care of those final points. 11 seconds - Protect soc sec, medicare, vets and other programs with new budget: 15 seconds 11:04 - 11:19 plan to restore america press conference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-2Zs0-N1dA can probably trim 4 seconds out of middle. It's not specifically about reduced war funding, but it would still work if we don't find a better one.
 
Last edited:
FreeTraveler,

I agree with WD-NY that it's not a good idea to highlight Paul's statements about why terrorists target the U.S. What I love about that clip and the Santorum debate clip is the contrast between Paul asking why and these other guys seemingly baffled by the whole notion of a thought process that would include examination of why. (The second part of the exchange I quoted.) Agree that bringing this up would be tricky, but, at least for me, this contrast pushed me over the edge and toward Paul. I want to elect leaders who ask why. Anyone could get the wrong answer; Paul could have the wrong answer. But you can't get any sort of answer if you don't ask, which is what these other guys seem to think is responsible leadership -- act without thinking critically. I really do think this contrast is powerful. It reaches into all policy areas. It shows that Paul responds while these other guys react.
 
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This thing is going to be amazing! I really, really like the idea to time it out at exactly 89 seconds! Can't wait to see your work!
 
wistfulthinker said:
FreeTraveler,

I agree with WD-NY that it's not a good idea to highlight Paul's statements about why terrorists target the U.S. What I love about that clip and the Santorum debate clip is the contrast between Paul asking why and these other guys seemingly baffled by the whole notion of a thought process that would include examination of why. (The second part of the exchange I quoted.) Agree that bringing this up would be tricky, but, at least for me, this contrast pushed me over the edge and toward Paul. I want to elect leaders who ask why. Anyone could get the wrong answer; Paul could have the wrong answer. But you can't get any sort of answer if you don't ask, which is what these other guys seem to think is responsible leadership -- act without thinking critically. I really do think this contrast is powerful. It reaches into all policy areas. It shows that Paul responds while these other guys react.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree that thinking about the problem is critical, and we need to get that point across in some subtle way. We can't do the whole sales job in a part of an 89 second vid, though, and even that 14 second quote would take time we need to spend shoring up other arguments. That's why I'm planning to use that Sun Tzu quote on the chart about the candidates' foreign policy experience.
12 seconds - VO: Ron Paul has served for X years on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and introduced 16 bills dealing with foreign policy, our borders, immigration and terrorism. (graph: Federal Foreign Affairs Experience, all candidates + Obama, sorted by years of experience. Subtitled with Sun Tzu quote: "Know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles.")
Click to expand...
That at least gets the viewer thinking about the importance of understanding any issue, without forcing the change down their throat. It borders on subliminal training. ;) The next time they hear something like the Santorum/Paul exchange, their knee-jerk reaction may be tempered by a bit of thoughtful reflection. Noting the relative amount of foreign policy experience between Paul and Santorum will help drive that point home.

And CaptUSA, thanks for the props. I'm like you, I'm getting excited about seeing this come together now.

I'm going to restate what we're still looking for at this point, to save people from having to figure it out from all these posts.

Additional information we're still looking for:
Support them by bringing them home to our shores, to protect our borders and defend our country. Ensure that they are rested and equipped to repel any real credible attack. Re-unite them with their families. And, make sure they no longer play policeman in dangerous foreign civil wars.
Click to expand...

That quote from his letter to Obama regarding Veteran's benefits is exactly the message we're looking for. We need to find out if he read this into the Congressional Record from the House floor, and find the video of that. If he did, that may take care of most of #2 and #3.

Even if he didn't, that quote shows perfectly what we're looking for. He's got a ton in there. Strong national defense, his distaste for nation-building, and strengthening our borders. That leaves only the crippling cost of empire, in money and in lives, and the better use of those funds to protect domestic programs. Any other short quotes that cover some or all of those points will be helpful. We've got 36 seconds to use for the above.

We need information on all candidates' federal foreign affairs experience, in years. Obama gets credit for his presidency, 4 years I guess. We need to know how long Ron's been on the House Foreign Affairs Committee counting to the end of his current term, and I think Bachmann is also on there. We'll need to research the rest of the candidates; Santorum may have some experience from the Senate. Not sure about Gingrich. Romney, Perry and Cain will get goose eggs.

We need military service, in years, for all other candidates. We've got Ron's 5 years in the Air Force and Air National Guard covered. Santorum and Perry served, IIRC.

We're looking for a catchy title and opening sequence idea. 3 seconds of time there.

And finally, a powerful quote from Dr. Paul and wrapup for the video. We've allocated 10 seconds. Maybe something about his sane foreign policy and stable views -- or maybe just a short sound byte that emphasizes his presidential and leadership qualities.

Thanks again to everybody for their help on this. It's gonna be a winner for the good doctor.
 
Last edited:
Chainspell pointed out that we needed to explain why Dr. Paul's time on the House Foreign Affairs Committee is important, for those who don't understand what that means. So I've rewritten item 4 to take care of that -- I hope. :) The voiceover is all that's changed. And, we gained two seconds.
4) Ron's experience on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the legislation he's written dealing with international policy.[3,11,12]
10 seconds - VO: Ron Paul has X years in foreign affairs experience as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and sponsor of 16 related bills. (graph: Federal Foreign Affairs Experience, all candidates + Obama, sorted by years of experience. Subtitled with Sun Tzu quote: "Know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles.")
Click to expand...
 
Chainspell also pointed out that we needed to explain why troop donations have something to do with foreign policy, so I've changed that voiceover from "Ron Paul receives more donations from our troops than any other candidate" to "Our military troops vote overwhelmingly for Ron Paul's foreign policy with their contributions."

5) Ron's support from the military. [20]
6 seconds - VO: Our military troops vote overwhelmingly for Ron Paul's foreign policy with their contributions. (zoom out on graph showing total donations by candidate)
Click to expand...
It cost us one of those seconds we just got back, but oh, well. :)
 
Last edited:
Sorry to be a bother, but one more clip that gets to the FP underlying issue to me. Also love the 89 seconds idea.
 
This is from this morning's interview with Des Moines register editorial board. Might be some good stuff in there. Article http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.c...moral-authority-to-send-troops-except-in-war/. Said video to come.

“The Constitution is very clear and the moral responsibility is to defend the people of this country and to obey the law. That’s the moral imperative. The moral imperative isn’t to say somebody needs us and you can draft somebody else’s kids and take your money and go over there and say we’re going to make it a better place.”

He said the United States did something about the Holocaust in World War II because Germany declared war on us. But he said he wouldn’t use moral imperative to take action if Germany were not at war. “If there was a compulsion, if there was a public sentiment for it, believing that it was a threat to our national security, I wouldn’t be the decision maker. That’s the U.S. Congress,” he said.

He said he doesn’t think war would be necessary. “I think if people care, they should have the right to go over there and pick up a rifle, go send their money, do whatever they want but I don’t have the moral authority to compel you to go over and settle a dispute.”

Paul also rejects United States membership in the United Nations or other peacekeeping organizations, because he says he takes away our nation’s sovereignty.
 
We're looking for a catchy title and opening sequence idea. 3 seconds of time there.
Click to expand...

I think the Sun-Tzu quote is super strong and exactly the sort of detail that makes a grassroots video feel authentic/homespun/honest (bc campaigns can't put that stuff in there :)).

In terms of the story being told by the video, I noticed that the arc doesn't include any negative clips of newscasters calling Paul names and/or lying about his positions on the military/defense/national-security. IMO, the 2 most powerful/effective argument constructs/archetypes are:

1.) 'Paul = Prophetic' - date-stamped video ​clip of Paul warning us that "doing X will lead to Y happening" followed by a date-stamped video clip of "Y" being reported on as having happened
  • ex1 - Clip of Paul: 'The war in Afghanistan & over-spending will bankrupt the USSR" in 1988 => clips of media reporting 'USSR has gone bankrupt - 1991' )
  • ex2 - Clip of Paul: 'Saddam is not a threat does not have nuclear weapons' (4:50 in this video - interview w/ Bill Moyers) => clips of media reporting that Bush/Neocons lied about yellowcake & Chemical Weapons
  • ex3 - Clip of Paul: 'Do not getting bogged down in iraq + Afghanistan. Doing so will bankrupt us!' => clips of media reporting on cost of wars per day/month/year + clips of well known/respected reporters, govn't officials, generals, etc. stating that the wars are bankrupting America (e.g. George Will, Pat Buchanan, Chris Christie at the Regan Library, Mitch Daniels etc.)

2.) 'Paul = different than how the MSM describes him' - clips of 'mainstream' talking-heads all saying the same untrue/false talking point over and over again about Paul (e.g. "soft on terror") or one of his policy positions (e.g. 'the commanders doesn't agree with Paul'), followed by a clips of Paul that show the media's characterization to be completely untrue.
  • ex1 - Multiple timestamped clips of media claiming "Paul would've let Bin Laden go" => date-stamped video of Paul introducing/proposing Letters of Marque
  • ex2 - Multiple timestamped clips of media claiming "Paul is against war" => Paul saying "If our country is threatened, we will declare war, go in, win and come home"
  • ex3 - Multiple timestamped clips of media claiming "Paul is weak on Defense" or "Military doesn't agree/support him" => clips of soldiers/commanders agreeing/echoing Paul's policy + donation graphics + Letter to Obama
  • ex4 - Clips of media saying "Paul isn't serious and/or doesn't have experience with foreign policy, the military, defense" => clips of Paul talking tough in the House Foreign Affairs Committee ; clips of Paul introducing foreign policy legislation ; clips of other people describing Paul's statements on international affairs/policy in glowing terms ; etc.
The 3rd argument construct can be tricky if Paul's position isn't broadly accepted as being correct even if it is (e.g. Iran = threat)... or it's a position that alienates GOP voters because of how Paul frames it (e.g. 'Bin Laden attacked us because we occupy Middle East') because it challengers the still-undecided viewer to question what they've always just assumed was true.

That said, those that do become Ron Paul voters via this route often end up being some of Ron Paul's most effective and well informed advocates because they've had to question much of what they used to believe was true. Just ask the self-described 'reformed neo-cons' within the RPF community... it's not easy accepting ideas that challenge and/or contradict much of what you've believed in (or be told to believe in) for years! The EGO/SuperEgo doesn't liked having to admit it was wrong/naive/gullible/etc... so it demands the ID to acquire far more proof/evidence that RP = Right than those who inherently take a more open view towards the life and/or politics.

3.) 'Paul = Right ... Media/Establishment = Wrong' - clips of mainstream talking-heads pushing one of their goto talking point lies/distortions about one of Ron Paul's positions (e.g. Iran = threat), followed by clips Paul stating his position (to clarify the media's distortion), followed by clips of senior/respected leaders, policy-wonks, govn't officials, historians, etc. confirming that Paul = right (either explicitly or implicitly).
  • ex1 - Multiple timestamped clips of media claiming "Paul blames america for attacks on 911 for invading Iraq" => clip of Paul taking down Huckabee in 2008 ("the american didn't go in.. a few people called the neoconservatives..." => clip of Michael Scheuer dropping truth bombs
  • ex2 - Clip of media attacking Paul for his "support of Iran" => clip of Paul explaining why Iran is not a threat => clip of Paul saying Iraq is not a threat => Clip of Gates and/or other generals saying "attacking Iraq = crazy/insane/stupid"
That said, I think that establishing a clear & concise 'foil' for the rest of the video to confront/contradict will convert a lot more people than a positive-clips-only would. By kicking things off with a cacophony of false/unkind/untrue sound-bytes from establishment talking-heads, you trick the viewer into calling up all the negative sound-bytes they've stored in their memory about Paul's international policy. Having everything out in the open allows them to drop their guard a bit and open up to the arguments the remainder of the video will make. If successful, the negative sound-bytes will get wiped out and replaced with your video's far more positive examples.
  • 1 - sound-byte after sound-byte in rapid succession of newscasters pushing some "ron paul = soft of defense" talking point until they all blur together into a jumble of noise (ala ChainSpell's BTO video)
  • 2 - a hard-reset/channel-turned-off transition that then opens up the "18 seconds - Krauthammer's question & Paul's answer on Fox News Center Seat"
  • 3 - clip of Paul repeating his "declare war, go in, win and get out" answer at the CBS Foreign Policy Debate...
4) Ron's experience on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the legislation he's written dealing with international policy.[3,11,12]
10 seconds - VO: Ron Paul has X years in foreign affairs experience as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and sponsor of 16 related bills. (graph: Federal Foreign Affairs Experience, all candidates + Obama, sorted by years of experience. Subtitled with Sun Tzu quote: "Know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles.")
Click to expand...
 
Here's the idea I had a few months ago. Main goal is to build validity of Dr.Paul's foreign policy by using Michael Schueuer as an 'expert witness' so to speak:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?316285-Tell-the-Campaign-to-Creat-this-Ad!

VERY POWERFUL COMMERCIAL featuring Michael Scheuer
30 second ad run during shows like Hannity, O'Reilly, and Special Report, during debates, etc.


"Hi, I'm Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA Bin Laden unit. After 9/11, I devoted my entire life to ensuring justice was served and our enemies brought to justice."
[Black and white of Michael, scary frightening images of 9/11, and hunting Bin Laden in the mountains of Pakistan]

"You've undoubtedly heard Ron Paul's position on foreign policy by now."
[video of Ron Paul in the debates with Santorum rolling his eyes]

"I'm here to tell you the truth... (pause for effect) to tell you that Ron Paul is exactly right and that you need to listen to him! After 9/11, Ron Paul voted to take the war to the Taliban, and we did. Today, the taliban is largely disbanded and Bin Laden is dead. But unfortunately, 10 years later with hundreds of bases across the globe, we've taken on 'nation-building'. Our military is spending more time building bridges and roads for foreign countries than shooting our enemies. Our presence abroad is fanning the flames of hatred and directly reducing our national security.
[video of 9/11, Bin Laden, angry muslim crowds, etc.

When Ron Paul talks about war - I ask you to listen and take it seriously, because he speaks the truth.
[music comes down, a very solemn Michael Scheuer speaking in B/W]

[canned 'Ron Paul for President, 2012' imagery]

"I'm here to tell you the truth... (pause for effect) to tell you that Ron Paul is exactly right and that you need to listen to him! After 9/11, Ron Paul voted to take the war to the Taliban, and we did. Today, the taliban is largely disbanded and Bin Laden is dead. But unfortunately, 10 years later with hundreds of bases across the globe, we've taken on 'nation-building'. Our military is spending more time building bridges and roads for foreign countries than shooting our enemies. Our presence abroad is fanning the flames of hatred and directly reducing our national security.
[video of 9/11, Bin Laden, angry muslim crowds, etc.

When Ron Paul talks about war - I ask you to listen and take it seriously, because he speaks the truth.
[music comes down, a very solemn Michael Scheuer speaking in B/W]

[canned 'Ron Paul for President, 2012' imagery]

For those who doubt Michael's ability to share a convincing argument... I'll direct you to this video. Tons of FP gems:
 
Last edited:
To add onto Ripleymom's idea. I think you could do a whole series of these.

"89 Seconds of Ron Paul: Foreign Policy"
"89 Seconds of Ron Paul: Economics"

etc etc

I have to admit, I just do not get into the intricacies of foreign policy. It's morally wrong to be over there. That's all I need to know. :) Sorry I can't be of more help on this one. Just not my cup of tea.

Everything looks great so far though. *cheers*
 
I like the short 89 seconds of Ron Paul on every subject, but that should be a separate project.

We should have a longer foreign policy video with some of the videos provided.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Rand: Trump is the best foreign policy president we’ve had in a generation
2
Replies
30
Views
222
nikcers
nikcers
Brian4Liberty
D.O.G.E.: End The Global Engagement Center!
Replies
0
Views
3K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Swordsmyth
Trump planning sweeping cuts to State Department
Replies
1
Views
107
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
Meta's Head Of AI Policy Is Ex-IDF Along With One Hundred Other Meta Employees
Replies
0
Views
31
PAF
PAF
CaptUSA
Rubio Ends All Foreign Aid (except for well, y'know)
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
acptulsa
acptulsa
Back
Top