Gaps in the Ron Paul campaign?

[Lethalmiko]

I need someone who knows better to explain some things to me.

1. Why has the Paul campaign not yet put out a TV advert that debunks the "unelectable" myth with polls showing the head-to-head matchups with Obama? In IA and NH, many voters chose Romney precisely because they falsely believe he has the best chance against Obama. So why has the campaign apparently not addressed this issue aggressively when it is clearly hurting Ron Paul?

2. Does the Paul campaign have Physchologists in its ranks? Why isn't the campaign waging its own "positive propaganda" war?

3. Why has the media largely been given a pass when they demagogue in interviews? Why doesn't Dr Paul and his surrogates hit them aggressively by saying things like "that is complete rubbish" or "that is a bare-faced lie"? The media should be challenged on every silly question or comment they bring up. I feel terrible when I see an interviewer inserting lies and innuendos without being taken to task over it. On Morning Joe, RP at least made a good effort but he needs to hit harder like the interview where he cut off the interviewer over the 911 conspiracy theories. It feels like the Paul campaign is fighting with kid gloves and it annoys me to no end, considering what is at stake.

4. Why isn't the Paul campaign using Ben Swann's "Reality Check" to put to rest the racist newsletter stuff? Why aren't his supporters using it either? It keeps coming up in many articles and I rarely see in the comments RP supporters referencing Swann (I am one of the few who has done it).

5. Do Paul supporters ever write directly to the journalists who write trash to calmly challenge them with facts? Most journalists complain that RP supporters write them hate-mail.

6. Is there a campaign to phone in to news stations over biased reporting and mis-representations? If there is, how come I never see retractions or acknowledgments, except when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul to explain the difference between "isolationist" and "non-interventionist" (he said he gets hammered by Ron Paul supporters)?

7. Why has the Paul campaign apparently failed to clearly and precisely show that a vote for Romney is as good as a vote for Obama?

8. Why isn't the link between Romney and the corrupt bankers not being fully exploited?

 

[LEK]

Ron Paul told the Judge that he will let his supporters argue for him - something to that effect:
http://www.dailypaul.com/203587/ron-paul-on-freedom-watch-1-12-12

Here are some ads from Santa Rita Super Pac airing in SC: http://www.santaritasuperpac.org/

These touch on the points you mentinoed.

 

[Crystallas]

Because we're running a grass roots campaign here. We have to pick our battles on how the money is spent because we're going to be around for longer than just the 50 state primary.

The banker backed candidates can blow cash wherever they want. We can't, and we have to assume that we'll be in it for the general as well.

 

[FreeTraveler]

For one thing, all #4 does is paint somebody different with the same brush they used on Ron Paul. There's no more proof that guy wrote the "racists" newsletters than there is about Dr. Paul, and there's at least one contract writer who was working on the newsletters at that time whose style is much closer than his. I lost all faith in Ben Swann after he made that unbelievably huge leap in logic and smeared someone else's good name in defense of Dr. Paul. WWRPD?? Not that, for sure.

As for #7 and #*, it's too early in the game. We're picking off the birds at the back of the flock first.

The campaign knows what it's doing.

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[kylejack]

2. Does the Paul campaign have Psychologists in its ranks? Why isn't the campaign waging its own "positive propaganda" war?

I don't know if we need psychologists, but they're definitely doing better in this department. Tom Woods, Bruce Fein, Michael Scheuer, and Doug Wead have all been writing great articles in support of Ron this year, something that was sorely lacking last time.

3. Why has the media largely been given a pass when they demagogue in interviews? Why doesn't Dr Paul and his surrogates hit them aggressively by saying things like "that is complete rubbish" or "that is a bare-faced lie"? The media should be challenged on every silly question or comment they bring up. I feel terrible when I see an interviewer inserting lies and innuendos without being taken to task over it. On Morning Joe, RP at least made a good effort but he needs to hit harder like the interview where he cut off the interviewer over the 911 conspiracy theories. It feels like the Paul campaign is fighting with kid gloves and it annoys me to no end, considering what is at stake.

They do a good job of controlling the BS. Can't get nasty with every interviewer or they'll stop giving us interviews. We need the media, so we have to generally treat them with respect until they get way out of line.

4. Why isn't the Paul campaign using Ben Swann's "Reality Check" to put to rest the racist newsletter stuff? Why aren't his supporters using it either? It keeps coming up in many articles and I rarely see in the comments RP supporters referencing Swann (I am one of the few who has done it).

I like what Swann is doing, but I don't find his newsletter bit helpful to our cause.

 

[ZanZibar]

No campaign is ever perfect and no campaign is ever able to do everything it really should do. But you can still win in spite of being imperfect.

Not only that, but not everything above is necessary or even a good idea.

 

[Lethalmiko]

Ron Paul told the Judge that he will let his supporters argue for him - something to that effect: These touch on the points you mentinoed.

His supporters cannot do that because they are not interviewed on the major channels like him.

We have to pick our battles on how the money is spent because we're going to be around for longer than just the 50 state primary.

True but the "electability" battle is in my view one of the top three, alongside Foreign Policy and overspending.

For one thing, all #4 does is paint somebody different with the same brush they used on Ron Paul. There's no more proof that guy wrote the "racists" newsletters than there is about Dr. Paul, and there's at least one contract writer who was working on the newsletters at that time whose style is much closer than his. I lost all faith in Ben Swann after he made that unbelievably huge leap in logic and smeared someone else's good name in defense of Dr. Paul. WWRPD?? Not that, for sure.... The campaign knows what it's doing.

The proof is not definitive for all the articles, but we now know for a fact that James B. Powell wrote at least one of the offending articles since his name was on it and to report that he wrote it is not smearing him at all. At the very least, this adds a lot of weight to Paul's statements that he never wrote the stuff.

I don't know if we need psychologists, but they're definitely doing better in this department. Tom Woods, Bruce Fein, Michael Scheuer, and Doug Wead have all been writing great articles in support of Ron this year, something that was sorely lacking last time. They do a good job of controlling the BS. Can't get nasty with every interviewer or they'll stop giving us interviews. We need the media, so we have to generally treat them with respect until they get way out of line. I like what Swann is doing, but I don't find his newsletter bit helpful to our cause.

I think you need psychologists because they can tune the message for maximum impact using important phrases/keywords. You do not have to get nasty but you can be firm like the 911 conspiracy theory interview where RP was not nasty but was very firm. Swann is very useful because he reported what no one else would and exposed the identity of one of the ghost writers which can counter the belief many people have that RP wrote the things himself.

No campaign is ever perfect and no campaign is ever able to do everything it really should do. But you can still win in spite of being imperfect. Not only that, but not everything above is necessary or even a good idea.

You do not have to be perfect to realize that if people are refusing to vote for Dr Paul because they think he cannot beat Obama, you have to dispel the myth vigorously. In my view, this is even more important than going after the other candidates to knock them out because even if it comes down to Romney Versus Paul, more voters will gravitate towards Romney because they believe he is stronger than Paul against Obama, even if they know in their hearts that Paul is the better candidate. Isn't this just common sense?

So why on earth does the campaign not deal with this critical issue urgently and forcefully? If they could spend so much money hitting Romney/Gingrich/Santorum, why can't they spend on an ad to convince voters that RP is electable and thereby bring in possibly millions more into the fold and knock out Romney?

 

[Lethalmiko]

BTW, I checked out the advert on electability by the Santa Rita SuperPac (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_UfB9EzhKA) but in my view it is useless. It just rehashes Ron Paul's rather weak argument that he is electable because he has been elected 12 times to congress. The one-on-one head-to-head matchup polls pitting Obama against Paul and against Romney are the most convincing argument but the Paul campaign is not using them in any sort of effective, visible and vigorous way. Why???

 

[centure7]

You raise a lot of good points. A few responses can't seem to accept constructive criticism.

1. Why has the Paul campaign not yet put out a TV advert that debunks the "unelectable" myth with polls showing the head-to-head matchups with Obama? In IA and NH, many voters chose Romney precisely because they falsely believe he has the best chance against Obama. So why has the campaign apparently not addressed this issue aggressively when it is clearly hurting Ron Paul?

Ron Paul needs to do exactly that, but has not yet. Everyone knows Romney does well against Obama, but nobody seems to know that Paul does well against Obama.

2. Does the Paul campaign have Physchologists in its ranks? Why isn't the campaign waging its own "positive propaganda" war?

I don't know, but it should put a psychologist in its ranks as a consulting. Contact the campaign about that... why ask us?

3. Why has the media largely been given a pass when they demagogue in interviews? Why doesn't Dr Paul and his surrogates hit them aggressively by saying things like "that is complete rubbish" or "that is a bare-faced lie"? The media should be challenged on every silly question or comment they bring up. I feel terrible when I see an interviewer inserting lies and innuendos without being taken to task over it. On Morning Joe, RP at least made a good effort but he needs to hit harder like the interview where he cut off the interviewer over the 911 conspiracy theories. It feels like the Paul campaign is fighting with kid gloves and it annoys me to no end, considering what is at stake.

This conflicts with your point #6. Paul should as you put it so well, "calmly challenge with facts". That is basically what he does.

4. Why isn't the Paul campaign using Ben Swann's "Reality Check" to put to rest the racist newsletter stuff? Why aren't his supporters using it either? It keeps coming up in many articles and I rarely see in the comments RP supporters referencing Swann (I am one of the few who has done it).

So ask the campaign to do it. I'm not going to.

5. Do Paul supporters ever write directly to the journalists who write trash to calmly challenge them with facts? Most journalists complain that RP supporters write them hate-mail.

I do, and let me be the first to say that insults and hate as a response to insulting and hateful remarks by the media are ABSOLUTELY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE!

6. Is there a campaign to phone in to news stations over biased reporting and mis-representations? If there is, how come I never see retractions or acknowledgments, except when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul to explain the difference between "isolationist" and "non-interventionist" (he said he gets hammered by Ron Paul supporters)?

There are few people who want to put them self into the spotlight like that. I'm certainly not one of them.

7. Why has the Paul campaign apparently failed to clearly and precisely show that a vote for Romney is as good as a vote for Obama?

They are busy attacking Sanatorum and Gingrich to get into position for that. Its a strategy that I strongly approve of!

8. Why isn't the link between Romney and the corrupt bankers not being fully exploited?

What link?

 

[hueylong]

Negative negative negative. Tsk Tsk.

 

[BUSHLIED]

No campaign is ever perfect and no campaign is ever able to do everything it really should do. But you can still win in spite of being imperfect.

Not only that, but not everything above is necessary or even a good idea.

The campaign can still improve and MUST improve if they want to WIN and go heads up against Romney. Ron is grabbing 20% based on his sheer message and appeal BUT Romney gets 30%+ because of his operation and GOTV...he has no inherent appeal, no draw like Paul has, they are not enthusiastic about Romney BUT he is able to overcome that and win....

This becomes critically important in LARGE PRIMARY STATES with hundreds of thousands if not millions of voters...

 

[Lethalmiko]

From my reading of the various comments in many threads and my exchanges so far, I cannot shake the feeling that there are too many naive Ron Paul supporters who are living in a Matrix-type dream world. They seem to believe that just because there is a movement against big government and RP is doing better this time round, therefore he will win. Sorry but it simply does not automatically follow. To win, no stone should be left unturned, no argument left "unmade", no group left "untalked" to and no powerful advert left "unaired". This blind belief that the Paul campaign "knows what they are doing" and cannot be wrong and we should therefore not urge them on with constructive criticism is just plain silly (sorry people, no disrespect intended).

We all want Dr Paul to win and fix America. The road to the White House is long and perilous and full of pitfalls and the Ron Paul campaign cannot afford to be lax or negligent on anything that they can do something about. I have written to them a couple of times (though never received any response) and I even post on their FB page (I am probably not the only one). The campaign is way better than in 2008 but there is a lot of room for improvement and I do not understand why for example "hueylong" says I am being negative when I only want things polished up.

The forces arrayed against this campaign are vast and innumerable and every little thing that CAN be done SHOULD be done to give any small advantage (of course assuming there is no significant downside). As I said in another thread I started, I feel the campaign botched the Iowa caucus when RP was in pole position with their slow response to go after Santorum when he started rising in the polls (NH campaign was much better). I disagree with the current strategy of going after the other candidates first instead of Romney. Pointing these things out should not make me an enemy.

Unlike many people in here, I am very realistic about what is really going on and have no grand illusions. If RP does not do well in SC, I do not see a clear path to the nomination and all the effort made destroying Gingrich and Santorum will have been for naught if in the end Romney keeps winning and looking unstoppable. Which is why I believe - and you can disagree with me strongly on this - the best strategy is to hit Romney NOW with tough adverts and deal with the electability issue as I suggested at the beginning of the thread. In my opinion, this would be a one-two combination that Romney will not be able to recover from if it is executed with clinical precision.

You raise a lot of good points. A few responses can't seem to accept constructive criticism. Ron Paul needs to do exactly that, but has not yet. Everyone knows Romney does well against Obama, but nobody seems to know that Paul does well against Obama.... This conflicts with your point #6. Paul should as you put it so well, "calmly challenge with facts". That is basically what he does.

You can calmly challenge interviewers/panelists with a bit of passion. There is no contradiction. Gingrich has already done it in debates with great success.

What link?

Romney's biggest contributors are the bankers such as Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, etc. They got corruptly bailed out using firstly TARP and then the $16trillion that the Fed secretly created out of thin air and loaned to them at 0.1% interest, only for them to buy govt bonds at 3% and make a very tidy $13billion profit. Corrupt corporations only back equally corrupt candidates.

The campaign can still improve and MUST improve if they want to WIN and go heads up against Romney. Ron is grabbing 20% based on his sheer message and appeal BUT Romney gets 30%+ because of his operation and GOTV...he has no inherent appeal, no draw like Paul has, they are not enthusiastic about Romney BUT he is able to overcome that and win....

Great Point.

 

[Eleutheros]

Lethalmiko, while I think you make a very compelling argument with the points you discussed, what I don't think you (fully) realize is that the campaign simply does not have the money or resources to attack the MSM and the other candidates in the way you think they should. Because of this, they must pick their battles wisely, and in order to do that, they realize that while this has been an uphill battle, it has been a very positive and progressive one, but at the same time, some issues that we may think is important in being addressed must be pushed to the back burner in favor of more pressing matters that will garner much more favorable results. I really think the campaign is doing great in this regard.

I disagree with the current strategy of going after the other candidates first instead of Romney. Pointing these things out should not make me an enemy.

I'm sure you do disagree, but it's for the best. We are fighting this battle on three fronts (four if you count Obama): fighting the weaker candidates, fighting Romney, and fighting the MSM spin propaganda. If we try to aggressively fight all three at once, it will prove to be counterproductive, we'll get battle fatigue, and nothing will get accomplished. Fighting the weaker candidates first not only will put them out of commission, but it will also help damage the MSM credibility and making their negative RP propaganda harder to spin. So will effective kill/cripple two birds with one stone.

Unlike many people in here, I am very realistic about what is really going on and have no grand illusions. If RP does not do well in SC, I do not see a clear path to the nomination and all the effort made destroying Gingrich and Santorum will have been for naught if in the end Romney keeps winning and looking unstoppable. Which is why I believe - and you can disagree with me strongly on this - the best strategy is to hit Romney NOW with tough adverts and deal with the electability issue as I suggested at the beginning of the thread. In my opinion, this would be a one-two combination that Romney will not be able to recover from if it is executed with clinical precision.

First of all, short of another unforeseen MSM spin propaganda, there is nothing that suggests that RP won't do well in SC. His rise in the polls has been simply phenomenal. Believe it or not, we really don't need to attack Romney anyway. Let the weaker candidates and the MSM with the Bain Capital story do the dirty work for us, then all we have to do is nail in the coffin, and dine off Romney's candidate carcass. Why do we have to expend more effort than we need to? I understand your point, but it sounds like you're making the campaign do too much unnecessary work at this point in time. We will go full force on Romney when the field has been cleared out of the other candidates.

 

[Lethalmiko]

Eleutheros, you have made very good points and in principle I agree with you. My unresolved problems are as follows:

1. You say "some issue that we may think is important in being addressed must be pushed to the back burner in favor of more pressing matters that will garner much more favorable results". I have trouble believing that dealing with the Electability issue is less pressing than the other goals of the campaign. According to exit polls in both Iowa and NH, a third of voters said electability was their biggest issue and these are the people that gave Romney his win in both states.

Now, compare the electability issue on one hand with fighting the other weaker candidates, the MSM, Obama and Romney on the other. If the electability argument is won, it immediately kills all four birds with a single shot because it translates into significantly more votes for Paul. The more people vote for him, the weaker the other candidates (including Romney) get, the less room for the media to spin and the weaker Obama becomes. Tell me how I am wrong.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/early-nh-exit-polls-voters-look-for-electability/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...y-exit-polls/2012/01/10/gIQAV807oP_story.html

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/03/iowa-caucus-entrance-polls-electability-tops-the-list/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/u...ses-polls-show-sharp-divide-among-voters.html

2. Time is running out. Achieving the other goals may create space to manoeuvre, but if Romney has an unassailable lead by then, what is the point? Again, how am I mistaken here?

3. Perhaps I can agree with you that "we really don't need to attack Romney anyway", but only if the electability issue has been dealt with since on its own, it would blunt his momentum. I would still favour an attack to bury him for good, just to make sure.

4. From the foregoing, would it not be better if the campaign pulled all the other ads and focused solely on electability ads (thereby dealing with the resources problem)?

 

[Eleutheros]

Lethalmiko, your points of contention lies in two major points: electability and Romney's assumed lead. I will address those two points accordingly:

Electability: If you think about it for a moment; this is really a non-issue that has really been a red herring spin by the MSM that is becoming increasingly refuted each election. RP is electable simply by virtue that he is constitutionally eligible for the office of the US presidency. In short, it is a meaningless buzzword that serves no purpose than to discourage voters from voting for RP; it is a perception issue, not a real issue.

Romney's assumed lead: Remember, it is all about the DELEGATES, and less about getting the popular vote. So as far as delegates go, we are in great shape: while Romney has 7 delegates, RP has a lot more, 3 hard and (a maximum of) 21 soft. While the MSM would like for you to believe otherwise, don't let Romney winning the popular vote detract you from the goal: getting the necessary delegates needed to secure the nomination and don't let the MSM spin detract you from the overall goal.

 

[Oukvekpwv]

2. Does the Paul campaign have Physchologists in its ranks? Why isn't the campaign waging its own "positive propaganda" war?

One of the reasons why I have a strong distaste, to put it lightly, for Obama and most politicians is because he uses social-psychological phenomina to get people to act without thinking at the same time alienating opposition making it a crime against society to actually think beyond key phrases.. Ron hasn't nor does he need to stoop to that level.. this is what makes him stand apart from everyone else.. Truth speaks for itself..

 

[Lethalmiko]

Electability: If you think about it for a moment; this is really a non-issue that has really been a red herring spin by the MSM that is becoming increasingly refuted each election. RP is electable simply by virtue that he is constitutionally eligible for the office of the US presidency. In short, it is a meaningless buzzword that serves no purpose than to discourage voters from voting for RP; it is a perception issue, not a real issue.

I know it is a red herring but the point is that a large number of voters believe it. Obama won his election purely on perception and not on substance (Ron Paul in an interview with Russia Today expressed serious doubts about Obama even before he took office in January 2009). Therefore, you cannot ignore dealing with a problem just because it is not substantive. As long as enough people believe the BS, Paul is prevented from winning. The corrupt media will keep spinning this narrative endlessly unless the Paul campaign actively diffuses it.

Romney's assumed lead: Remember, it is all about the DELEGATES, and less about getting the popular vote. So as far as delegates go, we are in great shape: while Romney has 7 delegates, RP has a lot more, 3 hard and (a maximum of) 21 soft. While the MSM would like for you to believe otherwise, don't let Romney winning the popular vote detract you from the goal: getting the necessary delegates needed to secure the nomination and don't let the MSM spin detract you from the overall goal.

Voters in upcoming contests do NOT know this fact. But in any case, if Romney starts looking unbeatable, voters in upcoming Winner-Take-All contests will fall in line and vote for him and thus erase any leads Paul may have in delegates up to that point. There is no substitute for outright wins in those kinds of contests and Paul needs to have momentum going into them which he cannot do if people think he is weaker than Romney against Obama. The only scenario where I see Paul overturning this situation is if the totals of new people, Independents and Blue Republicans cancels and neutralizes the traditional neocon Republican voters and so far I see no evidence of this.

 

[Lethalmiko]

One of the reasons why I have a strong distaste, to put it lightly, for Obama and most politicians is because he uses social-psychological phenomina to get people to act without thinking at the same time alienating opposition making it a crime against society to actually think beyond key phrases.. Ron hasn't nor does he need to stoop to that level.. this is what makes him stand apart from everyone else.. Truth speaks for itself..

I was not suggesting that Paul's campaign resorts to dirty propaganda that stops people thinking. You can give the exact same truths in better packaging, so to speak. For example, instead of Paul saying that Iran is nowhere near developing a nuke (which makes it sound like it is his crazy opinion), why can't he emphasize the fact that his position is based on the reports of the CIA/DOD/911 Commission? He sometimes mentions it in passing but fails to show its significance. If he said something like:

"Do you really think that the CIA has a bunch of kooky fools writing their reports?"

it would carry far more impact. Even when he mentions what Benjamin Netanyahu said in Congress last year, it still comes off very weak because it lacks emphasis in the right places. He could say:

"The Prime Minister of Israel himself, the highest public servant told us in Congress that they do not need American troops because they can defend themselves. Who are we to ignore what he said and think we know better than him, a man who has access to daily intelligence reports from the Mossad?"

A little tweaking of words can change voters' opinions, hence the Psychology aspect.

UPDATE EDIT: Andrew Napolitano already uses these techniques effectively on his program "Freedom Watch". He throws in subtle suggestions into his questions like the MSM does. He knows it works.

 

[JJ2]

From my reading of the various comments in many threads and my exchanges so far, I cannot shake the feeling that there are too many naive Ron Paul supporters who are living in a Matrix-type dream world. They seem to believe that just because there is a movement against big government and RP is doing better this time round, therefore he will win. Sorry but it simply does not automatically follow. To win, no stone should be left unturned, no argument left "unmade", no group left "untalked" to and no powerful advert left "unaired". This blind belief that the Paul campaign "knows what they are doing" and cannot be wrong and we should therefore not urge them on with constructive criticism is just plain silly (sorry people, no disrespect intended).

We all want Dr Paul to win and fix America. The road to the White House is long and perilous and full of pitfalls and the Ron Paul campaign cannot afford to be lax or negligent on anything that they can do something about. I have written to them a couple of times (though never received any response) and I even post on their FB page (I am probably not the only one). The campaign is way better than in 2008 but there is a lot of room for improvement and I do not understand why for example "hueylong" says I am being negative when I only want things polished up.

The forces arrayed against this campaign are vast and innumerable and every little thing that CAN be done SHOULD be done to give any small advantage (of course assuming there is no significant downside). As I said in another thread I started, I feel the campaign botched the Iowa caucus when RP was in pole position with their slow response to go after Santorum when he started rising in the polls (NH campaign was much better). I disagree with the current strategy of going after the other candidates first instead of Romney. Pointing these things out should not make me an enemy.

Unlike many people in here, I am very realistic about what is really going on and have no grand illusions. If RP does not do well in SC, I do not see a clear path to the nomination and all the effort made destroying Gingrich and Santorum will have been for naught if in the end Romney keeps winning and looking unstoppable. Which is why I believe - and you can disagree with me strongly on this - the best strategy is to hit Romney NOW with tough adverts and deal with the electability issue as I suggested at the beginning of the thread. In my opinion, this would be a one-two combination that Romney will not be able to recover from if it is executed with clinical precision.

You are 100% correct, and I have been saying the same things. We will be proven correct eventually, one way or the other. I just hope and pray the campaign will do whatever they can to stop Romney's momentum and promote Paul's electability.