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?
Good question. I agree that they should do this.
2. Does the Paul campaign have Physchologists in its ranks? Why isn't the campaign waging its own "positive propaganda" war?
I'm not sure if I understand this question, but I think you may have an inflated opinion of psychology.
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.
He has been doing that more. A candidate can only do that so much, and frankly Rand's approach of subtly bypassing criticism is better.
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).
This would not help, at least not by the campaign. Individuals can use their own judgment depending on the conversation and there you do have a good point.
I tend to think the campaign handled the newsletter issue very well. I think a lot of people do not have a good idea of how political correctness or a hostile media works in this country. There is no fairness and no appeasing them, the only thing stopping the media is the sense that people feel the issue has been beaten to death and there is no longer a story. Ron sticking to his message clearly was the best thing he could do.
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.
All of the time, but of course it will almost always be typified as hate mail rather than "brought facts clearly to my attention." I do think that some of the criticisms of Ron Paul supporters are warranted, such as there being overzealous in slight criticisms of Ron, but it is a mass movement, and you can not fully police that. It is what it is, and I am grateful that depth of support exists.
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)?
If we were more focused/organized on stuff like this, I would bet we'd get a lot more retractions. Very good point.
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?
The Paul campaign is going easy on Romney, to the point where some have described it looking like a coalition between the two. There are very good reasons for this. The campaign knows they can beat Romney one on one, the point is to get there and focus on getting everyone else out of the race first as soon as possible. Romney doing well actually helps us in the short term, so long as we keep getting in the top two places and building our support. Nobody in the media really understands this. Our goal should be to beat all the other conservatives, and then go full bore on Mitt. It's an unconventional campaign strategy that a more conventional candidate could not pull off.
8. Why isn't the link between Romney and the corrupt bankers not being fully exploited?
See answer above. While individuals can do this, now is not the time to go after Romney full bore. It would be far better to obliterate candidates like Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry in South Carolina, and start the process of sending them home as soon as possible.
You could have added to your list an ad about seniors. A 30 second ad showing that Ron would not touch Social Security, but would cut just about everything else in the government to make sure we can fulfill our obligations there is probably the biggest gap in the campaign. Seniors should love Ron Paul, and they need to be reached via TV.
Another gap is an ad on defense. Hazek did a good post on this:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?349693-OPEN-LETTER-TO-THE-CAMPAIGN
There are a lot of gaps, but those two are pretty egregious, as is your first suggestion about an electability ad. Overall, we have one of the shrewdest campaigns of any candidate, but mistakes have been made. As they always are.
