Mike Church offering two good bits of advice

[Decay]

Today on the Mike Church show, Mike spent a fair amount of time as he always does, expressing support for Ron Paul. But he did have two good pieces of advice to help push through some big hurdles. Might not be new thoughts amongst some of us, but still good.

First, he said Paul must address the newsletter issue by claiming responsibility for publishing it, but showing he's been clear of that nonsense ever since. He's basically gotta man up, own it, but explain that what existed in them did not necessarily represent his views.

Secondly, he should hold a large, media covered town hall meeting which would only focus on Iran so he can clearly explain his stance and answer any question regarding the subject. Mike explained that while his views are clear to us as supporters, many outsiders just don't get it because he hasn't always been as clear as he could be.

The basic idea is that Paul needs to get tough and lead with these issues which will continue to haunt him throughout the campaign. He needs to give off a greater projection of strength and there's no reason why he shouldn't show off some bigger brass balls.

 

[FA.Hayek]

great idea, i hope the campaign takes his advice!

 

[FA.Hayek]

anyone here on the forums from the official campaign? this needs to be done asap

 

[rbohlig]

I heard this too this morning. IMO these are the MOST important things the campaign should do in the next few weeks. The newsletters are not going to go away and he has done a poor job of handling it (the CNN response will not assure undecided voters).

As for Iran, he needs to say exactly what he would do as president. Also, if the establishment is going to use fear mongering, I say we use it right back.

EXPLAIN that an attack on Iran would cause them to shut the straights of hormuz and cause gas to reach $6 / gallon. EXPLAIN that a military strike will galvenize the hardliners and make it harder for peaceful change in the younger generation to happen. EXPLAIN that an air strike will only set them back a short time, and the only assured way of stopping them is via an invasion.

I can guarantee that if you paint a bleak enough picture of what a war with Iran would look like, we retake the high ground on this debate. It's gonna be hard to sell another full scale invasion. ESPECIALLY come general election time!

 

[vechorik]

Yes, voters are looking for STRENGTH and SAFETY and support for ISRAEL -- form the discussion of how Dr. Paul will provide that.

 

[milo10]

Ron Paul has handled the newsletter scandal perfectly and appropriately. He should not take any more responsibility than he has done. From those comments, I'm not sure if Mike understands that Ron has already said that he feels some responsibility, as it was published under his name.

The part about Iran is a really good idea, though.

 

[Decay]

Someone in his campaign seriously needs to step up and advise him on this. The problems people have with Paul are clear so there should be no question about the importance of handling this immediately. I feel they're way too relaxed and they appear to have the attitude that the general public just needs to get over it already. Well, they're not gonna get over it, so it's time for a new strategy.

 

[CaptUSA]

See, I think we already have the high ground with the Iran debate. Everytime it comes up, Paul picks up some steam. It's only the right-wing media that doesn't like it.

And the only reason why the right-wing media (and their listeners) don't like Paul's position is because most of them lack the proper context. If these people truly understood the history of Iran and the middle east, they'd be backing Paul to no end. I don't think Paul can explain any more clearly, but it's up to US to provide them with the proper context that they are missing.

 

[Cowlesy]

Good points, Mike.

 

[matt0611]

Definitely agree with the Iran thing.

The main issue the neo-cons use to marginalize us is Iran. If we make this go away by explaining it we could see a big rise in the polls IMO.

 

[Decay]

Ron Paul has handled the newsletter scandal perfectly and appropriately. He should not take any more responsibility than he has done. From those comments, I'm not sure if Mike understands that Ron has already said that he feels some responsibility, as it was published under his name.

The part about Iran is a really good idea, though.

As a Paul supporter and someone who's been listening to his responses, I don't feel he's being as strong as he could be on the newsletter issue. He can settle it with a single sentence, but he tends to drag out his answers and use the excuse that it's simply an old issue. Well, it's become a new issue all over again and needs to be handled as such.

 

[Decay]

See, I think we already have the high ground with the Iran debate. Everytime it comes up, Paul picks up some steam. It's only the right-wing media that doesn't like it.

And the only reason why the right-wing media (and their listeners) don't like Paul's position is because most of them lack the proper context. If these people truly understood the history of Iran and the middle east, they'd be backing Paul to no end. I don't think Paul can explain any more clearly, but it's up to US to provide them with the proper context that they are missing.

If it's up to us, he's screwed. We're not gonna be up at the podium giving speeches and answering questions to the press. He is. And it's up to him to make his points in a clear and bold manner. He had a great opportunity to explain his Iran stance at the Fox debate, and I'm sorry to say, he kinda blew it. He's gotta be able to handle those "what if" scenarios whether he likes it or not.

 

[PhineasFinn]

The newsletters are something that needs to be addressed now because if Paul actually wins the nomination, he'll be running against Obama and I'm sure his campaign will play dirty and portray Paul as a staunch closet racist (with quotes from these supposed newsletters in a well funded ad).

I like the idea of a town hall meeting on Iran. Even as a supporter, I still would like to sit down and listen to Paul explain his ideas and thoughts on how to view and deal with Iran. That's one thing that has drawn us close to Paul as a presidential candidate: his vernacular and diction in regard to explaining his true conservative stances.

Benton and Co. better have a game plan for the newsletters though; I find it hard to believe they haven't considered the possibility of addressing them. They aren't rookies anymore and they better start acting like they are running a top tier campaign. (Although having to watch Fox News and CNN to keep up doesn't help the process.)

 

[vita3]

Also getting a small group of respectable ex military & inteligence leaders in support of Ron, will go a long way.

 

[Travlyr]

As a Paul supporter and someone who's been listening to his responses, I don't feel he's being as strong as he could be on the newsletter issue. He can settle it with a single sentence, but he tends to drag out his answers and use the excuse that it's simply an old issue. Well, it's become a new issue all over again and needs to be handled as such.

There was a lot of racial hatred promoted by mainstream media in the 70's & 80's. As far as I can tell, the quotes I've read are not much different than what we heard weekly from Archie Bunker. Ron has said that he did not write those articles. Specifically, what exact quote(s) in the newsletters bother you the most and why?

 

[Apparition]

Only a handful of commentators are making issue of the newsletters, once it actually becomes a big issue again, THEN will be the time to really address it.
If he answers it again now and "puts it to bed" then he's still going to get asked about it regardless... the media won't just stop pressing it even if he does answer every single little bit of it.

Now on the Iran thing, totally a great idea and it would be great for him to be able to answer questions about it and put peoples fears to rest and yet again open their eyes to history to why we are where we are in the first place.

Yesterday on Hannity the guest-host railed on a Ron Paul supporter when the caller was trying to bring up Iran and our meddling from the mid-50's, the host cut him off and was like "What's your point?" over and over and over again (caller could have done a better job representing RP, but that's not the issue)... the issue is that people NEED to know the history behind our involvement in the Middle East to get proper perspective. For we all know what happens to those who do not learn from history.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Also getting a small group of respectable ex military & intelligence leaders in support of Ron, will go a long way.

YES GOOD IDEA INDEED... I also wondered why RON wasn't visiting the VFWs/American Legion posts throughout these initial states. Both go a long way with supporters and the older voting groups. Particular... you don't see the campaign having a plan of VETS endorsing/backdropping RON on some of his big speeches. This is in the political campaigning 101 book under "Back-Dropping".

There was a lot of racial hatred promoted by mainstream media in the 70's & 80's. As far as I can tell, the quotes I've read are not much different than what we heard weekly from Archie Bunker. Ron has said that he did not write those articles. Specifically, what exact quote(s) in the newsletters bother you the most and why?

That's something has slipped the minds of the United States of Amnesia. I still think Ron or Campaign staff when confronted, can use the same analogy of trying to implicate Ariana Huffington for what a bogger wrote on HuffPo.

 

[evadmurd]

He's already done that (newsletters) in the last campaign. That being said, would be no harm in reiterating it, I guess.

 

[odamn]

Who the f is mike church, and is English his first language?
Both of the topics have been addressed several times,
to my complete satisfaction.

If they can't understand Ron Paul,
it's because they don't want to.
Next Case ...

 

[Decay]

Only a handful of commentators are making issue of the newsletters, once it actually becomes a big issue again, THEN will be the time to really address it.

I disagree. He's being asked about it all the time now. What's he supposed to do, sweep it under the rug until he's up against Obama?

One of the reasons Paul is so respected is because he's consistent as hell. He should be giving the same answers about the newsletters now as he would in the future. He needs one strong answer right now and allow that answer to continue through the end of the campaign.