Not Happy with Iowa Infomercial...

[ThePieSwindler]

I guess 6 months and $25M+ wasn't enough for Headquarters to arrange for a "fireside chat" from Paul, so people could see his warmth, passion, reason and integrity?

Sometimes I wonder if some key members of HQ - specifically those in charge of media production decisions - aren't actually working for the opposition....

Sometimes I wonder if key members of the forums - specifically those who don't know what the fuck they are talking about - aren't actually that obtuse.

 

[tanstaafl]

If that amendment passed, then it would be the FedGov's business, because it would be a Constitutional issue. It's not, presently, thus Ron's position.

On most issues, Ron goes to the Constitution and he doesn't flip flop. His statement that abortion is a States issue since it isn't mentioned in the Constitution is the one he should stick with - it can satisfy all sides reasonably well, but most important it is the Constitutional answer. My guess is that Dr. Paul would lose about half his current base if it became clear he was going to make abortion illegal on a federal level.

Ron Paul may be running as a Republican because that is the best fit, but the traditional Republican base is NOT what is going to decide this election. So, Dr. Paul should state that he is has delivered 4,000 babies and is opposed to abortion BUT abortion is really a States issue and he is not running for State office. He should say that and he should stick to that. It would be sufficient for most pro-life supporters who are Constitutionalists and be bearable for most pro-choice people who are Constitutionalists. His current flip flopping on this issue is causing a LOT of damage...and isn't going to do the unborn babies any good, either.

 

[Spideynw]

Overturning Roe vs. Wade should have been a great opportunity for you to talk to your family about abortion and then more about Ron Paul. Ask them if they are for abortions in both the second and third trimesters, which Roe vs. Wade legalized. Ask them how many doctors do they really think would be willing to even perform a second or third trimester abortion.

Most Dems are "pro-choice", but my guess is that 99% of them are only "pro-choice" for the first trimester.

 

[emk]

You'll never find a candidate with whom you agree 100%, unless you're running for office even then, and even then you may not be able to run 1:1 on your own personal views.

 

[tanstaafl]

Sometimes I wonder if key members of the forums - specifically those who don't know what the fuck they are talking about - aren't actually that obtuse.

Well, straighten me out. Why is it that the media coming from HQ is so unimaginative and bland? If they would explain their problems maybe we could help.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

Well, straighten me out. Why is it that the media coming from HQ is so unimaginative and bland? If they would explain their problems maybe we could help.

All i'm saying is that its foolish to just jump straight to the most outlandish conclusion. Apply Ockham's razor, and you realize that its just the campaign trying to emphasize his more traditionally conservative points to a fairly social conservative base, and it doesnt really seem to be lowering his poll numbers in Iowa or anything... *cough*. I wholly agree that the infomercial was started poorly. I disagree that all their media is unimaginitive and bland - alot of their ads and commercials i'm quite fond of, some, not so much. The infomercial is very good except for HOW it is started. I do wish they would have put more emphasis on his position on currency, the war, and spending/taxes. But I believe the ad will turn on more people than it will turn off. Show more left-leaning potential supporters other videos.

I think the thing is that, the campaign is actually running things pretty well in terms of appealing to the targeted base. The grassroots can pick up the slack in other areas, which is really what it has done. The grassroots was the driving force early on, and is even more of a powerhouse now - except that its alot better at targeting the average American who doesnt really fall into party lines but wants an honest man for president. The grassroots can be more flexible, and thus can bring in a bigger-tent mix of supporters. It would be alot less efficient if the official campaign tried to do such. I think their methods are fine for the demographic they are trying to target, which is partially the point of politics. This is a revolution, yes, but the revolution part must be at the grassroots level. If the campaign tries to integrate any of that, it will be a lot less successful and an even bigger waste of money than these expenditures "seem" to be. Let the campaign do the traditional, official stuff, whilst we facilitate the revolution.

That being said, i do think their biggest mistakes involve dropping the ball on many ballot initiatives where grassroots has had to pick up the slack. Thats something HQ HAS to be doing.

 

[emk]

Our hip, snazzy, 21st century YouTube videos will NOT be understood by an older audience.

 

[Naraku]

LibertyEagle

That's not true at all. A whole lot of women are very concerned about the thought of going back to the way it used to be. Coat hangers and the like. If you had lived during that time and are a woman, you probably understand what I am talking about.

Yeah women shouldn't have to kill their babies themselves. They should be able to pay someone to kill their babies. They have a right to kill their babies after all. The courts said so.

NewEnd

There are many issues more important than abortion, and for paul to go from a lackadaisical "it should be left up to the states" to a hard-right "we need a federal law that says life begins at conception" is not the way to make friends.

He has not changed anything. He said he supports leaving abortion up to the states through and through. He said after Roe v. Wade is abolished it would be left up to the states. If he proposed any sort of constitutional amendment it would be like the flag-burning one where the states are given the power to ban it.

This is the kind of shit I can't stand in feminazi or christian crusader dialogue. One should be able to at least respect the opinion of the other side in this matter.

If we were talking about homosexuality or drug use you may have a point, but we're talking about abortion, the murder of an unborn child. If a person can't call support of that immoral, bigoted, and intolerant then we've truly fallen as a society.

grizzums

It bothers me when one side tries to paint their side as being more righteous than the other.

It's not being righteous to stand up for what's right.

Spideynw

Most Dems are "pro-choice", but my guess is that 99% of them are only "pro-choice" for the first trimester.

I'm not sure about 99%, since I know there are some self-proclaimed Democrats who see abortion as not only a right, but a good idea. However, a large number do not support partial-birth abortion. Some are actually pro-life and others are like I said, against abortion but believe it should be legal regardless.

What I find most interesting is that people who are pro-choice can't give any good reason for why it should be legal, but have so many reasons why it shouldn't be illegal. The only people who really have a good reason are those who talk about it as a form of population control, a way of preventing mental retardation and criminality or something to that effect. However, those arguments are basically repackaged eugenics so it's kind of sad that those are the best arguments for abortion.

It seems the most popular argument is the idea that because some women would do it illegally, which most who do it now wouldn't, it must be made legal. Of course, the same logic applies to murder in general and theft, but people aren't trying to legalize them. Fact is, there is no logical, ethical, legal, or scientific argument that can justify abortion outside of the crazy eugenics-style arguments and that's only on a scientific and logical level. It certainly isn't ethical.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

The nice thing about the abortion debate is that it might be solved in the somewhat near-future- by neither side, nor government, but by medicine. They now have the technology to transfer living fetuses from an unwilling parent to a willing parent, and other forms of medical technology that will make the so-called "need" for abortion a thing of the past. Much like stem cell research, science has indeed provided solutions where mere politics have failed.

 

[mkrfctr]

1. I think the infomercial and nearly all their TV ads (the Christmas one was okay) suck production values wise.
2. I hope that the choice of material used in the Iowa infomercial was well thought out and is successful, it seems a bit counter intuitive to use a speech covering topics that people say are less important than other ones the infomercial didn't cover

As to the abortion thing - it's simple, follow along.

Ron Paul's stance.
1. Life begins at conception
2. Abortion therefore is an issue of a crime (murder) against another person and unrelated to any privacy issues (can you murder your child in the privacy of your home? no, so same goes to can you murder your child in the privacy of your womb, no.)
3. Violent crimes against a person is not prosecuted on the federal level; ergo states would be responsible for setting the level of investigation, resources used in prosecuting, and terms of punishment. Some states would be more lenient than others, and some would simply turn a blind eye, effectively keeping abortion legal.

 

[literatim]

There are many issues more important than abortion, and for paul to go from a lackadaisical "it should be left up to the states" to a hard-right "we need a federal law that says life begins at conception" is not the way to make friends.

Ron Paul isn't out to 'make friends'. Murder is a State crime, not federal.

 

[RevolutionSD]

I'm in Iowa right now visiting relatives over Christmas. Politics is crazy here. Every day, the political phone calls start at about 4:00 PM and keep on going until at least 9:00 PM, sometimes later. My relatives don't even bother to answer the phone if the Caller ID message says "Toll Free," or "Out of Area" or anything like that. They love the attention Iowa gets at this phase in the election cycle, but they say this is the price they pay.

It's nice to open the local Cedar Rapids paper and see quarter-page ads for the special Ron Paul infomercials and to see candidate profiles, and even Op Ed pieces by Ron Paul in the local paper. What a breath of fresh air.

The side of the family I'm staying with here are Democrats, and have heard almost nothing about Ron Paul. However, they are good, thinking people who are receptive to the candidates and have even offered to shuttle me around to see the various campaign appearances. Bill Clinton was here yesterday stumping for Hilary, and practically every other candidate is doing something or other within driving distance. Ron Paul wont be back in Iowa until the 27th, and I'm going to try to go see him.

The other night at 6:30 the Ron Paul informercial comes on and I make a big deal about wanting to see it so the family puts it on the TV and goes about their business, but the thing is on for about five minutes before all hell breaks loose.

I'm really disappointed by this informercial. Ron Paul leads with the divisive abortion issue, and in a ranting tone says that its his big goal to repeal the Roe v. Wade. That went over well with my Democratic, Pro-Choice in-laws (and Wife). Right there, I start hearing heckling from the peanut gallery. Next up: The phony war on terrorism and how seriously Ron Paul takes the issue. I felt like I was listening to a commercial for Rudy Giulliani, and that's certainly how my relatives took it. I couldn't even make it through the rest of the broadcast because an argument broke out.

Not good.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't expect the infomercial to instantly convert anyone in my Democrat family to be a Ron Paul supporter, but I was really hoping it would showcase what makes RP different than the other Republican candidates. I wanted the infomercial to talk about ending the war(s). I wanted him to make a big deal out of the our civil liberties being eroded by things like the Patriot Act. I wanted him to talk about the fiscal and economic crisis the country is in, and the plummeting value of the U.S. dollar. I wanted him to talk about individual rights and Liberty. And the Constitution! I wanted him to lead with the things that we Americans can agree on... But that didn't seem like the focus.

I hope the hell the campaign knows WTF its doing here in Iowa.

Has the campaign given up on trying to appeal to anyone in Iowa besides hard-core, old-school Republicans and the Christian conservative people that Mike Huckabee is popular with?

Then, this morning, I woke up to see a great video of RP on "Meet The Press," which I wish to hell I had decided to put on in this household instead of the infomercial. I should have watched the infomercial on YouTube instead. But I was excited to see something about Ron Paul on real TV, so that's why I tuned in.

Bummed out in Iowa,

Zach

PS: Here's the YouTube of the informercial in question:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQNWHmiGj-k
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wekzQrQfacg

I'm SHOCKED and VERY DISAPPOINTED that he would lead off with the divisive and minor abortion issue.
Why? What good will this do?
Dammit.

 

[davidt!]

Let's not forget that Ron Paul is a Republican and was probably trying to appeal to Iowa Republicans which most of are pro-life.

 

[RevolutionSD]

Let's not forget that Ron Paul is a Republican and was probably trying to appeal to Iowa Republicans which most of are pro-life.

ok, true and good point but many are not religious and won't like the main issue being abortion.

 

[kill the banks]

it's a 'target' infomercial

kill the banks

 

[Gimpster]

I'm beating a dead horse here, but-

The informercial was made to coax out the people who show up to Iowa republican caucuses in droves: evangelical christians.

That was like trying to show a hardcore porno at a nursing home

 

[walt]

I'm in Iowa right now visiting relatives over Christmas. Politics is crazy here. Every day, the political phone calls start at about 4:00 PM and keep on going until at least 9:00 PM, sometimes later. My relatives don't even bother to answer the phone if the Caller ID message says "Toll Free," or "Out of Area" or anything like that. They love the attention Iowa gets at this phase in the election cycle, but they say this is the price they pay.

It's nice to open the local Cedar Rapids paper and see quarter-page ads for the special Ron Paul infomercials and to see candidate profiles, and even Op Ed pieces by Ron Paul in the local paper. What a breath of fresh air.

The side of the family I'm staying with here are Democrats, and have heard almost nothing about Ron Paul. However, they are good, thinking people who are receptive to the candidates and have even offered to shuttle me around to see the various campaign appearances. Bill Clinton was here yesterday stumping for Hilary, and practically every other candidate is doing something or other within driving distance. Ron Paul wont be back in Iowa until the 27th, and I'm going to try to go see him.

The other night at 6:30 the Ron Paul informercial comes on and I make a big deal about wanting to see it so the family puts it on the TV and goes about their business, but the thing is on for about five minutes before all hell breaks loose.

I'm really disappointed by this informercial. Ron Paul leads with the divisive abortion issue, and in a ranting tone says that its his big goal to repeal the Roe v. Wade. That went over well with my Democratic, Pro-Choice in-laws (and Wife). Right there, I start hearing heckling from the peanut gallery. Next up: The phony war on terrorism and how seriously Ron Paul takes the issue. I felt like I was listening to a commercial for Rudy Giulliani, and that's certainly how my relatives took it. I couldn't even make it through the rest of the broadcast because an argument broke out.

Not good.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't expect the infomercial to instantly convert anyone in my Democrat family to be a Ron Paul supporter, but I was really hoping it would showcase what makes RP different than the other Republican candidates. I wanted the infomercial to talk about ending the war(s). I wanted him to make a big deal out of the our civil liberties being eroded by things like the Patriot Act. I wanted him to talk about the fiscal and economic crisis the country is in, and the plummeting value of the U.S. dollar. I wanted him to talk about individual rights and Liberty. And the Constitution! I wanted him to lead with the things that we Americans can agree on... But that didn't seem like the focus.

I hope the hell the campaign knows WTF its doing here in Iowa.

Has the campaign given up on trying to appeal to anyone in Iowa besides hard-core, old-school Republicans and the Christian conservative people that Mike Huckabee is popular with?

Then, this morning, I woke up to see a great video of RP on "Meet The Press," which I wish to hell I had decided to put on in this household instead of the infomercial. I should have watched the infomercial on YouTube instead. But I was excited to see something about Ron Paul on real TV, so that's why I tuned in.

Bummed out in Iowa,

Zach

PS: Here's the YouTube of the informercial in question:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQNWHmiGj-k
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wekzQrQfacg

The information was previously released on Youtube. You have nobody to blame but yourself for showing it to the wrong people.

 

[Spideynw]

I'm not sure about 99%, since I know there are some self-proclaimed Democrats who see abortion as not only a right, but a good idea. However, a large number do not support partial-birth abortion. Some are actually pro-life and others are like I said, against abortion but believe it should be legal regardless.

What I find most interesting is that people who are pro-choice can't give any good reason for why it should be legal, but have so many reasons why it shouldn't be illegal. The only people who really have a good reason are those who talk about it as a form of population control, a way of preventing mental retardation and criminality or something to that effect. However, those arguments are basically repackaged eugenics so it's kind of sad that those are the best arguments for abortion.

It seems the most popular argument is the idea that because some women would do it illegally, which most who do it now wouldn't, it must be made legal. Of course, the same logic applies to murder in general and theft, but people aren't trying to legalize them. Fact is, there is no logical, ethical, legal, or scientific argument that can justify abortion outside of the crazy eugenics-style arguments and that's only on a scientific and logical level. It certainly isn't ethical.

Wow, really, really good points. I especially like the one that we should not legalize it just because some people might do it, just like we should not legalize murder, just because some people might do it anyways.

And just as a sidenote, I was referring to the 99% that believe in abortion not 99% of the Democrats.

 

[slamhead]

It is a real easy argument to win. Just explain to them that Ron Paul being a scholar of the constitution believes that Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional based on the fact that it interferes with state rights. Paul believes that it should be left up for the states to decide. As the President it is more important for him to protect all life and liberty.

 

[phree]

1. I think the infomercial and nearly all their TV ads (the Christmas one was okay) suck production values wise.
2. I hope that the choice of material used in the Iowa infomercial was well thought out and is successful, it seems a bit counter intuitive to use a speech covering topics that people say are less important than other ones the infomercial didn't cover

As to the abortion thing - it's simple, follow along.

Ron Paul's stance.
1. Life begins at conception
2. Abortion therefore is an issue of a crime (murder) against another person and unrelated to any privacy issues (can you murder your child in the privacy of your home? no, so same goes to can you murder your child in the privacy of your womb, no.)
3. Violent crimes against a person is not prosecuted on the federal level; ergo states would be responsible for setting the level of investigation, resources used in prosecuting, and terms of punishment. Some states would be more lenient than others, and some would simply turn a blind eye, effectively keeping abortion legal.

This is a smart post.

Unfortunately Dr. Paul's humanness causes him to get off message with abortion like he did on The View. I wish he wouldn't, but hey, he's not perfect, he's just the best candidate we've seen in a long long time.