RP needs to replace the amatuers running his campaign

[Richandler]

Well right now, Ron Paul is in a stall. He did ok in Iowa. He didn't turn any heads outside of the loyal following. That needs to change. We need more money simply put. The only reason Giuliani, McCain and Romney are heavily in the media is because they have the money to throw around. If I'm not mistaken Ron Paul's campaign has about 2.3 million. Not sure what the strategy is, but if the main campaign doesn't spend that resource for a win somewhere the campaign will never succeed. The grassroots does not have enough financial aid or man power.

I think attack adds do make some sense. Maybe not now but down the line. It's constantly preached that we won't go that low. But enough with the PC of the campaign. Every single other candidate is doing it. 7 Republicans are ahead of Paul in National support. 4-5 Democrats have bigger followings. This battle for the nomination needs to enter a new offensive. We need more planning, and more strategy. Mainly we need to realize we live in a sound bite and 15 sec. of fame society. The message of freedom will remain in our minds for a while. But to the average person they will thing about it for a day or two and then they will go on with their lives. These elections are popularity contests. They have been for a while.

 

[quickmike]

I pretty much disagree with most of this. Maybe the ads they ran, yeah I'll agree with you there for sure. Ron is in this for the long haul. Hes not going to waste a million bucks in any one state just so he can show a 2nd place position. What good would that do if he did that and had to wait months for donations to come in so he could campaign again? I think hes doing it the right way.

Medium paced growth with plenty of time. Thats how I see what hes doing. I agree with one of the earlier posts that people like Tancredo and
Brownback will be gone while Ron is still fighting for the cause because he didnt just put it all on one state. Remember, Bill Clinton only got 2% in Iowa and went on to be president. The more people get into politics closer to fall, the more people will see the Ron Paul name. The debates will give him much more time to speak once all the pests are gone. More people will also be watching the debates as well.

I tihnk the campaign is playing it smart at this point. Saving the money for when people are actually paying attention to politics. Summertime is not a good time to throw lots of money into ad campaigns. Why do you think the networks just play reruns of sitcoms during the summer? Its because most people arent spending their time at home, so why waste the money creating new shows that only a small percentage of america will see?

This is a chess game, not a game of tic tac toe.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Yeah, I see this as a long slow climb upward while others burn out and crash and fall.

I don't quite understand why some people are here saying "oh, if he doesn't win NH, the campaign is over." That's silly.

It feels to me as though these people are Romney folks - or Julie Annie - or FT people...hoping to upset the RP supporters and create this idea that the campaign hinges solely on NH...which is simply not true.

 

[quickmike]

Yeah, I see this as a long slow climb upward while others burn out and crash and fall.

I don't quite understand why some people are here saying "oh, if he doesn't win NH, the campaign is over." That's silly.

It feels to me as though these people are Romney folks - or Julie Annie - or FT people...hoping to upset the RP supporters and create this idea that the campaign hinges solely on NH...which is simply not true.

I was actually just thinking the same thing.

 

[Bradley in DC]

what concerns me more than the non-effort in iowa is the weakness of the ads.

REPEAT: If RP does not laaunch blistering attack ads, he will have no chance.

thats the truth. Deal with it.

Dr. Paul will never "launch blistering attack ads." Deal with it.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Dr. Paul will never "launch blistering attack ads." Deal with it.

 

[slantedview]

I agree with those who are saying that being conservative with the cash in Iowa was a good strategy. Look what Romney got for the win? A mild amount of news coverage, nothing special. If Paul blew most of his money in Iowa, it could have been the last big mistake he made.

He did good. Things are good. I agree that the ads could be better, but even there, is more $.

 

[Kuldebar]

People need to stop trying to make remake Paul in the same image of all the other liars and cheats running for office.

Paul doesn't want to "trick" people into voting for him, he wants to persuade people via intellectual discourse.

If the voter base is truly as "stupid" and ignorant as many of you claim it is, then we will have at least done our last honest effort to turn things around.

Ron Paul speaks plainly and is easy to understand, he also, actually answers questions without him-hawing or tap dancing around.

If Americans can't hear and understand what this man is saying, we are indeed in big trouble.

 

[Spirit of '76]

Dr. Paul will never "launch blistering attack ads."

Good.

 

[angelatc]

Just hope we didn't chase them off in Iowa with the "I Smoke Pot and I Vote" signs, and by yelling at the bus riders about war.

Did you yell it in Spanish?

 

[angelatc]

Dr. Paul will never "launch blistering attack ads." Deal with it.

That's what I was thinking. He would't be Ron Paul if he did something like that.

I have to admit that I wonder what a Clinton vs Paul election ad campaign would look like.

 

[jmunjr]

I mentioned Ron Paul to my cousin (who liked Tancredo) and he grimaced saying Paul was pro-abortion. Of course I enlightened him and he agreed to read and listen to Paul in the future.

If Paul is to have a chance he needs money. The passion for Paul by his current supporters is great, but it won't make a huge difference until there are a whole lot more of us. The best thing the Paul campaign could use right now is more money. I have not donated yet, but I plan to give the maximum soon. My stocks have taken a beating the past 4 weeks so that has delayed it a bit.

There are just way too many people that will never hear about Paul except through the mainstream media or outlets that require some cash - e.g. advertising. I do think the big showing of out of state supporters at the straw poll helped though. People are either thinking everyone was a little wacky or they thought there must be something to this Paul guy to get so much support and hence look at him more.

Regardless there will be a lot of people turned off by Paul's stance on many issues, but mostly because they are ignorant about why he stands for them(and I say that politely).

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Dr. Paul will never "launch blistering attack ads." Deal with it.

Although a PAC could certainly do such a thing.

 

[Bradley in DC]

I have to admit that I wonder what a Clinton vs Paul election ad campaign would look like.

I can't wait!

 

[quickmike]

People need to stop trying to make remake Paul in the same image of all the other liars and cheats running for office.

Paul doesn't want to "trick" people into voting for him, he wants to persuade people via intellectual discourse.

If the voter base is truly as "stupid" and ignorant as many of you claim it is, then we will have at least done our last honest effort to turn things around.

Ron Paul speaks plainly and is easy to understand, he also, actually answers questions without him-hawing or tap dancing around.

If Americans can't hear and understand what this man is saying, we are indeed in big trouble.

I agree. If people are too stupid to see something this good right in front of them, then they deserve whatever crooked politician they end up voting for.

we always get what we deserve dont we?

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

I agree with those who are saying that being conservative with the cash in Iowa was a good strategy. Look what Romney got for the win? A mild amount of news coverage, nothing special. If Paul blew most of his money in Iowa, it could have been the last big mistake he made.

Although I wouldn't say RP should have spent a LOT more money in Iowa, I think you are underestimating the effects of the straw poll. The media will take him even less seriously than they have, if that's possible. And you're not going to see big names jumping on board; nor will you see Big Money.

That said, Ron Paul can counter those effects, which amount to perception, with only one thing: filing a whopper of a contribution report this quarter ending September 30. Make that two things: the aforementioned report and a decent showing in "scientific" polls.

 

[Kuldebar]

Paul support will remain stable and mostly likely grow, his opponents will have a tug of war over what voters they have, and their voters may have some change of heart about things.

All's Paul need to do is keep growing the Campaign by attracting intellectually engaged supporters. These supporters will stand firm while the other campaigns picnic off each other.

 

[angelatc]

I agree. If people are too stupid to see something this good right in front of them, then they deserve whatever crooked politician they end up voting for.

we always get what we deserve dont we?

The problem is that *we* are getting what *they* deserve though. ANd I'm just about sick of it.

But where's a pilgrim to go? We came here but the left seems to have followed us.

 

[quickmike]

Although I wouldn't say RP should have spent a LOT more money in Iowa, I think you are underestimating the effects of the straw poll. The media will take him even less seriously than they have, if that's possible. And you're not going to see big names jumping on board; nor will you see Big Money.

That said, Ron Paul can counter those effects, which amount to perception, with only one thing: filing a whopper of a contribution report this quarter ending September 30. Make that two things: the aforementioned report and a decent showing in "scientific" polls.

Think about this though. If Ron would have spent a million, or even half a million campaigning in Iowa and bought votes and steak dinners, golf carting peoples big lazy asses to the tent(that one still makes me chuckle a little) and somehow ended up in second place, the MSM would have just spun it as "Obviously the only way a candidate like Ron Paul got 2nd place was that he outspent everyone else." That would partialy be true too. I think he should have spent much more time there though going to different counties and explaining himself. He could have done that pretty cheaply too.

you cant buy a message. All you can do is speak it and hope you get the support needed. If people dont like the message, maybe they deserve another Bush or Clinton in the white house. Then they can say 3 yrs down the road "what happened? I thought Mitt was the answer to our problems?" Silly human race We never learn do we?

More speeches and travel, but do it cheap. Thats what I say.

 

[Kuldebar]

The problem is that *we* are getting what *they* deserve though. ANd I'm just about sick of it.

But where's a pilgrim to go? We came here but the left seems to have followed us.

And, we will continue to get the same via mob rule.

When we had our proper government, it wouldn't matter who is president as long as the role of government was kept with in the constitutional limits.

Perhaps, we will find out that John Adams was correct:

...a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.

Or, as Claire Wolfe put it:

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."