Should Ron Paul release attack ads for both Romney and Santorum?

[mport1]

He needs to focus all attacks on Romney. He should not hold back at all now. He has to tear Mitt down immediately.

 

[Eric39]

Romney is the easiest. Look at how easy it was for Bush to destory John Kerry with the flip flopping. All he did was use his own words to kill him. Romney has the flip and the flop, also add in the healthcare plan that looks like obamacare ... also he was in favor of the bailout. The ads by all candidates should've made a bigger dent in NH by now, which is odd. Everyone needs to step it up against Romney.

The problem is that Romney is the establishments baby. Everyone already knows he's a flip flopper. There's very little we could actually expose that would correlate to more votes for us. We'd be wasting money telling people what they already know about him. The best we could do is specifically correlate with him exclusively, but our attack ads would only move Romney to santorum/huntsman/gingrich.

Romney should only be attacked when we're toe to toe with him.

 

[moonshine5757]

The problem is that Romney is the establishments baby. Everyone already knows he's a flip flopper. There's very little we could actually expose that would correlate to more votes for us. We'd be wasting money telling people what they already know about him. The best we could do is specifically correlate with him exclusively, but our attack ads would only move Romney to santorum/huntsman/gingrich.

Romney should only be attacked when we're toe to toe with him.

One commentator said it best last night on I think CNN, but I could be wrong. People voting for Romney aren't doing it for his positions, because frankly no one, not even Romney himself knows what his opinion on an issue is each morning. People are voting for him because of his hairline and his jawline.

To be honest I would do something out of left field and hammer people with the truth. ARE YOU VOTING FOR ROMNEY BECAUSE YOU ARE SHALLOW? Don't say it like I said it, do it with a little bit of class, but hammer that point home. You don't know what he thinks about any issue, but you think he looks presidential. There has to be a way to do it so that it is blunt and makes voters feel silly for doing it.

Be playful with it, make it humorous, while still delivering that message. He may look like a president but he doesn't vote like one.

 

[goldpants]

I agree with those that say let the media and other candidates knock the wind out of Santorum. I would support an offensive on romney especially this week, we need to fight for NH. Newt still scares me, he is popular with the older brainwashed and anyone but Mitt crowd. Newt will have amother surge just not sure if it is NH or being saved for SC. Huntsman(appeals too much to Mitt supporters for the major pump imo) may just be a gnat that Ron will have to flick off in the debates this weekend, just have a radio spot and talking points ready in case the MSM takes him on the magic carpet ride of true contender.

 

[damiengwa]

Attack romney. Attack him in SC....lay or the grinch. I think thats best.

 

[freeforall]

Don't spend one dime on attacking Santorum! The liberal media will eat Santorum alive for all of anti-gay, heck anti-a lot of things comments. He is buried and he doesn't even know it yet. And to know the media knew about all of his skeletons and pumped him up to make sure Paul didn't win Iowa drives me bonkers. Ron Paul staff should've been a step ahead and ready for a Santorum bump with anti Santorum ads a few days ago. To do it now is a waste of money. Don't even bother.

yep

 

[jcarcinogen]

They shouldn't focus on attacks. The thing keeping Paul from getting more neocon types is the isolationist/ 'Paul wants iran to have a nuke' bs misconception. They need to focus on enlightening the sheep on his real FP.

 

[RayB]

I disagree, take the high road and sell the big three- peace, prosperity, and liberty. Let the others do the octogon thing, RP needs Mom and Dads votes too.

 

[freeforall]

I agree, jcarcinogen, that there needs to be a strong push to show the people who Ron is and what he believes. I don't think FP is the only issue though. I hear a lot that people like him, but wouldn't vote for because of xyz. Most of the time the reasons I hear demonstrate a lack of understanding. The campaign can spend their time and money shifting votes away from a candidate and hope they translate into votes for Paul. Or they could focus on showing the positive benefits of President Paul and win votes directly.

 

[Kregisen]

They shouldn't focus on attacks. The thing keeping Paul from getting more neocon types is the isolationist/ 'Paul wants iran to have a nuke' bs misconception. They need to focus on enlightening the sheep on his real FP.

I agree. Right now people are saying to attack Santorum, people are saying to attack Romney, and people are saying to attack Huntsman. Frankly, we need to drill out a great 60-second ad on foreign policy...perhaps with Michael Scheurer (ex-head of Bin Laden Unit in CIA who just endorsed Ron a few days back) explaining the position.

I think before we attack Romney we need to make sure it's a 2-man game, and that should happen after South Carolina hopefully. At the same time, I agree with the people who say attacking Santorum may be a waste of resources. He's not gonna do well in New Hampshire so it's possible his momentum may come to a halt before South Carolina...then again he could continue to do well in South Carolina and beyond, especially if Perry drops soon.

I don't want to attack Huntsman. We can't run ads on every single candidate, and Huntsman does have some very moderate/liberal views, but he does have conviction and isn't a flip flopper or a liar. We should focus all attack ads on Romney, or Santorum/Gingrich if either of them still pose a threat.

 

[The Free Hornet]

They shouldn't focus on attacks. The thing keeping Paul from getting more neocon types is the isolationist/ 'Paul wants iran to have a nuke' bs misconception. They need to focus on enlightening the sheep on his real FP.

I would tweak this to add "go positive". Romney is his own negative. Regarding Ron's "real FP", I fear it takes some vision to translate to the unenlightened. It may not be the case that evacuating the middle east frees us of attacks and plots immediately. We might even have to take it on the chin a couple times. Having killed hundreds of thousands after liberating Kuwait, people may be angry for a hundred years or so. Likely, we can disentangle from state sponsored terrorism and people in the middle east will have no problem finding new enemies or rekindling their passion for old ones.

A Ron Paul win on foreign policy will require people start thinking about the cost of war as far greater than the cost of terrorism, e.g. War - It's Only A Number (some graphic war shots).

 

[jcarcinogen]

I agree. Right now people are saying to attack Santorum, people are saying to attack Romney, and people are saying to attack Huntsman. Frankly, we need to drill out a great 60-second ad on foreign policy...perhaps with Michael Scheurer (ex-head of Bin Laden Unit in CIA who just endorsed Ron a few days back) explaining the position.

I think before we attack Romney we need to make sure it's a 2-man game, and that should happen after South Carolina hopefully. At the same time, I agree with the people who say attacking Santorum may be a waste of resources. He's not gonna do well in New Hampshire so it's possible his momentum may come to a halt before South Carolina...then again he could continue to do well in South Carolina and beyond, especially if Perry drops soon.

I don't want to attack Huntsman. We can't run ads on every single candidate, and Huntsman does have some very moderate/liberal views, but he does have conviction and isn't a flip flopper or a liar. We should focus all attack ads on Romney, or Santorum/Gingrich if either of them still pose a threat.

Good points. You can't really get points across that will change ideology or at least educate what Paul's stance is in 60 seconds, but people usually say that they like him but x,y,z... maybe an ad with Scheurer or something compelling that gets their attention and entices them to learn more without establishment media spin on a website?

 

[tempest]

I agree. Right now people are saying to attack Santorum, people are saying to attack Romney, and people are saying to attack Huntsman. Frankly, we need to drill out a great 60-second ad on foreign policy...perhaps with Michael Scheurer (ex-head of Bin Laden Unit in CIA who just endorsed Ron a few days back) explaining the position.

I think before we attack Romney we need to make sure it's a 2-man game, and that should happen after South Carolina hopefully. At the same time, I agree with the people who say attacking Santorum may be a waste of resources. He's not gonna do well in New Hampshire so it's possible his momentum may come to a halt before South Carolina...then again he could continue to do well in South Carolina and beyond, especially if Perry drops soon.

I don't want to attack Huntsman. We can't run ads on every single candidate, and Huntsman does have some very moderate/liberal views, but he does have conviction and isn't a flip flopper or a liar. We should focus all attack ads on Romney, or Santorum/Gingrich if either of them still pose a threat.

Disagree. Your "wait and see" attitude cost us Iowa. We were leading in the polls in mid December and then bang! You'll know what happened next. That must be avoided.

You can perfectly attack Santorum and Huntsman and Romney and Grinch and Perry with different grades of intensity.

In my opinion Ron Paul NEEDS TO LURE voters from ALL CANDIDATES that he could get. That means he needs to place mirror on the other candidates and make people question why they shouldn't vote for any of the 5 other candidates. Cuz lo and behold ALL those other candidates have not spared Paul. But obviously that doesn't mean we need to attack all candidates with equal intensity. Some need greater beating than others. for example in the coming 1.5 weeks there's no need to beat up on Perry as much as the others for the simple reason that he is skipping New Hampshire and going to South Carolina.

 

[fatjohn]

Run ads against romney, be vocal against huntsman in speeches and interviews.