Should the line about student visas be removed from the new immigration ad?

[TheEvilDetector]

Hey ED.. Piss pfff clown. That last remark about xenophobia was all the grounds I needed to dismiss your entire argument out of hand as an emotional knee jerk. yer the one setting offf xenopphopbia bombs in lieu of common sense..Not me.

Best regards
Randy

The xenophobia remark WAS NOT directed at you and my use of it WAS NOT a knee-jerk, it was just my logical prediction of where "terrorist nation" labelling leads.

I also tried to be respectful to you, but now I can see that besides your talent at creative writing one of your shortcomings is a sizeable ego which seems to prevent

your ability to argue rationally without knee-jerking into ad-hominem. Come on Randy, dismissal of an entire argument because of one word that you do not 'like',

is intellectually dishonest.

 

[CMoore]

So only 40% want "terrorist nations" phrase changed, 60% are ok with it.

This should get us a fraction of Tancredo/neocon supporters even if we lose some Indie and anti war support. Perhaps worth the trade off.

I would agree. The remarks in the ad are completely consistent with earliier writings. Anyone who would decide not to support Dr. Paul based on that ad would eventually leave anyway once they discovered his "true" position. I can't imagine anyone for whom such an issue is a deal breaker would be supporting him in the first place. Lately I have read a lot of posts from people who say "Oh well, that's it for me. I am outta here" over some trivial issue. I have to wonder what is up with that.

 

[Paul10]

.....

 

[Liberty Star]

I would agree. The remarks in the ad are completely consistent with earliier writings. Anyone who would decide not to support Dr. Paul based on that ad would eventually leave anyway once they discovered his "true" position. I can't imagine anyone for whom such an issue is a deal breaker would be supporting him in the first place. Lately I have read a lot of posts from people who say "Oh well, that's it for me. I am outta here" over some trivial issue. I have to wonder what is up with that.

Hopefully big majority of those wanting it changed don't feel too strongly about it for it to be a deal breaker. But I don't think it is consistent with the philosophy RP has based his campaign on upto this point. I'm disappointed too but I still think he has the best ideas to fix this mess we are in, disregarding this new "terrorist nations" slogan for a second that just showed up in his ad and is right out of the neocons book of phrases.


Another take on this:

Agonizing Over the Candidates and Who They Really Are

Paul is attracting anti-war Republicans and Democrats far beyond the libertarian base that he would normally draw from. He is attracting a lot of progressives who believe in global justice, want the war over, and want to return to a benign American model rather than a view where America is the dangerous destabilizer of the international system.

But then Ron Paul shocks this crowd by running an advertisement that is as hostile to immigration that I have ever seen. He actually has a shocking, Jesse Helmsian line, that outdoes anything that Rudy Giuliani has said: "No more visas for students from terrorist nations." This kind of position would appeal to those buying John Bolton's new book as a Christmas present and who are reverential to the kind of pugnacious hyper-nationalism that Dick Cheney manifests.

Who then is the real Ron Paul?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeeh...g_over_the_candidates_and_who_they_really_are

I don't see how we would get any Tancredo supporters because the Iraq War is a bigger issue to them. Some polls suggest the economy but this is totally false. They don't know what makes the economy good otherwise they'd vote for Paul. Not to mention, the economy could include the Iraq War because some think oil production will go up or they think if we didn't invade Iraq, Saddam would have destabilized the region. Hell, the economy can even include immigration.

The campaign needs more ads on the Iraq War. Most voters don't know squat about their candidate.

I agree with you, issues of war policy/liberties at home/economic health of America are all tied to one another. Iraq war is the big elephant in this campaign and its enormous financial/human/moral costs should be highlighted. I was being overly pragmatic and optimistic when writing that comment.

 

[Jodi's mom]

No - Who Cares, Get Over It And Let's Move On!

I agree!!! Let's just put all our energy into getting Ron Paul on the ballot!!!

 

[Liberty Star]

Fallout continues.

Even Paul Can Pander

David Weigel
December 31, 2007

This ad's going up on Iowa and New Hampshire TV. After some pleasant footage of (*cough*European*cough*) immigrants arriving at Ellis Island, we see a swarthy figure paddling it across a river and hear this:
Today, illegal immigrants violate our borders and overwhelm our hospitals, schools and social services. Ron Paul wants border security now. Physically secure the border. No amnesty. No welfare to illegal aliens. End birthright citizenship. No more student VISAs for terrorist nations.

Justin Raimondo is sickened:
This is pandering to the worst, Tom Tancredo-esque paranoia and outright ignorance (or do I repeat myself?) and is not worthy of Dr. Paul. I have the utmost respect for the candidate, but in using this unfortunate term, “terrorist nations,” the Good Doctor undermines his non-interventionist foreign policy stance. If these are, in truth, “terrorist nations” – which most will take to mean all predominantly Muslim nations — then why not invade them, kill the terrorists, and be done with it? This phraseology gives the War Party carte blanche – and, believe you me, they’ll use it.

http://reason.com/blog/show/124149.html

This ad and its amazingly neoconish wording and demagoguery could be the biggest blunder of Ron Paul campaign, one that could unravel it and I hope I'm very wrong on this.

Justin Raimondo is not the only one we may have lost or could lose because of this totally unnecessary shift in tone and message. If this ad is not pulled, it could rob a very motivated anti war segment of RP supporters of their enthusiasm for his candidacy. He is still the best candidate on some key issues important to many people but not many people reach into their wallets or get inspired with a zeal just because they want to fix fiscal policies. This is just gut feeling but this one reckless shift in message has the potential to dampen support of some of the most driven people Ron Paul’s views on war/foreign policy/liberties had inspired.

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

No, but I'm all for changing it to terrorist-supporting nations. Like Paul, I'm more of a traditional conservative on this issue than a libertarian.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

Fallout continues.





This ad and its amazingly neoconish wording and demagoguery could be the biggest blunder of Ron Paul campaign, one that could unravel it and I hope I'm very wrong on this.

Justin Raimondo is not the only one we may have lost or could lose because of this totally unnecessary shift in tone and message. If this ad is not pulled, it could rob a very motivated anti war segment of RP supporters of their enthusiasm for his candidacy. He is still the best candidate on some key issues important to many people but not many people reach into their wallets or get inspired with a zeal just because they want to fix fiscal policies. This is just gut feeling but this one reckless shift in message has the potential to dampen support of some of the most driven people Ron Paul’s views on war/foreign policy/liberties had inspired.

Raimondo criticizes Paul but Raimondo uses the "terrorist nation" phrase too (pot calling the kettle black):

. The US – whose Draconian sanctions are responsible for the deaths of 5,000 Iraqi children per month – is itself the biggest terrorist nation on earth.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j032601.html

If using the phrase makes you a warmongering neocon, then Raimondo is a warmongering neocon.

Paul's ad is clearly anti-neocon and anti-war.

See http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-stop-terrorists-from-following.html

The only issue is if Paul's visa policy is X but the ad says Y.

 

[user]

So only 40% want "terrorist nations" phrase changed, 60% are ok with it.

This should get us a fraction of Tancredo/neocon supporters even if we lose some Indie and anti war support. Perhaps worth the trade off.

How do you know that everyone who doesn't want it changed is ok with it? If it's changed now, it could look like a flip flop.

 

[FreedomLover]

I would agree. The remarks in the ad are completely consistent with earliier writings. Anyone who would decide not to support Dr. Paul based on that ad would eventually leave anyway once they discovered his "true" position. I can't imagine anyone for whom such an issue is a deal breaker would be supporting him in the first place. Lately I have read a lot of posts from people who say "Oh well, that's it for me. I am outta here" over some trivial issue. I have to wonder what is up with that.

I think the only people we're really "losing" (as far as people who were committed to voting for him but now arn't) are a very small number of kookcinich supporters who dropped him in favor of paul when they found out kookcinich never had a chance.

The other few who are still here are just making a big stink over the trivial issue of how to phrase "terrorist-supporting nations."

 

[FreedomLover]

How do you know that everyone who doesn't want it changed is ok with it? If it's changed now, it could look like a flip flop.

How do you know that everyone who wants it changed doesn't like the actual line? Maybe they just think it's not worth the 3 or 4 people who keep complaining ad nauseam about it.

 

[user]

How do you know that everyone who wants it changed doesn't like the actual line? Maybe they just think it's not worth the 3 or 4 people who keep complaining ad nauseam about it.

Exactly, so you agree those figures are unreliable.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, but I'm all for changing it to terrorist-supporting nations. Like Paul, I'm more of a traditional conservative on this issue than a libertarian.

That's a good idea.