So are we done ignoring the Evangelicals?

You are indeed a wise wildflower. ;)

Have you seen the page I made that has the endorsement by Chuck and the Pastor's Forum Chuck introduced Ron at?

---> http://ronpaul.cc/video/ronpaul/Chuc...n_Ron_Paul.htm

(I've got more work to do on the page - but it's okay to send to someone as it is)

It also has a audio interview with Chuck and ron plus Ron's statement of Faith and press release about his "Sanctity of Life Bill"

And I've got a page with specifically a comparison with Huck.

here: http://ronpaul.cc/images/Ron/Christi...tian_Flyer.htm

Thanks for the kind words. :D I'll check out that page. And we really need to get the word out to christians or others considering Huckabee about all those red flags and the fact that he isn't a true conservative on many issues, but he's just a smooth talker full of hot air.

Unfortunately, the MSM has been helping him out, so we definitely have an uphill battle. But people need to know the reality.




Ron Paul supporters want Ron Paul to avoid being mainstream, but magically win over the main stream republican voters....80% of republican voters in Iowa think the terrorist boogie man is coming to0 get us, yet people flip out if he even uses the word terrorist....The Republican Christians want pro-life, but people flip out every time he mentions being a Christian....

You can NOT win over the mainstream republican vote if we bitch every time Ron Paul tries to appeal to them on issues....too many supporters want him to take on the mainstream as if in a fight, but then expect mainstream voters to magically "wake up" and refuse mainstream thinking...it won't work.

I feel the same way! I have been amazed at the people here who think that things like his pro-life view is a bad thing (it is a good thing, to millions of people) and he shouldn't talk about it. Hello? He's running for the Republican nomination, not the Democratic party. Besides, he wants to leave it to the states.

We shouldn't be writing off Republicans, fer crying out loud, as some people seem to have been suggesting.


Vox Populi said:
It's actually pretty simple. Ron Paul needs more Christian votes, and they can easily be obtained if Christians just know about him. He's a doctor who's delivered 4,000+ babies, a vietnam USAF veteran, been married 50+ years, and he's a good Christian man trying to do what's right for America (for a change) which will make a better WORLD for us and our children.

Yes, exactly, thank you!
 
Last edited:
If you hadn't noticed, the Christian right took a long time trying to decide who to support, this was because there weren't any decent candidates out there.

There is huckabee, who doesn't have the money to handle super tuesday,

There is Paul, who does have the money to handle super tuesday.

We need to cyphon off some of the Huckabee support yes, but more importantly, we need to make sure we're next in line to pick up his support when he has to drop out. This doesn't mean do a Bible thump pander like Huck, but it does mean that we at least need to let the people know that Paul has been, and remains a solid Christian.

That and we need to let them know about Paul's military service to help pick up some of the McCain voters when he drops out.
 
I think they are tough recruits, RP has much better chance of getting better results in other demographics. Church going Americans still support Iraq war over non-Churcg going ones 2:1 !

Religious minds are hard to change fast. Maybe just ignore them, America is not Iowa. The effort that will take to convert one pro-war, pro-Bush evangelical can convert 3 anti Iraq war Independent/Dem Americans and there are lots of them.
 
Well Mark, if you aren't trying to push it down someone's throat then why have a signature? Of course you are trying to push the church. In fact, you have a link to a chip in to give money to a church. What you think if I had a chip in to help Hitler, or Satan, or Buddah, or any other particular group? I can bet you a ton of money that someone on this board would be offended.

Since I am trying to reach the most number of Paul supporters as possible, I try not to offend anyone. But you were the one throwing stones in your glass house. I just pointed it out.

And marketing to Christians is not the same as marketing to evangelicals. They are a very special sect of Christianity. You cannot call all Christians evangelicals.

The characteristics of Evangelicalism as defined by David Bebbington, in his study of British evangelicalism, are known as the Bebbington Quadrilateral, [1], the four characteristics of evangelicals are :

1. Conversionism - Emphasis on the conversion experience, also called being saved, or new birth or born again after John 3:3. Thus evangelicals often refer to themselves as born-again Christians. This experience is said to be received by "faith alone" and to be given by God as the result of "grace alone".
2. Biblicism - The Protestant canon of the Bible, as God's revelation to humanity, is the primary source of religious authority. Thus, the doctrine of sola scriptura is often emphasized. Bible prophecy, especially as interpreted according to dispensationalism, is often emphasized as well.
3. Activism - Encouragement of evangelism—the act of persuading others of one's beliefs—in organized missionary work or by personal encounters and relationships with others.
4. Crucicentrism - A central focus on Christ's redeeming work on the cross as the only means for salvation and the forgiveness of sins.


If this is the crowd you now want to pitch to, then re-read my post above where I explain why this crowd and the typical Ron Paul crowd don't mix well. Ron Paul preaches non-interference and letting people live their lives the way they want. He does not try to persuade others of his beliefs. If he did I think he would lose most of the people on this forum.

I also think that if Ron Paul started saying that people were sinners and the ONLY way to redemption was to focus on Christ's actions on the cross I can guarantee you would lose a lot of the folks you have here.

Evangelicals have a very narrow focus of acceptability. Huckabee will play well with that crowd because I believe he probably believes all of the four mentioned criteria. Ron Paul however, will not play well with that crowd. If you try to force him into that box, 1. you are lying; and 2. he can't hold a candle to Huckabee.

So why try?

That is not to say that you can't sell him to Christians, just not evangelicals. And I wouldn't make it a part of any ads that you run because you only have a few seconds to say something and to waste that on his being Christian when they are all Christians is to lose precious air time. Why not just say he is for lower taxes too? Then he can really sound like all the rest of them.

Ron Paul is special. Unique. He is not unique because he is a white Christian man running for the President of the U.S. If you try to sell him as such, you will lose because there is no reason to vote for him.

Tell me, seriously, is the number one reason you are voting for Ron Paul because he is a Christian? If so, then why did you pick Ron Paul?

If it is a requirement, then you are in luck, no matter which candidate you pick you get a Christian. So again, why Ron Paul?

If you answer anything else, such as his beliefs on liberty, the Constitution, freedom, smaller government, etc. then don't you think we should try to sell him on the basis of those reasons?

Why does anyone have links in their signature? They have a cause ect they're promoting.

Should everyone remove links that another person might disagree with?

I thought we were all adults and didn't get our scarfs in a wad because we don't totally agree on everything someone else might.

I think you know that the Libertarian ideals are inclusive with or without a majority opinion.

No, the fact that Ron's a Christian isn't why I support him, but I'm smart enough to know that it might make a difference with some,
so, I use that tool along with others that befit the occasion.

For a point, last week I discussed Ron with a local GOP party leader, he mentioned "Evangelicals", I didn't even know what the definition was.

He said it had to do with "Right To Life" issues. At least that was the only thing he mentioned. I was able to point out Ron's stance on the issue.

It helped to reach him.

I think little distinctions like that between Christians are hurtful. It's one reason I started my own Church AND Denomination.

I don't like things like that that divide Christians.

Every voter is an individual, and like any other type of marketing, you reach people where they are.

You find what makes them tick, and you promote that area with them.

I'm just counting on people who know about Ron and the deeper reasons we as a country and world need him to be wise enough not to get all upset over a stupid signature and not cause derision over meaningless things.

See, I don't need to spend this valuable time explaining simple things to someone who just wants to argue .

That's why I said, maybe it's better if you just leave the forum like you said and quit wasting people's time over stupid meaningless things.

I've got better things to do than discuss things that are unproductive with you.
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul is a far better Jesus candidate than Huckabee, but so many of you just don't want to talk about that aspect of Ron Paul.

Evangelicals are a big part of the party and are perfectly capable of supporting Ron Paul.

A lot of people don't realise that Ron Paul is born again. I had spent a while talking to people about Ron Paul but they wouldn't support him, until I mentioned his faith. They had no idea he was a christian.

This speech got me and a got a lot of my christian friends:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXZpuIXEzWk

Ron Paul has a far better grasp of abortion and its complexities than any other candidate. His position is also much closer to the Bible than any of Hucks.

The evangelical vote should be firmly behind Ron Paul. This is something we should work on.

Blessed are the peace makers.

Ron says he believes Jesus is the prince of peace, not of war.

Learn about the planks of the just war theory, and promote it even if you do not personally believe in God, it's a very good set of rules for not going to war.

A video I made in October trying to capture his speeches on the Just War Theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hCKZmkF0VU
 
Last edited:
I think they are tough recruits, RP has much better chance of getting better results in other demographics. Church going Americans still support Iraq war over non-Churcg going ones 2:1 !

Religious minds are hard to change fast. Maybe just ignore them, America is not Iowa. The effort that will take to convert one pro-war, pro-Bush evangelical can convert 3 anti Iraq war Independent/Dem Americans and there are lots of them.


Yeah they're tough, but they vote en mass - and they'll convince a hundred others like them to vote as well.

Just imagine if someone came up with a way to convince a hard core Evangelical Huck supporter to switch to Ron, we'd have 'em all.
 
I think they are tough recruits, RP has much better chance of getting better results in other demographics. Church going Americans still support Iraq war over non-Churcg going ones 2:1 !

Religious minds are hard to change fast. Maybe just ignore them, America is not Iowa. The effort that will take to convert one pro-war, pro-Bush evangelical can convert 3 anti Iraq war Independent/Dem Americans and there are lots of them.

To ignore Christians would be a bad idea. Christians (believe it or not) make up alot of the voting populous, and so they have a big voice.

I don't think you have to change any Christian's mind to vote for Ron Paul. I think Christians just need to know about him.

Christians need to know that Ron Paul has received more donations from the military than anyone else. Christians need to know about Ron Paul's adherence to the constitution. Christians need to hear about his views on states' rights that gives more power to the people.
 
Last edited:
Most efficient use of our time & energy

Mark, sorry that I didn't read the thread more carefully.

I think there are issues that you can use for offense in a campaign, and other you can better use for defense. Offense requires more time and energy, while defense requires less, just like war.

It's easier for RP to go on the offense with issues that are distinctive for him. He has NO competition in the issues of anti-war and drastically smaller federal government. RP's own distinction makes his efforts on these fronts very time/energy efficient. People flock to the message without having to fight others for them.

Evangelical issues should be kept ready, but should be used for defensive purposes. You can try taking away RP voters with such issues, but you're not going to be very successful. He already has a record that does not require much time & energy to defend. Likewise, you can try to get other supporters with these issues, but you already have competition, so it'll be more difficult.

Given the limited amounts of time and energy that this campaign has, I think it would be the best use of resources to focus on issues where going on the offensive is easiest, while defending ourselves as needed. Of course, if you can get lots of mileage for your particular audience with an evangelical message, by all means go for it - you're getting a good yield for the amount of time/energy expended. However, this will be uncharacteristic when there is competition on the issue.

Despite RP's popularity and notoriety in the internet and some quarters of society, he's still not well known in much of America. A campaign trying to get RP noticed focusing on evangelical matters will be very difficult with so many competitors. A campaign based on his other positions will be easier, in my opinion. Again, I think it's about getting the biggest supporter 'bang' for the time/energy 'buck'. What I call offense issues are most efficient for getting new supporters, while defense issues are absolutely necessary and most efficient for retaining the flock, in my opinion.
 
Blessed are the peace makers.

Ron says he believes Jesus is the prince of peace, not of war.

Learn about the planks of the just war theory, and promote it even if you do not personally believe in God, it's a very good set of rules for not going to war.

A video I made in October trying to capture his speeches on the Just War Theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hCKZmkF0VU

Exactly! That's the point I've been trying to make about True Righteousness, True Christianity.

If we could just open up the eyes of people who support Huck based on the fact that he's a "minister" to what is Truth, we'd have something.

Huck has even lied about being a degreed minister. He's got so much non-Christian baggage it's ridiculous.

Some people just hear "Minister" and follow right along.

It really shouldn't be a surprise. As someone mentioned, Jesus warned us about "wolves in sheep's clothing".
 
Christ is for peace, not for war. Christ does not advocate preemptive undeclared wars of aggression.

If Ron said that 1000 times when Huckabee's name comes up, they'd start to re-think their pick.
 
Mark, sorry that I didn't read the thread more carefully.

I think there are issues that you can use for offense in a campaign, and other you can better use for defense. Offense requires more time and energy, while defense requires less, just like war.

It's easier for RP to go on the offense with issues that are distinctive for him. He has NO competition in the issues of anti-war and drastically smaller federal government. RP's own distinction makes his efforts on these fronts very time/energy efficient. People flock to the message without having to fight others for them.

Evangelical issues should be kept ready, but should be used for defensive purposes. You can try taking away RP voters with such issues, but you're not going to be very successful. He already has a record that does not require much time & energy to defend. Likewise, you can try to get other supporters with these issues, but you already have competition, so it'll be more difficult.

Given the limited amounts of time and energy that this campaign has, I think it would be the best use of resources to focus on issues where going on the offensive is easiest, while defending ourselves as needed. Of course, if you can get lots of mileage for your particular audience with an evangelical message, by all means go for it - you're getting a good yield for the amount of time/energy expended. However, this will be uncharacteristic when there is competition on the issue.

Despite RP's popularity and notoriety in the internet and some quarters of society, he's still not well known in much of America. A campaign trying to get RP noticed focusing on evangelical matters will be very difficult with so many competitors. A campaign based on his other positions will be easier, in my opinion. Again, I think it's about getting the biggest supporter 'bang' for the time/energy 'buck'. What I call offense issues are most efficient for getting new supporters, while defense issues are absolutely necessary and most efficient for retaining the flock, in my opinion.

Don't think anybody's suggesting a big push on the evangelical front; not like Huck has done. The idea, however, is just to let people know that he acutally is a Christian. Right now, almost none of them know that. And yes, it is important, look how long it took for them to find someone they could support, it took forever, and the Huckster was at the bottom of their list. When he's out, they'll need to find someone new, we should be ready.

That and the two ideas you mentioned, anti-war (peace) and small government (good fiscal stewardship) are both considered by Christians to be Christian principles; so it is possible to deliver both messages at once, and therefore not use up any additional resources in doing so.
 
Mark, sorry that I didn't read the thread more carefully.

I think there are issues that you can use for offense in a campaign, and other you can better use for defense. Offense requires more time and energy, while defense requires less, just like war.

It's easier for RP to go on the offense with issues that are distinctive for him. He has NO competition in the issues of anti-war and drastically smaller federal government. RP's own distinction makes his efforts on these fronts very time/energy efficient. People flock to the message without having to fight others for them.

Evangelical issues should be kept ready, but should be used for defensive purposes. You can try taking away RP voters with such issues, but you're not going to be very successful. He already has a record that does not require much time & energy to defend. Likewise, you can try to get other supporters with these issues, but you already have competition, so it'll be more difficult.

Given the limited amounts of time and energy that this campaign has, I think it would be the best use of resources to focus on issues where going on the offensive is easiest, while defending ourselves as needed. Of course, if you can get lots of mileage for your particular audience with an evangelical message, by all means go for it - you're getting a good yield for the amount of time/energy expended. However, this will be uncharacteristic when there is competition on the issue.

Despite RP's popularity and notoriety in the internet and some quarters of society, he's still not well known in much of America. A campaign trying to get RP noticed focusing on evangelical matters will be very difficult with so many competitors. A campaign based on his other positions will be easier, in my opinion. Again, I think it's about getting the biggest supporter 'bang' for the time/energy 'buck'. What I call offense issues are most efficient for getting new supporters, while defense issues are absolutely necessary and most efficient for retaining the flock, in my opinion.

I understand and agree for vastly the most part.

Adding, perhaps we should only "defend" to the point of pointing out that Huck has no "advantage" over Ron in terms of Christianity.

Just because Huck's a minister, doesn't make him more worthy to vote for in terms of Christianity.

It shouldn't be a reason to vote for Huck over Ron.

And Ron even has a much better track record in terms of actions in Congress
that support Christian ideals of Truth, Liberty and Righteousness ect.

I think a big problem lies in what's a big problem in recent Christian movements and religion in general.

Religion has a big negative connotation to a lot of people because Religion has been used to manipulate people for so long
by those who have no true care about what's right and true.

That needs to be corrected more than Ron needs to be elected. Well, in the immediate, Ron needs to be elected first,
to save the world from certain woes that will come upon it if the status quo is maintained.
 
Last edited:
Don't think anybody's suggesting a big push on the evangelical front; not like Huck has done. The idea, however, is just to let people know that he acutally is a Christian. Right now, almost none of them know that. And yes, it is important, look how long it took for them to find someone they could support, it took forever, and the Huckster was at the bottom of their list. When he's out, they'll need to find someone new, we should be ready.

That and the two ideas you mentioned, anti-war (peace) and small government (good fiscal stewardship) are both considered by Christians to be Christian principles; so it is possible to deliver both messages at once, and therefore not use up any additional resources in doing so.

+1

Nice post. We need Christian votes without pandering. It can easily be done simply by informing Christians about Ron Paul and informing them that Ron Paul's platform lines up with the Christian platform. We don't need Dr. Paul to come out on some stage and preach a sermon, we just need Christians to find out about what Dr. Paul stands for and what his beliefs are. They will get it.
 
It's not a matter of Huckabee getting Christian votes because he's christian. It's because a large part of the christians want more theocratic fascism, and there's no pandering Ron Paul can do to appeal to them. There's a long way from fascism to liberty.
 
It's not a matter of Huckabee getting Christian votes because he's christian. It's because a large part of the christians want more theocratic fascism, and there's no pandering Ron Paul can do to appeal to them. There's a long way from fascism to liberty.

He's RELIGIOUS.... please don't call him a Christian...
 
no, the iowan christians are the ones I cant stomach right now... lol

I think you are making some pretty big assumptions that are just "off" a little bit.

I would hardly say that Iowan christians are responsible for McCain, Romney, and FRED beating us.

Why don't you say you can't stomach the IOWAN Republicans right now.

I detest the political viewpoints many of them seem to have but personally I DO NOT believe that their beliefs are with MALICE because I truly believe they are IGNORANT of 90% of Paul's message which is the MESSAGE of the FOUNDERS (which I truly believe Conservatives would resonate with if they actually KNEW that).

The "fly" in the ointment is the FEAR CARD and this "tool" of the "boogeyman" that has them BLINDED....they just don't realize it yet, and they do NOT have a fundamental understanding of the HEINOUS wedge that the crime of the ZIONIST state has in this whole scenario (no thanks to the propaganda of the media)......if these people could place themselves in the SHOES of others it would DO MIRACLES for our future (but alas they are BLIND to the HYPOCRISY and INJUSTICE (as our AMERICAN HISTORY shows we have been to the NATIVE AMERICANS which we stole from and killed with impunity as "savages")......History is doomed to repeat itself???

the SILVER LINING is as Paul has spoken of in some of his addresses that eventually the nation as a whole will have to "come around" as we face the financial crisis, because the ONLY way out is LIBERTY (the most profitable and productive principle for PROSPERITY).
 
He's RELIGIOUS.... please don't call him a Christian...

He is a "decieved" believer if he is actually one at all. Jesus would never be one to actually promote killing people with Cruise missles for "honor". It is amazing that the "so-called" christian "right" in the U.S. for the greater part cannot see the DECEPTION they have in regards to the KILLING of the ARABS. Until they actually are "convicted" of that truth they are doomed (and we along with them) to be "tools" of EVIL (whose mission is to STEAL, KILL, and DESTROY: pretty much what they have chosen when there is another WAY!!! The way that our founders laid out for us and they completely ignore. If these believers actually read their scripture they would realize that FEAR is not from GOD. Their FEARS have led them astray.
 
A while I go I posted about the Christian Press ommitting Ron Paul from their coverage of the candidates. The Christan Press should be having a fight between Huck and Paul, but they are not.

When I mentioned this omission there was no outrage at all. I e-mailed them but nobody else seemed to care. Don't let some random blogger Omit paul without an avalanche of email, but the Christian Press, yeah they get a free pass.

We are letting Huck run un-opposed. This is most of my point. We can't afford this, we have to start fighting Obama soon.

If these believers actually read their scripture they would realize that FEAR is not from GOD. Their FEARS have led them astray.

As always, you don't need to be brave if you have nothing to fear. America is not the land of the secure or the home of the surveilled.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top