Video update - Ron Paul on Fox News w/ Megyn Kelly 1/13/12

[cheeseman]

Ron has admitted his weakness is communicating the message. The message has to be honed down so it can fit in a format like MSM news interviews and the debates. Not everyone goes on the internet to learn or even double check facts. What goes on the air is good enough for a lot of people, and we know how distorted it is. Why else are people sold on the idea that Ron wants to shut down the military and is unelectable?

It's only because we've taken the time to digest his message that his positions make sense. We're trying to win over people who can't even decide what to havefor breakfast. Asking them to think about the consequences of an interventionist foreign policy instead of watching Real Housewives is asking a lot.

When the Iran question comes up, Rand does a better job by first citing facts and good associations like the generals and israeli commanders, then educating the unintended consequences. But watch that Frank Luntz poll session video, the people are still sold on the idea that somehow Iran's potential 1 nuke can wipe out half the US and/or Israel. That's what we're up against, that's who's votes we need to win over.

 

[Kevin Smyth]

Agreed, Dr. Paul didn't say to get involved in any of it. But he is correct in pointing out that whoever perpetrated the act is a terrorist.

Did Obama call it terrorism? Because if not we'll be pushing ourselves into a corner of being called: To the Left of Obama.

 

[singe22]

So is supplying rockets and ammunitions to Hamas to shoot over into Israel. Bottom line is it's not our mess to deal with, and we shouldn't be involved.

And wasnt it Ron Regean that said somehing on the lines of us not understanding the politics of the middleeast. 99% of the conflicts are based on religion over there.

 

[Sola_Fide]

No, that's not true, some of his comments were even more dangerous than ever before, saying that the murder of the Iranian scientist was "terrorism" and suggesting that we should sympathize with them over that because we are against terrorism, that was God awful and it plays horribly with the Fox crowd. Fox viewers cheer at the deaths of Iranian nuclear scientists because most Republicans don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

What else would you call what happened to that Iranian scientist?

 

[ohgodno]

Did Obama call it terrorism? Because if not we'll be pushing ourselves into a corner of being called To the Left of Obama.

Obama would never call it terrorism because that would put him in a corner: he too would be a terrorist.

 

[PastaRocket848]

so if muslims put bombs in cars and blow people up for political purposes it's terrorism, but if the CIA does it it's something else? where's the logic to support that argument?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Did Obama call it terrorism? Because if not we'll be pushing ourselves into a corner of being called: To the Left of Obama.

Good. That means we can totally undercut Obama's base. This enhances our electability.

 

[jay_dub]

Did Obama call it terrorism? Because if not we'll be pushing ourselves into a corner of being called: To the Left of Obama.

And Obama is the one that assassinated an American citizen. "To the left of Obama' is media spin that is losing credibility. Everyone knows he's been a hawk overseas.

 

[ohgodno]

Did Obama call it terrorism? Because if not we'll be pushing ourselves into a corner of being called: To the Left of Obama.

Of course not - but most in the U.S. are stricken with a hardcore case of moral relativism - this doesn't change the fact that an attack with designs on causing fear is terrorism.

 

[Sweman]

Precisely. Someone asks a BS question then he responds like this: "If the Norwegians sent a death-star to attack us then I would ask congress to authorise sending Luke Skywalker out to destroy it,. win the war and come home. But frankly thats not going to happen, Norway doesent have the ability to build a death-star..." etc

Are you sure? They're swimming in oil.





Otherwise a good post.

 

[Kevin Smyth]

What else would you call what happened to that Iranian scientist?

I call it how the Mossad does business.

 

[chipvogel]

Paul should cut off interviews with FOX if they are going to pull stunts like this one.

Running pictures of Ahmadinejad shaking hands with Castro?
Pictures of Iranian missile fire?

I haven't seen anything that shameless in the media since Nancy Grace showed pictures of naked boys while interviewing Michael Jackson's spokesperson.

I'm shocked FOX didn't go all out and show the twin towers burning.

 

[Butchie]

The truth doesn't matter with most Republicans, they think it is liberal to view issues from the enemy's point of view. You should see how my parents reacted when I first talked about the U.S. oil embargo on Japan in the Summer of 1941 and how it led to Pearl Harbor, they thought I was crazy and hated America.

Kevin, I'm with you on this and seems these guys/girls will never get it. What I find funny is the hypocrisy of Ron, the campaign, and this board, I saw an E-mail from the campaign that was reposted here instructing supporters to "dress and act like Republicans". Where where all the "principles" arguments - it was silent. Funny how if the campaign compromises for the good of the election it's OK, if any of us peons suggest it we get attacked.

Ron should not have ever said let's empathize with Iran, nor should he have said killing their scientists was terrorism, I doubt if even liberals would agree with him on that, I'm almost starting to think Ron is an all-out pacifist and maybe the media does have a point at times.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron has admitted his weakness is communicating the message. The message has to be honed down so it can fit in a format like MSM news interviews and the debates. Not everyone goes on the internet to learn or even double check facts. What goes on the air is good enough for a lot of people, and we know how distorted it is. Why else are people sold on the idea that Ron wants to shut down the military and is unelectable?

It's only because we've taken the time to digest his message that his positions make sense. We're trying to win over people who can't even decide what to havefor breakfast. Asking them to think about the consequences of an interventionist foreign policy instead of watching Real Housewives is asking a lot.

When the Iran question comes up, Rand does a better job by first citing facts and good associations like the generals and israeli commanders, then educating the unintended consequences. But watch that Frank Luntz poll session video, the people are still sold on the idea that somehow Iran's potential 1 nuke can wipe out half the US and/or Israel. That's what we're up against, that's who's votes we need to win over.

Rand doesn't share Ron's opinion on Iran, so asking Ron to take that position would be asking him to change his position.

 

[Wren]

I wish RP would emphasize that he would protect the country. seriously, that's all republicans need to hear to get on board and RP DOES want to invest in national defense, it's just that he spends too much time educating and not enough about what he would DO. Republicans think RP would invite an attack on the US and say it's our fault, they really think that. perception is everything, he needs to hammer home that he would protect the country and the bring the troops home to protect us.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I wish RP would emphasize that he would protect the country. seriously, that's all republicans need to hear to get on board and RP DOES want to invest in national defense, it's just that he spends too much time educating and not enough about what he would DO.

He's said what he would do many times. Constantly, in fact. Bring the troops home, stop the pro-active foreign policy.

 

[davidhperry]

I loved how he associated the bombing with terrorism. I think Ron could have couched his remarks as a bit more stern than he did, without compromising principles. With that said, he/we didn't lose anything in this interview. As it has been said, Ron is not the greatest communicator and he generally doesn't convince traditional GOPers right off the bat. The way RP gets GOPers is by having existing supporters talk to friends and family. Once someone's eyes have been opened, then they see an interview like this and it reenforces their opinion about RP. But the initial conversion work is up to US. Don't forget that.

Sometimes I think Ron trolls the media by acting dovish during an interview and everyone thinks he's a peacenik hippie or something. Then, it gets everyone in the media so riled up that it ends up being a debate question, and he then proceeds to hit a home run with his response.

But, the big story (IMHO) is that the MSM seems to be trying to push is the electability argument. That poll, if you could call it that, would a complete farse. Think about it, Rasmussen, as a polster, knows exactly what is happening - Ron Paul is surging. This is an attempt to try and stop that surge. Plain and simple. The WHOLE REASON that Ron is surging in SC right now is because word is getting out amongst the non political junkies that Ron Paul had strong support in Iowa and NH. For the people that were on the fence about RP, this now gives them permission to support him! Before Iowa and NH, they may have liked some things about him and considered supporting him, but didn't because he was seen as fringe, unelectable, and risky. This Rasmussen stuff is part of an attempt to reverse that trend. We are on the verge of a tipping point, and we must keep getting the electability message out there to FRIENDS and FAMILY.

This is what is happening to the Ron Paul campaign right now:

 

[ohgodno]

I wish RP would emphasize that he would protect the country. seriously, that's all republicans need to hear to get on board and RP DOES want to invest in national defense, it's just that he spends too much time educating and not enough about what he would DO.

That's the issue mainstream republicans have with him – they don't think he'll defend the country.

Neocons are lost because defense to them—is offense. But on the point of responding when attacked or responding to the threat of an immanent attack, I feel more can be done here to communicate a Constitutional and prudent response.

 

[Wren]

He's said what he would do many times. Constantly, in fact. Bring the troops home, stop the pro-active foreign policy.

That's the thing, he needs to keep saying it because people have such short memory/attention spans . In a world of out of context soundbites and deceptive headlines, he needs to keep saying it like he keeps bringing up the $1 trillion dollars he wants to cut.

 

[georgiaboy]

That interview was excellent.

Ron's replies were spot on.

All this talk on Iran is so Iraq redux it's sickening.

WMD's! Nukes! Sanctions! UN Resolutions! Around the merry-go-round we go.

Ron is so right to try and stop the merry-go-round this and every chance he gets, and get Americans thinking the right thoughts about this.

Of course the car bombing was terrorism. Of course we should empathize with victims of terrorism. Remember 9/11???

Ron's so right to call this right out in the open and call for the ending of the sanctions, the saber-rattling.

He's so right that Iran is completely incapable of doing anything offensive and proactive that would in any way harm the USA! It's just ludicrous.

People who are buying into all this Iran-phobia and ridiculous what-ifs need a serious wake up call.

Go Ron!! Use the microphone the way you always have, and watch our numbers continue to rise!

He speaks so much sense, it's literally breathtaking.