Ron Pauls Secret Plan?

Ron Pauls Secret Plan?

www.paulu nteer.com

Without having to spend a dime, Ron Paul, in a clever way, could be said to have used these two events in IA and NH to fish out all manner of valuable demographic information.
1) You’re sitting on the largest Republican war chest
2) All your opponent’s fundraising is on life support, or they blew all their money in the first two or three primaries.
3) Each of the other candidates has a huge huge negative that will show up and turn off republican voters

(visit the link for the full news article)

Basically what the article says, as I couldn't get most of it on here is this:

Ron Paul has a warchest of 20million dollars stashed. He is asking for 23million more. He is buying his time to start placing ads and being on more shows to help him.

Another quote from the source

Meanwhile, Paul sits back; he lets the media in Iowa and NH do his polling work for him - with real election results, not opinion polls. He lets his opponents spend themselves into debt. He allows each one of them a few days in the spotlight to allow Republican voters to remember why they suck. He figures out what voting blocs are voting on what issue, and how independent voters are swinging. Using this he super-targets on the winning issues with his 20 million dollar war chest in the 2 weeks prior to super Tuesday (to get the most bang for the buck) while the grassroots continues, and the blimp flies on in SC and Florida.

www.paulu nteer.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

jca2005,

That is quite an interesting thought you have brought forward.

While candidates like Hillary and Giuliani are seeing a slowdown of support and funding, Ron Paul is seeing a surge of online (and offline) donations...

Maybe we still have a chance to turn the tide of this election.

If only Kucinich and Paul run together on the independent ticket. That would be quite an interesting thing!

We'd have to make sure to send in absentee ballots as those diebold machines would surely be rigged!

I was a Ron Paul supporter until very recently.

I think the recent revelations in National Review about his ties to extremist groups are going to cost him a lot of support: they certainly cost him mine.

What angered me most was his apparent close association with Gary North, a man who basically wants to turn the US into a Christian version of Iran's theocracy.

xmotex,

No candidate chooses who will support them...its the other way around.

#, I wouldn't turn down funding from anyone. Neither should Ron Paul. He is going to need all the funding he can get his hands on, no matter where it comes from.

Well, my point is, if his beliefs are close enough to North that he would choose to put North on his congressional staff, he is not a candidate I want to support.

I have heard criticism of Paul coming from Libertarian Party members that he is ideologically much closer to the Religious Right than to true Libertarians.

The recent revelations appear to indicate that this is true, much to my disappointment.

If I were Ron Paul, I would take funding from everyone I could as well no matter who it was. Just because he may be friends with the North guy, doesn't mean he shares the same beliefs. I have alot of pothead friends, but I don't smoke pot, nor would I ever. I have other friends that have drug or drinking problems, but I don't drink or use any kind of drugs at all. So that doesn't stop me from voting for Ron Paul. Everyone has a flaw.

Originally posted by xmotex
I have heard criticism of Paul coming from Libertarian Party members that he is ideologically much closer to the Religious Right than to true Libertarians.

Really? ...The same Ron Paul that said he'd hate for Romney to lose the election based on his religious beliefs? The one that just recently said he's very scared of America becoming a Theocracy? Who criticized Huckabee for making his religion a major factor in his campaigning? ...The Ron Paul that has made clear, many times, that religious beliefs shouldn't be an issue in the Presidential election...and only the candidate's message should be? Interesting... I can't seem to find any references to Ron Paul having said absolutely anything about Christianity in regards to his message or plans. All I see is Ron Paul speaking about extremely important issues at the moment, as in monetary policy, foreign policies, civil liberties, freedom etc.

Hmm...

[edit on 9/1/08 by Navieko]

Well I for one hope Ron Paul pulls it through. He wants to do a lot of stuff I disagree with, but I'd rather have a president with policies I don't like than have a president who makes Lex Luthor look like a saint.

I heard he wants to legalize a certain something we aren't supposed to discuss around here... that'd be nice, too.

Sounds like a sound enough strategy, without taking into account that the MSM thinks this is purely a Mitt and Huckleberry race, and keeps trying to bolster Giuliani despite his tanked numbers

But thank god we removed the fairness doctrine, right, Mr. Paul? That's pure capitalism, unfettered by things like "regulation." God DAMN it makes me proud to be an American, where the for-profit ideology is able to overtake and consume mass information and replace with with tits and partisan hackery.

Originally posted by xmotex
What angered me most was his apparent close association with Gary North, a man who basically wants to turn the US into a Christian version of Iran's theocracy.

But think about it: He's running on a strict constitutionalist platform; there's no way he would ever try to meddle with separation of Church and State.

He certainly seems to have more integrity than that, and that's a big reason I'll vote for him. He's a good man, and we've had too few of those in office lately.

I think this "secret plan" is going to turn some heads. I know there are enough people in this country that are "fed" up.

Me and my family will continue to work hard for Dr. Paul. It's the minutemen on the ground that are going to make the difference.

His “war chest” as you have called it is really nothing spectacular.

While you may think that other candidates like Hillary and Rudy are done after the first few primaries, you’re wrong. The Clinton campaign will never slow down and will never have to worry about funding issues. As for Rudy, he more or less did not even try in these first few states. He has been, and continues to spend all of his money in places like Florida, and a lot of the big states on Super Tuesday.

Paul is in no better situation now than he has ever been.

Anyone who has ever seen a trial (either in-person or on TV) has seen the tactic of an attorney making a statement or introducing some unsubstantiated 'fact' into the trial only to have the other party object and the offending attorney withdraw the statement. Do you think this is an accident? The offending attorney knows that something once said will still be in the juror's minds --- withdrawn or not.

And so the recent assassination attrempt by The New Republic. Even in this thread there are posts by people who are taking those assertions as fact despite the absence of anything that corroborates a single one of them. Shame on you. Deny ignorance much?

As for the topic :: I have my own theory. I believe that Dr. Paul knows he won't get the Republican nomination. I mean, how can he? His policies and positions run countrary to everything the Republican Party stands for. The RNC's very survival depends upon big business, PACs and special interests for its very survival. Dr. Paul is like the one cop that won't take the envelope with the money in it. Not a very popular guy around the precinct.

Knowing he isn't going to get the nomination, he goes through the process for the exposure (limited though it may be) and saves his money for the actual run for President. Why empty his war chest for a nomination he can't possibly get when the real war doesn't even start for several months?

There is a great article here from Gambling 911 about RP and his campaign and why he lost in NH. This is a interesting read:

Why Ron Paul Lost New Hampshire?

Ronald Holland Explains How the Ron Paul Campaign can win in the future.


Only 8,000 votes would have made the NH Primary a success with a third place finish but the Ron Paul Campaign didn’t make it. First, we can’t blame it on Fox News, if anything their debate exclusion helped the campaign on a national basis. The harassing of Hannity the Neocon on TV was a major PR mistake regardless of how good it felt at the time. The enemies of freedom will smear the campaign as extreme and scary whenever they can, hence we should counter this false perception instead of playing into their hands.

Ron Paul’s 5th placing showing in the GOP New Hampshire Primary was disappointing but the campaign should be judged in the larger context of the entire 2008 election cycle. Remember, it began as an educational endeavor to spread the message of how the benefits of a return to limited government, the Constitution and personal and economic freedom can benefit our nation and citizens.

The campaign has achieved education and fund raising success as who would have thought a year ago that a presidential campaign getting near 10% of the GOP vote would have rallies where the chant was “stop the FED” or bring sound money, a balanced foreign policy and the Constitution into the general Republican debate.

Frankly the educational and fundraising success has not been translated into similar success at the ballot box for a number of reasons but the primary reason is brand packaging. We are letting the competition define us and our vision for America.

This Is A Restoration Movement Not A Revolution - First, although the Ron Paul campaign message is identical to our Founding Fathers goals and beliefs for our early Republic, the campaign marketing brand has been called “The Ron Paul Revolution”. It doesn’t matter if you spell “love” with the word Revolution, this word scares average Americans. We are restoring the original vision of our Founding Fathers not revolting against our country.

Remember, most voters do not read von Mises, have no historical or philosophical reference or understanding of the basic foundations of liberty, economics, sound money, American history, the Federal Reserve, our republic or the Constitution. The media, our public schools and political institutions never cover any of this so why would you think one brief campaign could turn the tide against 100 years of cover-up, indoctrination and misinformation.

The Foreign Policy of George Washington - Ron Paul advocates a return to the original foreign policy of George Washington and our founding fathers. The Neocon’s call it “isolationism” and we call it “non-interventionism” but the average voter could care less about the definition. Who would oppose the foreign policy of Washington, Jefferson or Franklin?

Oppose the Federal Reserve Because of the Housing & Stock Market Crisis - 99% of the voters don’t know or want to know anything about the Federal Reserve. They hear about it in the news and this “government institution” as far as they understand is designed to “protect us and our economy”. Yes it is a tool of the financial and Wall Street elites to maximize their profits at the average persons expense but you can’t explain the Federal Reserve in a political campaign. Their easy money policies designed to benefit the banks and Wall Street have created the recession we are now entering. This is enough information.

Sound Money Means Lower Priced Imported Goods, Service, Cars & Gas Prices – This is the message not competing or gold backed currencies. Most people are too busy trying to work, survive and raise families to concern themselves with the currency.

The Average Voter Doesn’t Care About History - I love history but the voters do not care about the past as this is a consumer driven “I want it now, lifestyle economy”. Few care about the War Between the States, the fall of the Soviet Union, the Great Depression or our history in the Middle East. There is plenty of time for those interested to thoroughly research why our nation has turned into a Neocon empire abroad and a centralized power hungry government at home but this should not be part of the rhetoric of the campaign..

The Campaign Should Act At Once! - The campaign should keep the message simple, educate supporters on the importance of public relations and explain our vision for America in easy, understandable terms. There will be plenty of time for the scary stuff when the economy goes into the tank or we get into another war. We are dealing with entrenched special interests who will do anything to maintain control of the two-party monopoly but Niccolo Machiavelli was right. "The wise man does at once what the fool does finally".


Ron Holland has long been a freedom advocate while working in the marketing and financial services industry. He is the author of The Protest Fox Exclusion webpage at www.ronaldholland.com... and “Heidi Remembers Ron Paul’s Election” at www.ronaldholland.com... He can be reached at [email protected]

Ron Paul supporters, be sure to vote in the new Free Market Hall of Fame “Issues, Programs & Politics Survey“ at www.freedomfest.com... Make sure you complete question #4 (If Ron Paul is not on the GOP ticket as President or Vice President, will you vote Republican, vote Democrat, consider a third party or stay at home in the general election.) Ron Paul supporters need to let both parties know they will not be taken for granted in the 2008 elections.

Originally posted by xmotex
I was a Ron Paul supporter until very recently.

I think the recent revelations in National Review about his ties to extremist groups are going to cost him a lot of support: they certainly cost him mine.

What angered me most was his apparent close association with Gary North, a man who basically wants to turn the US into a Christian version of Iran's theocracy.

I haven't heard about this Gary North guy, but those letters have been debunked for about 10 years now.

reply to post by QuasiShaman


Have they now? All I've heard of "debunking" is Ron Paul saying "I didn't" which to me, is a lot like Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". The denial of the person accused isn't proof enough for me, I'm afraid.

reply to post by The Walking Fox


I would ask you to provide proof that the newsletters WERE written by Paul. Besides the fact that they're printed on paper titled "Ron Paul Political Report" (or something like that) you ain't got nuthin'! It's not his writing style AND no one can point to anything in his entire career or anything he's ever personally said that is even remotely racist.

He said on Situation Room today that these were published during a time when he was no longer in Congress and had resumed his medical practice. Writers of the newsletters were "in and out" and he had no idea who they were or how to even go about finding that out.

Anybody who has even done a small amount of research into him can tell these are not his ideas and it's not written in his style, which is very distictive. Your accusations have no merit.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Have they now? All I've heard of "debunking" is Ron Paul saying "I didn't" which to me, is a lot like Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". The denial of the person accused isn't proof enough for me, I'm afraid.

Bill Clinton did not lie. He was an attorney, so before he went on camera he asked them to define the term sexual intercourse/relations and they said you of course have actual sex not just a well you know......

Anyways, back to topic. I would like to see a link to these articles. I don't believe it.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by jca2005]