My idea for a Ron Paul image change

Post Reply New Topic

OK, it's quite simple. Numerous people on here have pointed out that Ron Paul does not have a "killer image" as in, he looks weak if the nation goes to war. Anyway, I've figured out the perfect way for Ron Paul to obtain that image and still keep his campaign platforms. Do what Putin did!




People say America won't fall for simple tactics like that. I disagree. America will fall for simple campaign tactics like that. Also, maybe for Ron Paul's campaign ads he should play like, Atreyu in the background, you know? Show how hardcore he is.

Anyway, this is mostly sarcastic, but does my idea of Ron Paul pulling a Putin sound like sort of a good idea?

I'm not sure a photo op of Ron Paul at a gun club showing off his moobs would do much to boost his public image.

Ron Paul is a good Texas Senator. Ron Paul would be a terrible president, and is unelectable in any case. His beliefs are too strongly held, and he's too willing to make them unambiguously clear.

Ron's only hope of running against vague promises of "Hope and Change" would be something equally vague, like "Less government, lower taxes, more freedom". The moment he says he's going to reduce government bureaucracy by eliminating the National Hurricane Center & selling interstate highways to private companies who'll make them into toll roads, he's lost. People might hate taxes, but the moment you start coming up with specific things to cut that they personally like and benefit from, it's game over.

If you really want to see things get fun, wait until more moderate Republicans get disgusted, drift over to the Democrats, and leave liberal Democrats horrified to see NuDemocrats selling a tax hike on voters by promising to spend it on things likely to be wildly popular, even if the environmentalist wing is furious about it (like the large-scale reconstruction of urban interstate highways to the design standards of the Dallas Central Expressway. Yeah, that road is borderline erotic, and TexasFreeway.com is pure road porn ).

I think Ron is doing a great job as it is. He's just repeats what he has always said, while everyone else shots their selves in the foot.

I wish there were more candidates that were exactly like that, so when the need for that person comes, they completely fit the position. The public should have learned to distrust candidates that mold to the situation. It would be like a mechanic trying to fix a car by looking for a spare part. Would he use a part that did the job, or something that almost did the job, or a part that could fit itself to the job needed. If you look at the past presidents, they are like the part that can change it's purpose of it's original design, and many times they fall out of place.

Maybe congress would have a hard time working with him. That would highlight the problem in the system even more. Then a lot of those positions would be open to new people, which is what a lot of people wish to begin with.

Approval Rating of Congress

I like Ron's image as a done to Earth kind of guy.

I love the Putin promotions they do in Russia. They're hilarious. The best is the Vladimir Putin vodka "Putinka"

Obama is no stranger to this type of "image" building. Pretty sure we've all seen that shirtless beach pictures of Obama by now. The photo op has long been a part of American politics.

Doesn't always work, see Michael Dukakis in 1988.



If you look tho, there is a shirtless picture of Ron out there

This one ought to work

Ron Paul is specifically not invited to a December 7th event.

On the surface, the decision by the Republican Jewish Coalition not to invite Rep. Ron Paul to their forum for presidential candidates seems ill-advised. Some will ask, what would be the harm in giving the eccentric libertarian a hearing?

But just as no one would consider a demand the GOP group provide a platform for a Democrat, there is no reason for it to allow Paul to pretend he is anything but an extremist who is far outside of the mainstream, especially when it comes to issues concerning the U.S.-Israel alliance. Though the isolationist sometimes claims to be a friend to Israel, few are deceived by this disingenuous stance. There’s no reason why the RJC needs to buy into the pretense.

Paul claims his opposition to aid to Israel ought not to disqualify him for pro-Israel voters. He says aid is bad for the Jewish state and that he respects its sovereignty more than many of its friends who seek to impose American solutions to the peace process that it rejects. But this is not a serious argument.

As for the aid, when Israel was receiving massive amounts of economic aid, one could have argued that U.S. funds merely subsidized the country’s dysfunctional socialist system and did as much harm as good. But that aid has long been phased out, and now the assistance the U.S. provides Israel is to its military. The idea that Israel would be better off without that assistance — and the security cooperation that goes with it — is absurd, especially at a time when the threat from Iran and the Arab world is growing. It should also be noted that almost all of that aid is spent here in the United States on American-made weapons. For Paul to assert that it isn’t needed is a clear indication of his attitude toward Israel’s fate.

But Paul’s extremism goes farther than his opting out of the bipartisan pro-Israel consensus on aid. His view of America’s place in the world and of its Islamist adversaries — who also desire Israel’s destruction — is so skewed as to make his views indistinguishable from those voiced on the extreme left.

Paul’s isolationism is so hard-core that he sees America as a force for evil in the world and its adversaries, such as al-Qaeda, as being justified in their determination to fight us. Paul’s perspective is that of someone who has no quarrel with Islamists who are waging war against both the U.S. and Israel. Even in the GOP’s presidential debates, Paul has rationalized the Islamist regime in Iran and voiced opposition to any effort to stop their drive for nuclear weapons that pose an existential threat to Israel.

People like Ron Paul have taken the valuable libertarian creed of opposition to intrusive government and support for individual freedom and twisted it into a belief system that doesn’t view U.S. security abroad or the life of a besieged democratic Jewish state as something Americans should care about. Far from respecting Israel’s sovereignty, Paul is willing to watch with complacence as its very existence is called into question without the U.S. feeling obligated to lift a finger. His “respect” for Israel is little different from the sentiments voiced by an earlier generation of isolationists — the “America First” group — whose admiration of Nazi Germany and indifference to the fate of the Jews restrained the country’s initial response to both Hitler and the Holocaust.

Rep. Paul has every right to voice his views and run for office. But that doesn’t obligate the RJC to give him a platform for views that are antithetical to the organization’s principles. If he doesn’t like it, I’m sure there are gatherings of Islamists and anti-Semites where he would be welcomed with open arms.

http://www.rjchq.org/Newsroom/newsdetai ... 22d84df7ea

Quite frankly I agree with the Republican Jewish Coalition.

That was some of your typical corporatism that you see every day in Washington that Ron was voting against. Mattel is conveniently exempt from CPSIA testing and Mattel was the company who created whole lead toy hysteria. Seems a little funny don't you think? Once again, the little guy gets squashed by the oppressive boot of government in the name of protecting consumers. The only thing congress protects are the interests of the corporations.

Solution for those worried about lead painted toys: Don't by lead painted toys.

If for some reason you feel you have to buy these toys for whatever reason, then don't let your kid put them in their mouths.