It's a great ad but Perry's camp will just use Ron Paul's subsequent (and fully justified) criticisms of Reagan against him. This could come back to bite Paul's campaign in the butt.
Is the Super PAC funding videos like this, associating Ron Paul's libertarian values and credentials with the pre-neo con warmongering ethics and Big Governmentism of Reagan?
Okay, good, because this ad was lame and set a new low in terms of "mainstream-style politicking and campaigning" efforts I've seen on behalf of Ron Paul. I think it's even worse than a full color pamphlet a friend handed off to me a few months ago that cited RP's desire to have a vigorous and strong foreign policy, hinting that RP was in favor of US military projectionism around the world.I know that isn't true of RP, so I was a bit appalled to see that someone in his campaign thought it was acceptable to provide a false/misleading impression of RP's stance in order to win over a certain voter demographic.Really crass, unintelligent, low-brow stuff.If RP is truly the liberty figure, he should be above wrestling in the mud and his efforts should be about highlighting what he is FOR, not highlighting how supporting him is a vote AGAINST some other slimeball.
anon@10:34 Then all the paulistas would need to say is that Reagan wasn't the god (or the devil) that people make him out to be.
I share Taylor Conant's concerns about Reagan. However, I have found that red-state Republicans born after 1967 (and who were too young to follow the 1980 election) just LOVE Reagan. I think it's a good move to associate Ron Paul with Reagan's small government rhetoric and Perry with Algore's attacks on the Reagan small government narrative. I doubt that the intended audience will ever be sophisticated enough to figure out that Reagan didn't live up to the rhetoric.
@ConantWell said. Completely differentiate himself from the others by sticking to what needs to be done.Tell us ten things he would do that could help.Explain how people can move their money to smaller banks.Show them how they can take charge of their own health rather than depend on the government.Show them how their privacy is violated hour to hour, and how they can stand up to it.Show them how much money could be saved by cutting back on aggressive wars and intelligence.Explain the economic situation and how it's being demagogued.
As Henry Hazlitt noted, it is much easier to tell a half-truth than the whole truth. That's a major problem with a 30 second political add (or 60 second, if that was what it was).
The Perry empire strikes back:http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul’s-reagan-revisionism/I still like the ad. These red-stater voters simply do not know that Ron Paul stands for and acts upon Reagan-style rhetoric. Perry and the other GOP dwarfs ultimately stand for and act upon Algore rhetoric. Did Perry suppport Algore because Reagan was an alleged small government man or because he really wasn't?
I like the ad. We all know that Reagan turned out to be big government. Paul can explain that if asked and why he was disappointed by him.In the end he only looks more principled by sticking with his ideologies. However to the vast majority of couch potatoes out there this ad serves its purpose of letting them know that Perry used to be a Democrat and Al Gore supporter.
OMG, that first shot of a young RP with Reagan looks like GWB jr.!
I was born after '67 and found the Reagan association to be a definite turn off. Then again, I'm not a red-state, blue-state card carrying member of any party.
IMHO this is an excellent technically produced add and strategically very wise. Remember in 2007/8 like now the Paul campaign also used pics of him with Reagan (Tim Russert asked him about it, also with view of his GOP resignation letter of 1987). The campaign knows well that the media is setting the race to be between Romney and Perry only, and Perry's best strategy would be to ignore Paul, while taking over some of his points (albeit inconsistently and unprofessionally), as one academic also advised. Perry is taking the bait, e.g. not ignoring Paul, which is very good and set-up Paul also for the debate. This is Paul's third add, while the Perry is - like his campaign - still all hat and no cattle and is yet to produce his first add and introduce himself or take a firm stance. The ad also nicely starts playing the thing that some say about Paul, e.g. that he would be "unelectable", and Paul's platform is mostly the same as Reagan's rhetoric in the 60's and 70's (also with regard to sound money, but changed in the 80's as David Stockman told Keith Olbermann on MSNBC months ago). The campaign also knows well that the rank and file GOP voter goes more on perception and emotion than reason, and Paul is connecting with them and remind them, while not giving up any of his principals at all.Paul is all set for an add battle. Perry does not want to debate Paul at all, and now he is forced to take attention and this will propel Paul into the first tier position (he is actually already in, but the media will have to portray him in this way now). He also took the initiative of going after Perry, while Bachmann should actually have done it first from her strategic viewpoint. Thus Paul can also appeal to her supporters, not only Perry's "loose poll support", and also Romney's, who stated he had nothing to do with Reagan-Bush during his GOP debate.If Romney and/or Perry will portray themselves as "Reaganites" in the dabate tonight, Paul could take a page out of fellow Texan (Democratic running mate) and say: "Governor (Perry/Romney), I was leading the Texas delegation in 1976 to support Reagan (when it was not cool), he endorsed and campaigned for me as well, Reagan was a friend of mine... governor, you are no Reagan at all!PS: Paul should also reference with regard to foreign policy (the issue where some rank and file Republicans still disagree with him, while agreeing with the domestic and economic issues) that Reagan was the least interventionist of many past presidents AND in his memoir he acknowledged his invasion of Lebanon (which John McCain and Ron Paul opposed) as a mistake and recommended a policy of neutrality, which is non-interventionist.
Taylor, it is about semantics: a strong foreign policy, just like Paul explains as with a strong president, means a policy that is strong enough to fend off the demands of interventionism by special interests. IMHO instead of _non-interventionism 9e.g. non-x is still a negative, not positive description), perhaps Paul and the campaign should refer to a "foreign policy of neutrality". A truly neutral US would also be able to act as a true neutral catalyst of international diplomacy, as it is not politically partisan to any country of group of countries.Did you think Paul wants a "weak foreign policy", which is the opposite of strong. Strong does not refer to interventionist, just like weak, would not refer to non-interventionist.With regard to Reagan, he believed in and campaigned like an austro-libertarian in the 60's and 70's and like his rhetoric in 1976 and 1980 (when Paul endorsed him, and Reagan also had the Reason interview in 1976 where he described true conservatism as libertarianism). People elected Reagan based on his rhetoric, and this is the same rhetoric that Paul has consistently. We all know that Reagan did not live up to his promises or rhetoric, he also had a majority D congress and senate (unlike Bush Jr) to work with, so he could only slow the rate of growth in govt. down, and not shrink it. Paul, along with John McCain opposed reagan's military adventurism in Lebanon and acknowledged it was a mistake. (Do you ever expect Bush, Cheney etc to acknowledge Iraq was a mistake?? and being the least interventionist president, who kept the neocons in his administration at bay and referred to them using the same words Hoffa used with regard to the Tea Party! And I am sure Reagan would have opposed the Iraq invasion (perhaps even the same with regard to Bush sr, based on what he said during the Kuwait invasion). Compared to Bush/Cheney, also what Reagan's regard to nukes (e.g. he wanted to get rid of them, see just a recent antiwar.com interview with Pat Buchanan, who should know) Reagn would be a pacifist! (and "isolationist" as the kooky liberventionists and neocons falsely tries to portray Paul).
IHMO it is also good that Paul, like his son Rand, campaign as a "constitutional conservative", and not necessarily a "libertarian", for the following reasons: many - in the South especially, do not know what libertarionism really means, it sounds like "liberal" to them, many (falsely) understand libertarianism to be socially liberal (including some of the beltway libertarians), while fiscally conservative, and that Paul is then therefore pro-choice regarding the abortion issue (which is of course not the case, but this misunderstanding means he could loose many potential pro-life voters). Libertarianism is rather - as I see it - "fiscally conservative", while "socially tolerant, which means you tolerate social conservatives and liberals). With regard to the war of drug issue, paul is also more pro-decriminalization than pro-legalization of hard drugs.It boils down to say one has a much bigger potential appeal to say you are a constitutional conservative, than being a libertarian, while all informed know that the two terms are practically synonymous.
IMHO, the brilliance of this ad is to argue substance over style, to get the hoi polloi to ask questions, to label him first, to put Perry on the defensive, to force Perry to "perry" this ad attack which offers Ron Paul additional opportunities to discredit Perry's campaign.