Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“All government, in its essence, is organized exploitation, and in virtually all of its existing forms it is the implacable enemy of every industrious and well-disposed man.”     H. L. Mencken

October 28, 2007

Ron Paul’s Second New Hampshire Television Ad

by Doug Mataconis

Well, I’ll say this much. It’s better than the first commercial, mostly because it’s just the candidate talking about what he believes. The message pure end the Iraq War and bring the troops home from everywhere. with a paen to something that the United States Government hasn’t seen in a long time — a balanced budget.

But what’s this about saving money to “help people who need it” ? I thought we were talking about cutting the budget to the bone and letting me keep my money, not changing our foreign policy so we can keep some semblance of a welfare state (i.e., Social Security and Medicare) alive.

Yes, I know this is meant for people who aren’t exactly true believers, but what’s the point of making them think that all you want to do is bring the troops home so that we can save a social welfare scheme that was doomed to fail the day FDR proposed it ?

That said, this ad is much better than the first one.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/28/ron-pauls-second-new-hampshire-television-ad/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

27 Comments

  1. We can’t end the social programs in a day’s time. There will have to be a bridge from the welfare state to freedom.

    Goodness. The nitpicking on this website is incredible.

    Comment by Ken Hamilton — October 28, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
  2. “But what’s this about saving money to “help people who need it” ?”

    This is similar to something he said in the last debate. I think it hints at his idea that not everything should be cut at once. The number one priority would be the military. The federal government would then be able to actually afford a gradual scaling back of social programs.

    Comment by Scott — October 28, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
  3. :O? “For those people who NEED it…” aka, people who are dependent on Social Security and such. People like myself can opt out of SS and invest in a personalized/privitized retirement fund, maybe invest in gold? :P. In any case, this ad is brilliant.

    But apparently some old Christian Conservative saw the first ad and loved it, and saw this one was was repulsed because he wanted to end the war – though it said that in the first ad too. So apparently, old people who watch Wheel of Fortune and such love ads like #1.

    Comment by Brent — October 28, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
  4. Paul has explained this many times. Where have you been? He says we need to take care of those who have become dependent on the government, while letting young people who want to, to get out of the system. Social security is going to go bankrupt unless funding can be obtained for it. The money saved by converting to a non-interventionist policy can be used to make sure that everyone who has paid into social security receives benefits – without having to raise taxes. To just outright eliminate it would be to steal from those who have contributed. All that’s needed is for people to have the freedom to not contribute to it.

    Comment by Drena — October 28, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
  5. But what’s this about saving money to “help people who need it” ?

    Ron Paul said he wants “a transition period” before getting red completely of Social Security and other government programs. He will keep the promises made to older generations while giving young people a chance to opt out of Social Security

    Comment by John — October 28, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
  6. I like this ad better than the 1st one. One minor thing; I wish he’d smile just a little.
    I heard Paul talk about weaning people off of government programs. Although he didn’t state that in the ad. He said people have gotten used to government aid and its isn’t practical to end it suddendly. Even with that compromise he’s the best candidate we have and it isn’t close.

    Comment by Bob — October 28, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
  7. I think that Ron Paul thinks of the Social Security/Medicare Ponzi scheme as another debt that our country owes, just like a bond. He has to reassure people that he is not just going to pull the rug out from under them, and tell them tough break, Social Security is unconstitutional, which it is.

    Comment by Johnnyb — October 28, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
  8. But that isn’t the message that voters are going to hear

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 28, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
  9. Well, Paul has said that he wants a transition period to phase out social security and welfare. But we have to pay today’s bills first unfortunately.

    I’m as libertarian as anyone here, but we’re never going to acheive political power if we advocate throwing old people out on the street on their keysters, ha. We must have a transition period to acheive our ends, and that’s what Ron Paul is going for.

    Comment by J.P. — October 28, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
  10. “But that isn’t the message that voters are going to hear.”

    So? Is it Ron Paul’s fault that some people need to be educated about public policy?

    Comment by Ken Hamilton — October 28, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
  11. Now thats a message !
    Loved it.

    The bit about the US dollar is particularly timely, with millions of Americans seeing their purchasing power disappear, and no other candidate even remotely understands the monetary forces involved.

    Comment by Jono — October 28, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
  12. This ad is fine. It’s not perfect, but it’s close enough. It was perfectly legitimate to complain about the first spot… but there’s nothing wrong with this one. Chill out, yo. ;)

    Comment by Cedric — October 28, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
  13. Great ad! He needs to run this ad far more than the first one and run it in other states as well. This ad really sells Ron Paul and his meassage well.

    Comment by TerryP — October 28, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
  14. VERY NICE!!!

    About smiling..I am never one who trusts a smile.

    About helping people; He would use money saved from a bad foreign policy, and use it to tide people over, who have become dependant on the welfare state. A simple strategy, to give people back their pride and liberty, to become self dependant. Remember Government can not dictate morality or self reliance. It infact, undermines both.

    Comment by Robert Michael of the Saints — October 28, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
  15. Awesome! MUCH better than the first, I hope the others will be as good as this one.

    Comment by Dick Mulnik — October 28, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
  16. Much better and he was right not to smile. He is talking about serious issues and would look pretty phony with a smile on his face (Mitt Romney?). I would still like to see an ad that would be a condensed version of that great you tube video – that really inspires people.

    Comment by Kacy — October 28, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
  17. Doug,

    The Ronulans have a point about the need for a transition before abolishing Social Security. I favor cutting off participation in Social Security for those who are about to enter the workforce, allow those who have been in the workforce for about 10 years or so to opt out, and force everyone else to remain in the system. We’ll cover shortfalls through the Federal budget until everyone dies off in the system.

    Now where the Ronulans are wrong is in the fact that we can withdraw from Iraq immediately. Even if Ron Paul gave the order to withdraw on 12:01 January 20, 2008; it will still take at least one or two years to complete the withdrawal because not only do the soldiers have to be withdrawn, their equipment must come out and the bases must be disassembled and a plan must be drawn up to actually leave.

    Even so, if I was advising the president, I was advise against a withdrawal without either a political solution in Iraq or until the Iraqi security forces are strong enough to hold their own against the Iranian proxy militias and Al-Qaeda.

    Comment by Kevin — October 28, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
  18. Kevin,

    Paul has already addressed that. He said he would consult with commanders to find out how long it would take to remove the troops safely. He said it could take several months or over a year. He says again and again that it “can’t be done overnight.”

    Comment by Drena — October 28, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
  19. Kevin,

    Now where the Ronulans are wrong is in the fact that we can withdraw from Iraq immediately. Even if Ron Paul gave the order to withdraw on 12:01 January 20, 2008; it will still take at least one or two years to complete the withdrawal because not only do the soldiers have to be withdrawn, their equipment must come out and the bases must be disassembled and a plan must be drawn up to actually leave.

    Yeah, we know. Ron Paul on MSNBC last week:

    As quickly as possible. I mean you can’t do it in a day or a week, but you talk to the military people and you find out, but you change the policy. You’d say that we are not going to occupy Iraq and we start closing down those bases and within months bring them home.

    BTW, we don’t need to disassemble the bases. Strip it of important technology, of course, but hand the infrastructure over to the Iraqis. I’m sure they can put them to good use. If nothing else, you could knock down the walls and use them for housing or industry.

    Comment by Jeff Molby — October 28, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
  20. I find again and again that people complaining about Ron paul just aren’t aware of what Paul is saying. There’s a lot of misinformation out there. That’s too bad. And these bloggers propagate it.

    Comment by Drena — October 28, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
  21. the US military can withdraw from Iraq immediately. anyone who thinks you have “wait on the Pentagon to draw up a plan” is a complete, certifiable idiot, who would do well to vote for H.Clinton since she likes to spout about “having the pull with the Pentagon to get a withdrawal plan.”

    FoxNews has been doing a good job telling you every day that Iraq is awesome now and everybody loves us. What’s not included in that bowl of sugar is that the Plan is for us to stay in Iraq for 20-50 years while building more than a dozen bases in the country. That, and an expanded military.

    Comment by oilnwater — October 28, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
  22. Doug knws exactly what Paul is getting at. He thinks he is acomplishing something with his passive-agressive shots over the bow. He is mistaken. The new (and greatly increased thanks to Dr. No) readership here sees through him almost universally.

    Comment by C. Wesley Fowler — October 29, 2007 @ 12:36 am
  23. Doug,

    Have you ever written a positive entry on Ron Paul? Or anyone else at the Liberty Papers ever written anything positive about Paul? Do you all spend hours everyday trying relentlessly to find something, anything to scrutinize in the Paul Campaign? What is the deal here? What are you trying to accomplish? This is disgusting. I just don’t get it. Please explain to me what the agenda over at The Liberty Papers is. What, why? I am just at a loss for words. I enjoyed your Questions for Ron Paul Supporters series. But lately ya’ll seem to be dying for something to distort or make an issue out of. I guess my real question is why Paul? What up Doug? What? Do you think another candidate is better qualified? Which one? Do you know one with more integrity or sincerity? If you do, please let us all know. We want freedom, Doug. And no other candidate even comes close, Doug. What do you want, Doug? Tell us, if it is some other candidate. And if it is Paul then Please, Doug, Support him. Use your blog to highlight the good that would come from a Paul Presidency. It seems like you sit there dreaming up the next best way to get all these Paul Supporters into a fit because it gives you some sick pleasure. Well, Doug, we sincerely give a rats ass about this country, the perils it is facing, and this amazing opportunity we have to take back our nation for ourselves and our children. What do you care about, Doug? What is important to you? No, I really would like to know.

    Respectfully,

    Henry Williamson

    Comment by Henry — October 29, 2007 @ 1:04 am
  24. doug mataconis will throw out a positive little blurb on Ron Paul occasionally, then resume the doubtmongering. doug is actually in same militarism vein as David Nalle. Nalle is another “libertarian” who wastes no time and makes no bones trashing Ron Paul. Nalle also writes on TheElististPig blog. if you read his stuff, he’s more a classic cheerleader for the current system than any sort of libertarian.

    Comment by oilnwater — October 29, 2007 @ 4:57 am
  25. Doug(the same Doug that says Ron Paul is his candidate in 08) says:”Well, I’ll say this much. It’s better than the first commercial,…”

    Thanks for your um, support Doug.

    For those of you wondering why a blog calling itself the “Liberty Papers” would feature a constant stream of (putting it nicely) less than positive pieces on the greatest champion of true Liberty in our lifetimes, Ron Paul, just remember there is no law requiring something to be labeled what it is. For example, the “Patriot Act”, would be considered by many to be a misnomer. Likewise, Various “Immigration Reform”/”Tax Reform/etc. bills/Acts. The point is, just because a thing is labeled in a fashion to imply that it is trying to accomplish X does not mean that it is really trying to accomplish X, in fact, it may function to accomplish the opposite.

    Doug, will say that he possesses some level of expertise in aiding candidates win elective office and all his criticism is because he is really trying to help. Doug, with your vast experience and knowledge in the political arena, did it ever seem prudent to you NOT to communicate advice about what you considered your candidate was doing WRONG in a NON-PUBLIC manner? OK Doug, if you say you are really trying to help then it must be true, unless it is not true(see above).

    If I am being too critical of you Doug I am just trying to help you in a way I know you understand.

    Please keep the following in mind as you read Doug’s helpful advice for the Paul campaign:
    I asked Doug whom he supported for POTUS and he replied that he supported Ron Paul for the nomination but that if things went as he expected(Paul not being nominated) he would “write in his dog”.

    I would expect that the vast majority of those that really support Ron Paul would write in Ron Paul if he is not on the ballot. I cannot imagine someone that really supports Ron Paul going to the trouble of casting a write in vote and entering their dogs name?

    Doug, I believe in Liberty, I support everyones right to say whatever they wish. I support your right to speak negatively about Ron Paul. I also discourage/am against disingenuousness, particularly in matters of politics/public policy. I believe you are being disingenuous regarding your support of Ron Paul. Additionally, I am extremely skeptical of the agenda of the “Liberty Papers”. Therefore, I will remain critical of you/this sites “support” of the only Liberty Candidate that has any shot at winning in 2008 until such time as your support bears any semblance to genuine support.

    The web is awash with sites whose names imply they support the founding concepts of this nation but in reality function as mere freedom/liberty “busy boxes”.

    Comment by gmason — October 29, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
  26. test/why is my previous comment not posting

    Comment by gmason — October 29, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
  27. Henry Williamson writes:

    “Have you ever written a positive entry on Ron Paul? Or anyone else at the Liberty Papers ever written anything positive about Paul? Do you all spend hours everyday trying relentlessly to find something, anything to scrutinize in the Paul Campaign? What is the deal here? What are you trying to accomplish? This is disgusting.”

    Ever notice how many comments he’s getting? Ron Paul draws lots of responses on the internet, and negative stuff about Paul draws especially well. Check out Patrick Ruffini’s blog. Most of his posts draw a comment or two. Some draw none at all. So every once in a while he has to do a blog on Ron Paul. Then his comment numbers go way up.

    Comment by Rob — October 29, 2007 @ 10:07 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML