RSS 2.0 FeedRon Paul’s Radio Ads
by Doug MataconisThe Paul campaign has unveiled two radio ads that will be running in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina over the next several weeks. They are both fairly good — better, I personally think, than either the of the television ads that we’ve seen.
The first ad basically introduces the candidate:
Pretty good.
The second ad could be called the “real Republican” ad, since it’s main message appears to be that Ron Paul is the candidate who actually believes that the Republican Party has said it stands for. Other than an unfortunate dig on the illegal immigration issue — and I’ve made clear already that I think Dr. Paul is wrong on that issue — it’s also fairly good (again, better than the television ads)
Awesome Ads, thank you. Ron Paul has my vote and support.
Tess, California
Comment by Tess — November 4, 2007 @ 10:25 amI’ve been doing NH politics a long time, and #1 seems TAILOR made for the Granite State. Incredibly powerful to win the all-important Independent vote in this state.
JM
Comment by James Maynard — November 4, 2007 @ 11:11 am“Other than an unfortunate dig on the illegal immigration issue . . .”
Would you mind linking to your position on immigration? More importantly: how would unfettered immigration be consistent with Ron Paul’s commitment to put Americans first?
He’s stated on numerous occasions that a prosperous nation has little to fear from immigration; his parents were German immigrants, for instance.
The problem is: the States are only prosperous on paper; the core is rotten; and we’re fighting against a great deal of inertia to set it fiscally straight.
Comment by Klutometis — November 4, 2007 @ 11:22 amKlutometis,
This states my position on immigration quite succiently:
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/06/where-should-libertarians-stand-on-immigration/
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 4, 2007 @ 12:31 pmDoug,
I suppose you have never lived in a border state or town?
If you did Pauls stand on the issue is very much needed.
If you don’t live or have lived in a border town or city I suggest you live in one before an opion is formed.
But thanks for a good post doug
Comment by Darel99 — November 4, 2007 @ 1:17 pmAfter reading your post and comparing it with Ron Paul’s position, I’m having trouble seeing the difference.
Ron Paul proposes physically securing our borders as a higher priority to immigration reform. You wrote about the economic and cultural aspects of immigration, but I didn’t see your stance on the security aspects. Do you disagree with Dr. Paul there?
Ron Paul writes that we should enforce Visa rules. Are there cases where you advocate we shouldn’t?
Paul is against amnesty for illegal immigrants. Is this where you disagree?
When Ron Paul writes against welfare for illegal immigrants, I do see there may be some opposition to that in your article. You wrote:
Did you mean that legal immigration should not have to wait for entitlement reform, or that illegal immigration should also be prioritized above it?
You don’t address the issue of birthright citizenship in your article. What is your take on that? If you or Dr. Paul propose that birthright citizenship should only be available to children of legal immigrants (and not illegals), I can support that. Should children of illegal immigrants be granted citizenship to a country their parents broke into? What sort of incentive does that establish?
I disagree with Dr. Paul about the numbers of immigrants being any issue at all. If we can establish systems which prohibit new immigrants from immediately claiming government entitlements, and prohibit illegal immigrants from claiming any entitlement at all, we can still have all the economic and cultural benefits of an influx of the kind of eager immigrants that built this country.
Comment by Akston — November 4, 2007 @ 1:56 pmI think the radio ads are great! Radio is a fantastic medium to reach more people.
Ron Paul is certainly a “top tier” candidate. I have been creating a web site to demonstrate just how wrong this “long shot” label is when referring to Ron Paul. While Ron Paul registers low in the national polls, he dominates in the Straw Polls, Debate Polls, Fund Raising, Web Traffic and Grass Roots Networking.
Please visit http://www.thecaseforronpaul.com and decide for yourself.
Comment by Cleaner44 — November 4, 2007 @ 2:01 pmDarel,
You do realize that the things people say saying about Hispanic immigrants today are the same things they were saying about immigrants from Italy and Eastern Europe 100 years ago, don’t you ?
There’s no difference between the immigration debate then, and the immigration debate now. Immigration has been a net plus for the United States for 200 years and I see no reason to close the doors now.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 4, 2007 @ 2:21 pmAkston,
Since I would favor immigration policies that are far less restrictive than what’s in place today, I don’t see any problem with birthright citizenships, especially given the fact that it’s part of the Constitution.
I meant that welfare reform (and as far as I’m concerned the most ideal type of reform is complete elimination) and immigration are two completely separate issues, and that national policy on immigration should be influenced by welfare reform objectives.
It boils down to this — I think it is entirely inconsistent with individual liberty to tell people that they can’t come to the United States to do the same thing immigrants have done for two centuries, make a new life for themselves and their families.
In fact, I think it would be hard for a principled libertarian to take the opposite view without coming up with very convoluted view of individual liberty.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 4, 2007 @ 2:28 pm[...] And if we are already on the topic of what should the GOP stand for, here is how a true republican ought to be: [...]
Pingback by It looks obvious » Blog Archive » The true conservative voice. — November 4, 2007 @ 3:02 pm” There’s no difference between the immigration debate then, and the immigration debate now. Immigration has been a net plus for the United States for 200 years and I see no reason to close the doors now. ”
You have got to be kidding. Were our jails massivly overcrowded 100 years ago, mainly with hispanics? What about all of our social services etc, the closing of hospitals in our southern border states due to the massive influx of hispanics. This isn’t 100 years ago, this isn’t 50 years ago, this is now and it’s really bad. This has been an on going plan by the elites in this country, who the hell leaves the borders wide open after declaring a war on terror and a war on drugs anyways?
Close the damn borders and fix the visa/social security inefficiencies first.
Comment by abe — November 4, 2007 @ 4:21 pmAbe,
Where is your evidence that the percentage of crime committed today by immigrants, whether legal or not, is any higher than it was in New York City in the 1920s ? Or at any other time in history when immigration was high ?
And if we were talking about immigrants from Canada instead of immigrants from Central America, would your opinion on this issue be any different ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 4, 2007 @ 4:27 pm“You do realize that the things people say saying about Hispanic immigrants today are the same things they were saying about immigrants from Italy and Eastern Europe 100 years ago, don’t you ?
There’s no difference between the immigration debate then, and the immigration debate now”
You can’t be this oblivious, Doug. The differences between then and now — absolute number of immigrants, legal then vs. illegal status now, concentration from one country and one language, welfare state now that didn’t exist then, Mexican irredentism in the Southwest, etc. — are so well-known and so important that you’re either so uninformed that you shouldn’t be writing on the topic — or, as I’ve been saying for months, you’re a neocon shill pretending to be a libertarian.
Comment by Buckwheat — November 4, 2007 @ 5:13 pmGuys,
Doug Mataconis is a neoconservative mole. I’ve been saying it for months and his comments fit the pattern so well that there’s no other rational explanation.
Google him. I did, and it was enlightening.
He’s a fake journalist.
Comment by Buckwheat — November 4, 2007 @ 5:14 pmRon Paul has my vote. The US will die without him.
Comment by Mick Russom — November 4, 2007 @ 5:40 pmBuckwheat,
Doug is not a neocon. It seems to me that he is more able to understand problems on the scale of international relations than Ron Paul or yourself for that matter.
Mick,
Comment by David Wilson — November 4, 2007 @ 5:55 pmYour comment is ridiculous.
The problem with comparing immigration 100 years ago and now is there is a far larger welfare state in the US.
Paul’s philosophical position is pro immigration, but he rightly sees that this is not possible with such abundant welfare policies around.
Comment by Daniel — November 4, 2007 @ 6:15 pmDaniel,
Then the solution is to end the welfare state, not destroy the engine that has made America what it is today, and what it will be tomorrow.
There’s a reason people don’t emigrate to Romania.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 4, 2007 @ 6:21 pmBuckwheat,
I know what I am.
And you’re a phony libertarian.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 4, 2007 @ 6:22 pmThe solution SHOULD be to end the welfare state. The problem is that none of the candidates are willing to do that, and the Dems just want to expand the entitlement system. I do not have all the answers to the problem of immigration, but I do know that there are negative philosophical implications of labeling individuals as “illegal.”
Comment by David Wilson — November 4, 2007 @ 6:35 pmDavid,
Not to mention the fact that pretty much anyone whose family emigrated here in the late 1890′s-1920′s could find at least one relative who would qualify as what, under the laws of the day, would qualify as an illegal immigrant.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 4, 2007 @ 7:05 pmDoug is not a shill. I have never read this site before, and was attracted because the Ron Paul content, but it drives me nuts that bloggers and their commentors don’t know what a shill is. How can you substantiate you claim?
I would ask – What is the most practical, effective way to end parasitic immigration? Should we eliminate the welfare incentives, or block the immigration. Of course, any true Republican will say eliminate welfare, but remember, I asked for the most practical, effective way. This is not so easy to answer. We can’t have a government which ignores its own rules, since then there is never any incentive to mean what you say and say what you mean. If this were the case, we might as well not have any laws at all.
I would like to see the end of welfare benefits for ALL. But, I am willing to compromise with the socialists to limit immigration. If they are not in favor, then they need to move toward me on reducing welfare benefits for all.
Vote Ron Paul.
Comment by rhys — November 4, 2007 @ 7:12 pmRhys,
It’s not the immigrants who are the parasites. At least not from what I see. I see them every day building houses all around Northern Virginia, starting at a development not far from me before the sun comes up, and working until the sun goes down.
The true parasite is the state.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 4, 2007 @ 7:40 pmIllegal, low-tech immigration vs legal hi-tech immigration must be distinguished? Whereas there might be some benefits to low-tech illegal immigration to reduce cost of housing construction workers, and arguable and perhaps detrimental effects during construction busts on the economy? Illegal immigration bumps down quotas for people waiting for 20+ years to be immigrants by illegals?
Comment by ItsHappening — November 4, 2007 @ 8:30 pmi would have no problem with almost unfettered immigrant, if and only if the entire entitlement state was dismantled first.
until that day, no illegal immigration for you!
Comment by oilnwater — November 6, 2007 @ 2:26 pm