Posted on 09/05/2007 7:23:43 AM PDT by George W. Bush
How A Dark-Horse Can Win The Nomination
By Thomas F. Roeser - The Wanderer Press
CHICAGO — Two weeks ago I played political strategist for Ron Paul. In the old days of my misspent youth, when I was a hired gun political strategist working for the Minnesota Republican Party, nobody asked whom I was for. They didn’t care. My boss just showed me a candidate and ordered me to devise a strategy for him/ her at lowest possible cost. And because I liked to continue eating, I did it.
It didn’t work out too badly. After a few of us got the hang of it, the GOP, once locked in the dark ages of Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, and a Democratic machine governor, won the governorship and two Senate seats.
So in that spirit, I seized upon the darkest of dark horses in the Republican column, Cong. Ron Paul of Texas, and sketched out a plan of attack for him. That doesn’t mean I’m for him: It means that pursuing a definite strategy he can come close to winning — and maybe win if fortune smiles. Believe it or not, I’ve heard far and wide from people who say it makes sense. Of course it does! It’s the only way for a candidate with little money who is fighting those with big media budgets.
The strategy: The bunch up of primaries on February 5 should produce a candidate winning the Northeast, one winning the Midwest, and another the South (maybe the same guy). Paul should strive to come in second somewhere (I suggest the Northeast as most favorable to his candidacy). The winner would probably be Rudy Giuliani. Paul would then have every right to demand a debate with Giuliani where he would have the chance to appeal to more conservative Republican voters and thinking liberals.
I urged Paul to campaign in nontraditional GOP circles in the Northeast — following the style of Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire — visiting universities, coffeehouses, editorial boards, talkradio programs; and specifically going to every liberal group imaginable: anathema to a regular Republican campaign. In that way he could grab national media attention and have a shot.
Because I heard from a lot of Ron Paul Wanderer readers who felt this was the correct strategy, let me now outline a low cost media approach.
Absolutely no money ought to be spent on TV commercials or expensive multicolored brochures. Not very much should be spent on staff either. Expensive consultants want candidates to buy TV so as to benefit from a commission rakeoff. So, no TV.
Volunteers ought to do most of the work. The only staffer I would pay good money to should be the candidate’s driver, the one who drives him around New Hampshire safely and carefully. A good driver is the most important member of a presidential primary campaign.
But there are perils with candidates’ drivers. Hence I suggest Paul’s drive ought to be a mute. Physically impaired. One congenitally deprived of the use of speech. An individual condemned to permanent silence. Incapable ofspeech and utterance. Unable to emit a sound of any kind. Understand I do not mean one who is laconic. I mean “ mute: from the Old French mu, the Middle Englishmuet, from the Latin mutus.” I mean characterized by absence of speech. As with the line from Emily Dickinson: “ The words stopped at his lips unsounded.”
With the candidate held prisoner in the back seat, a garrulous, know-it-all driver can take advantage of the candidate’s weakness and pour a good deal of nonsense into his ears. Worse, the candidate in extreme fatigue can be led to imagine that the driver speaks for the common man. So mute he must be.
The driver will be the best paid; the second highest paid should be the scheduler. When I covered McCarthy in New Hampshire, he had a perfect one. All schedulers are victimized by friends who importune themselves to get the candidate to their favorite church picnics. Not so McCarthy’s scheduler who was an autistic savant. He was distant from friends and associates, single-minded on only a map. He was the best scheduler I ever saw. Sadly he is not available — but an autistic savant as scheduler, similar in style to Dustin Hoffman in the filmRain Man, should be available somewhere. Paul should pay him well.
Running the campaign on volunteers saves money for paid communications. By which I mean radio. A decade ago a guest at my political science class at De Paul University was Michael Deaver ( who died recently). Everyone believes Ronald Reagan was the most popular governor California ever had. Not so. He won his second term by only 52% in 1970. But he still wanted to run for president.
He turned to Deaver, who understood the governor was a conservative ideologue ( as Deaver decidedly was not). Radio, he reasoned, was for the philosophically committed, the people Reagan had to appeal to. So he put Reagan on the radio across the country — radio exclusively.
Each radio message of only a few minutes in length had him deliver small bits of conservative philosophy in bite-sized morsels. At the end he would say, “ This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.”
While Reagan was known nationally from his films, his ideas — aside from California — were not. Radio got ex-radio announcer Reagan across to the country.
Making Points And Raising Money
Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan nor is he a nationally known commodity but he doesn’t have to be. Radio talks on small stations — radio exclusively — will do the job. With the first bunch- up of presidential primaries on February 5, 2008 (to which Arizona has now been added), Rudy Giuliani is supposed to do well on that day in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Delaware.
Paul’s goal should be to concentrate on being second in any of those Republican contests. And don’t worry that these states look like distinctly hostile country to conservative Republicans. With artful three-minute radio talks with a contributions request at the end, Paul can make his points and raise money for them at the same time.
What should the commercials deal with? The first should be on the Iraq War where he says he voted against the war resolution, adding that if war is sought it must be fully approved by Congress with a complete declaration of war allowing total resources dedicated to victory; unlike the original authorization of 2002, where the president received an okay to use military force against Iraq to attain only two objectives: “ defend the national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq” and “ enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” Paul authorized a “ sunset provision” to the original authorization.
It should conclude with the fact that previous Congresses limited past presidents from either waging war or extending it — which this Democratic Congress has failed to do. When was that? Paul should say: “ I’ll tell you next week. Until then this is Ron Paul saying thanks for listening.”
The second commercial should list them, including: Nixon had to obey a congressional order in 1969 not to send troops to Laos or Thailand. Gerald Ford was forced to accept a ban on excursions to Angola. Reagan had to obey a limitation on use of troops beyond Lebanon in 1983. Bill Clinton was banned from extending military operations in Somalia in 1994. And George W. Bush has complied with limitations on the number of military and contractor personnel sent to Colombia.
Ron Paul can use these precedents to score the Democrats who talk big but who haven’t acted. In that way he could call their bluff and get Democrats to switch to him in the primaries. Liberals could become disenchanted with the Democrats running since they failed to do this and come over to Paul.
His third would be on immigration. Unlike other libertarians, Paul opposes illegal immigration because of the toll illegal immigrants take on welfare rolls and worsening an unready unbalanced federal budget.
A fourth would state his opposition to any violation of habeas corpus to protect against possible unlawful imprisonment, triggering a liberal crossover.
Fifth would be immensely popular — his opposition to reintroduction of the military draft.
Sixth should state his support of the Second Amendment, the purpose of which was to put a check on government tyranny, not merely to grant hunting rights.
Seventh:there should be no federal control over education.
Eighth: his plans to reduce health care costs for families — particularly waiving the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes for those with serious illnesses and suspending such taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child.
Ninth: his opposition to abortion and his following a consistent life ethic: opposition to the death penalty. Tenth: his reform of the tax code which would replace the cumbersome tax process with a simplified tax form — where he also spells out substantial tax savings.
All these ideas, incidentally, have been proposed by Ron Paul earlier. Of course as with every other candidate, there are hot button libertarian issues I would not stress: his criticism of the federal war on drugs ( states should determine the extent of opposition) which could be twisted to sound too permissive; support of income tax resistance in the form of peaceful disobedience ( easily twisted to endorse violence); his vote against a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the flag ( a red flag to most conservatives).
These broadcasts should not exceed three minutes in length and should be spelled out in simple words with instructions on how to contribute via the Internet. Beginning in mid- December in the Northeast, if popular there with donations coming in, they could be run in the Midwest. And if they’re lousy with money, try California which is jaded by samesame programs advocated by the two parties.
Follow This Formula
This strategy can’t be used by other dark- horse candidates ( Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, et al.) since to some degree they echo the regular Republican establishment bloc. The big three establishment ones are still Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson. If Paul runs second to any one of them, the situation is ripe for a debate.
I promise not to give further unsolicited advice to him in the future. I have other things to do. But if he follows this formula, Paul might one day thank me — if only for the blessed silence he would enjoy as he rode in the back seat of a car driven by a professional driver who was also mute. And by a schedule concocted by one impervious to beseeching special demands from political pals.
When liberal Democratic candidates hit stinging blows, you can always count on the so- called establishment “ mainstream media” to sit on the story. Last week, Michelle Obama, wife of Sen. Barack ( D., Ill.), took a wicked cut at Hillary Clinton. If you haven’t heard about the story on the networks or read about it in your newspapers or on the wire services, remember that what Mrs. Obama said was detrimental a) to the Obama campaign, with Michelle Obama hurling mudballs and b) to the Clintons. Neither big metropolitan daily in Chicago has referred to it, although they have special correspondents traveling with the Obamas. Reason: too negative to the Obamas and the Clintons. Nevertheless this is what really happened: Campaigning in Iowa, the Obamas have come cheek to jowl with the reality that a hefty political machine built by Bill Clinton is currently topping Obama. The young Illinois senator is 46 years old and is only three years out of the Illinois legislature. He is struggling to make voters feel confident with the idea of him as commander-in-chief. All the while, Hillary is trading on her own expertise beginning with the role she played as first lady and a so-called “ two-fer,” a co- partner with her husband in the White House.
Last week, Mrs. Obama had had enough of the Clintons. She had this to say about Barack’s top opponent, Mrs. Clinton: “ If you can’t run your own house, you can’t run the White House!”
It was a vicious cut, referring to the nation’s number- one philanderer who embarrassed his wife with an affair with intern Monica Lewinsky.
The skewering from Michelle Obama was doubly well-aimed.
First, at Hillary’s so- called lack of attention to her roving husband and second to the fact that Hillary has a big lead over Obama due to Bill Clinton’s political network of wealthy fund- raisers and big- city machine types.
If this charge had come from a Republican you can bet the networks would be breaking into their programs with “ we interrupt this broadcast to bring you. . . .” But as it came from a liberal media favorite’s wife, the story was suffocated.
To read more articles by Thomas F. Roeser, log on to www.tomroeser.com
“Notorious?” Gee, you’re funny. Why does Ron Paul accept bin Laden’s grievances and explanations for killing thousands of Americans, George W. Bush?
I see. So you’re willing to lend bin Laden credence and smear the president, George W. Bush, eh? You may go now. You’ve done your duty for Run Paul, the flake. You’re an al Qaeda apologist too if you want to suggest their motives are anything but evil, and you’re a small man for attacking our president.
Thanks to poster George W. Bush and his post number 85, we’ve a new entry for Ron Paul’s slogans: “Better al Qaeda than George Bush.”
Paul is only one of two candidates (the other being Fred) who are capable of bringing in swing, independent, and libertarian voters.
I've got the Mania CD here and I have it loaded onto my iPod. One of my favorites. :-)
ROFL!! Good one! And spot on. :-D
If all the other candidates died, I guess it could be possible.
Oh no doubt, but I do think most of the Democrats are more willing to defend America than Run Paul is.
I first ever saw Paul in a Republican debate. I thought it was a Democrat whack job, honest.
I think it is good that he and others are in there to effect the debate for a time still, at some point though when it is apparent he has zero chance in hell, he should back out and back the Republican nominee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
