« Previous | Main | Next »

Putting the Republican in Paul's 'Revolution'

Share

December 31, 2007 4:40 PM

ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf Reports: Republican politics in Iowa and New Hampshire demand a slightly different touch than the anti-war, anti-big government "Ron Paul Revolution" that has heretofore fueled the Texas Congressman and Republican presidential candidate's buzz and fundraising, which is up to nearly $20 million since October.

Proof positive that anti-war, uncompromising libertarian Republicanism doesn't necessarily sell where the first votes are cast is the glossy and highly produced new television ad Paul has bought time for in the waning days of campaigning in the early primary states.

The subject: immigration. The message: no amnesty.

The ad takes a hard right turn from the libertarian ant-war and anti-big government views that have gained Paul's loyal Internet following.

Paul has certainly stepped up the production quality of his ads. This latest is a glossy, highly produced effort with animated graphics and music.

Instead of hearing about Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq, voters and caucus goers in the early primary states will see black and white images of immigrants crossing the border illegally through rivers and over fences.
 
"For generations, Lady Liberty welcomed immigrants that came here legally, followed the rules and led productive lives. Today, illegal immigrants violate our borders and overwhelm our hospitals, schools and social services," intones a narrator.

"Ron Paul wants border security NOW," he declares, before naming a litany of conservative-sounding platform points that would have been at home in an ad for former candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.

"Physically secure the border. No amnesty. No welfare to illegal aliens. End birthright citizenship. No more student visas from terrorist nations."

"Standing up for the rule of law," the narrator concludes: "Ron Paul for President."

This immigration ad follows another highly produced ad on how Paul will "defend America" by protecting the troops and disengaging the Armed Forces. It is a more traditionally Republican take than the "bring the troops home" platform that has endeared Paul to some.

While Paul continues to release paid advertising and has been stepping up his organizing in Iowa and New Hampshire as well as states with slightly later primaries like Michigan and South Carolina. 

Paul was off the trail Monday and will be off for New Year's Day. He reappears in Iowa on January 2nd.

Read all the latest from the campaign trail -- Iowa to the ABC News/Facebook/WMUR debates and onto New Hampshire -- every morning in The Note.

December 31, 2007 in McCain, John, Thompson, Fred | Permalink | User Comments (69)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

*edit*

If you think we have free market healthcare*

Posted by: Brent | Dec 31, 2007 6:25:34 PM

What a pretentious mob, HE'S known as "Dr. NO", and here's the lowdown on this pushy do-nothing good representative, I own property at the corner, someone has posted a "Ron Paul" sign there, and everytime I take it down, it goes back up again! He is trying to avoid fair practices by getting all the free advertising he can get, campaign rules were meant for everyone, just because you found a new niche, doesn't mean he's "progressive", it means he, and his followers are trying to sidestep the intentions of the Campaign rules!

Posted by: zuzu | Dec 31, 2007 6:29:32 PM

You're right Brent, you didn't say that it was unconstitutional. You said "shouldn't even exist", which is liberterian speak for unconstitutional. My bad.

Posted by: jeremyfix | Dec 31, 2007 6:33:00 PM

We the people are taking our country back from big business and corrupt politicians .... Ron Paul is just along for the ride. Either join the revolution or get out of the way. Ron Paul 08

Posted by: arthall33 | Dec 31, 2007 6:37:15 PM

Brent, I was talking about the interview he did last week, where he was against the present child healthcare system and Medicare, "Elderly Americans and Poor children were too dependent on the government for healthcare". I CAN get my brain around your tremendous intellect, after paying into Social Security for 40 yrs. it's not fair to those that will retire soon, to slash the benefits I've PAID FOR, just because you like this candidate! Elderly people shouldn't have to give up the benefits they paid for because YOU DON'T LIKE IT. Poor children shouldn't have to go without medical care so your tax dollars can be spent repaying Bush's War-Debt.

Posted by: zuzu | Dec 31, 2007 6:40:44 PM

JeremyFix,

Do you automatically assume I am a libertarian? How about a paleoconservative? Stop assuming.

And it shouldn't exist. It has done much more harm than good. We have a 9trillion dollar debt, and 70trillion in future entitlements. We are going in debt, major debt. People are about to refuse to take the dollar, and that means everyone's standard of living is severely going to get hit, it already is. People seem to be forgetting we have a debt, and that our dollar is crashing. It seems like a non-issue to many of you, and it's very much a important issue.

Posted by: Brent | Dec 31, 2007 6:41:42 PM

Who said Paul is slashing benefits for your social security? He said he'd save money and put it into social security while letting young people get out so they don't have to pay into it.

Posted by: Brent | Dec 31, 2007 6:44:45 PM

Ron Paul said he'd have to slash Social Security benefits to save the system in that interview.

Posted by: zuzu | Dec 31, 2007 6:53:23 PM

Wow.... Social Security has done "much more harm than good". Tell that to all the people that worked for so long but have nothing to show for it except for their social security checks.

Posted by: jeremyfix | Dec 31, 2007 6:57:56 PM

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

Posted by: Tom | Dec 31, 2007 7:00:33 PM

Ron Paul is a nutcase. His reading of the Constitution is simply unworkable today. Fools like him think they can turn back the clock to a simpler era, but they're just fooling themselves. Our country is too complex and too big to manage without "big government." Face it, you crybabies - big government is a necessary evil and can even be a good thing. We never would have won WWII or become a superpower without the organizational muscle of big government and big government gave this nation the highest standard of living in human hstory. All your talk of shriking the government is just nonsense and it will never happen without seriously disrupting our way of life for the worse. You people are fools and crackpots.

Posted by: Henry Lloyd | Dec 31, 2007 7:08:10 PM

Social Security has done more harm than good? You need to get out in the real world and stop talking crap.

Posted by: Not so famous Amos | Dec 31, 2007 7:09:57 PM

jeremyfix

...? Did you just prove my point?

zuzu,

No, he said he'd slash TAXES on social security benefits.

Posted by: Brent | Dec 31, 2007 7:11:50 PM

Henry Lloyd,

Nutcase, crybabies, fools, crackpots. I think you might be missing a few words.

Big government, a necessary evil? Huh? So, states can't handle anything? We need socialized everything? If a mistake is made, it will be done throughout all 50 states?

WWII was defense, not "big government".

People keep saying we have such a complex world, we can't have "small" government! Sigh...

Posted by: Brent | Dec 31, 2007 7:15:43 PM

Brent, remember your stance on asking for benefits the next time your car gets dented, or high winds take the roof off your house. If you don't collect anything.....our insurance costs will go down, big insurance companies will become deflated, and most of all, why should our insurance money go to YOU!

Posted by: zuzu | Dec 31, 2007 7:21:00 PM

So Brent, if a state government decided that they were going to provide free health care for its citizens you'd be okay with that cause it's the state offering it and not the federal government? How about a social security type program from the states for its citizens? What if it were cities that offered such programs for its citizens? Would you be against that because it's "big government" on a smaller scale?

Posted by: jeremyfix | Dec 31, 2007 7:23:03 PM

Ron Paul has finally injected the Republican Party with truth serum. Something that is entirely lacking in the rest of the Republican candidates.

Posted by: steve | Dec 31, 2007 7:26:59 PM

Someone mention FEMA?Bush didnt do that,much as I cant stand him,FEMA was a mes in 1999.There was a *dry run* to Katrina by the name of Floyd.I saw neigbors lose everything,poor folk black& white& FEMA did SQUAT.So dont even try that one.Federal Goverment works best when there is less of it& when the $$$ for legitimate programs actually get spent on them.
Now,on to my Man,RP.If our goverment is too big,like Ihear ppl whining about it,well,lets DO something instead of arguing!!Hmmm,what can we do?How about getting our collective heads out of the sand for an entire election.(gasp).RP doesnt have all the answers folks,none of us do.But trashing our founding principles more every day isn't going to help,we have had 7 years of that.Continuing to fund an illegal war(oh dont give me those sad neocon puppy eyes),we can spend the $$$ to disengage.Will that bruise an ego or 2?Most likely but if our country is safer in the long run(more troops at home means they can secure our borders),then it is worth it.And you Hilaryites?Please dont get me started on where your taxes will end up(sky high)& forget democracy& capitolism as we know them for they will be gone.Don't ya'll get it?Ya'll voting for the same CHIT ya'll been voting for for 40+years & just where has it gotten us?

Posted by: whistleb4dawn | Dec 31, 2007 7:34:30 PM

New Orleans was one of the MOST Religiously Based cities in America, more Churches per capita than ANY other major city. FEMA failed, but, it wasn't because of money, it was a failure NEGLECT BY THE SYSTEM!Our Government thought 5 days was an acceptable amount of time to respond....PS. Mardi Gras was not started as a celebration for gays, it was "Independence Day" for French Slaves.

Posted by: zuzu | Dec 31, 2007 7:48:05 PM

Jane_says: "No Republican can win in 08". Really!
Let's see the economy is in good shape and dispite the Democrats in Congress trying to cause us to lose in Iraq, that
war has turned around and we are winning! So Jane please tell me why the American people would want to elect a
woman whose husband ignored the Islamo-Fascist threat to our country(while he was fooling around with "Miss Lewinsky"
in the Whitehouse!
Why would the American people want to bring back the same advisors who set up the intelligence wall between the FBI and CIA which prevented us from discovering the 9/11 plot? Please explain! Instead of rolling on the floor laughing you should get a
Reality Check!

Posted by: reaganfan | Dec 31, 2007 7:52:38 PM

Post a comment