The World Newser
World News' Daily Blog

« Previous | Main | Next »

Putting the Republican in Paul's 'Revolution'

December 31, 2007 11:40 AM

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 Political Radar | Permalink | Share | User Comments (69)

User Comments

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

Excellent, Paul deserves a few days off before he wins Iowa and New Hampshire ( then more ).

Of course, I am calling a win 3rd place or better, with an expectation of only 1st and 2nd place finishes, but 3rd will do just fine in Iowa, NH will be 1st, or a VERY close 2nd.

--The loon

Posted by: looncraz | Dec 31, 2007 12:14:48 PM

He's no different than the others and more hypocritical than most. He puts millions in earmarks on bills that he knows will pass and then votes no to show how against government spending he is.

Posted by: Louis | Dec 31, 2007 12:19:35 PM

looncraz - you have no understand of earmarks. EARMARKS DON'T EXPAND SPENDING! THEY DON'T CUT SPENDING! The money is already taken, stolen some say, via taxes and going to be spent. The question is, should the department of X, Y, and Z who are unaccountable with the public and usually waste the money spend it, or should representatives?

I can't believe people can't understand the concept of earmarks.

Posted by: Brent | Dec 31, 2007 12:32:53 PM

Odd, he's against spending money, against Social Security, against Madicare, against Fema, against Poor Children Health Care. Math for Politicians......Lower spending= do-nothing Government! This may be the worst voting record of ANY politician I've EVER researched!

Posted by: zuzu | Dec 31, 2007 12:34:59 PM

Ron Paul is a Republican fringe candidate that the Republicans won't even invite to debates. Anyone that thinks he's going to place 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in Iowa or New Hampshire is in for a sad surprise after it's all over in a few days.

Posted by: jeremyfix | Dec 31, 2007 12:42:41 PM

Try reporting the news correctly for a change, Ron Paul is NOT against legal immigration, he is against illegal aliens as most of the public is.

Posted by: Patriot2008 | Dec 31, 2007 12:43:54 PM

He is also against socialism and those who hide behind the label of "Progressive" as they are one and the same.

Posted by: Patriot2008 | Dec 31, 2007 12:45:24 PM

Where exactly did the article say that Ron Paul is against legal immigration? You should be happy the media is covering him despite the fact he has no chance to win.

Posted by: jeremyfix | Dec 31, 2007 12:49:09 PM

LOL... Who cares? No Republican can win in '08 anyway. Bush's disasterous tenure saw to that. Good luck Republiclowns - you're all gonna lose. Say hello to President Hliiary. ROFL

Posted by: Jane_Says | Dec 31, 2007 12:49:25 PM

zuzu, Ron Paul isn't against those things just because. He's trying to follow... oh, I don't know... the TENTH AMENDMENT?

Posted by: Mike | Dec 31, 2007 12:50:09 PM

Ron Paul is just another looney liberatrian wackjob who wants to dismantle our government based on his absurdly narrow reading of the Constitution. Good thing the majority of Americans don't want anything to do with these rightwing extremist fools, or else we wouldn't have a government anymore!

Posted by: David Lebron | Dec 31, 2007 12:52:05 PM

He's against spending Social Security and Medicare money? Wow, good for him! We need more like him, otherwise we wouldn't be in the mess we are now with those two programs (that shouldn't even exist)

Against FEMA? Look how well that turned out. 5,000$ to anyone who asked, and then they realized they never even lived in New Orleans, nice nice.

75,000-90,000 is poor? That must mean I qualify for "poor children health care". Oh, I also have to tell you something: The bill you are thinking about, did not even say where the money was coming from. You seem to forget that we have a debt, people are poor because of inflation, because we don't have enough money, so we print money, and the value of the dollar goes down, and the middle class and poor class are eaten up by it. But no, you can't wrap your head around such talk.

Anyways, I know a few of Paul's supporters who are upset about this ad. But you must remember, there is no other candidate better than he when it comes to his positions. Apparently his campaign has resorted to pandering, and apparently Iowa Republicans loves this stuff, immigration is a huge issue for them.

Posted by: Brent | Dec 31, 2007 12:52:40 PM

Instead of logically debating, you resort to name calling. How old are you, and do you realize most of the problems we have right now is because we don't have a reading of the constitution?

The ignorance of some of these people are astounding. Everyone forgot what federalism was about, forgot the states and cities have governments, and think the federal government is the know-all-be-all of all problems. But it isn't.

Posted by: Brent | Dec 31, 2007 12:54:51 PM

Patriot2008 - socialism and representative democracy are not mututally exclusive. What good is your capitalism if millions of Americans are unnable to afford basic healthcare? The free market isn't free.

Posted by: Kev | Dec 31, 2007 12:55:10 PM

I LOVE RON PAUL.... I don't agree with everything he says, but he believes in the constitution. Tell me, how bad could that be???? HAVE YOU NOTICED NONE OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES TALK ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION?? BOTH THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE FOR WAR, WAR AND MORE WAR WITH OUR CHILDREN BEING KILLED, NOT THE POLITICIANS OWN CHILDREN. Ron Paul puts most of these scumbag presidential candidates to SHAME!! If you want more wars, please vote for Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Guiliani, Romney, McCain & Thompson. Wake up people!!!!!!!

Posted by: Marie | Dec 31, 2007 12:55:40 PM

FEMA worked fine until Bush and his incompetent cronies got ahold of it. Republicans always do this - they hollow out a robust and capable Federal agency or program from within until it's no longer viable (underfunding is a favorite tactic, or appointing incompetent or actively hostile leadership), and then they loudly complain when that agency or program "fails" - never mind that they're the ones who caused the failure in the first place. Sorry, pal, but the Federal Government works fine when there are responsible adults in charge. If you hate our Government so much, why don't you just leave instead of trying to tear it down from the inside? People like you have done more damage to my country than Al Queda ever will! Shame!

Posted by: Gabe Bastos | Dec 31, 2007 1:02:55 PM

Why isn't Ron Paul running as a libertarian, since that's what his real beliefs are anyway? He's a fraud claiming to be a Republican in order to win support for a very unpopular agenda.

Posted by: Dana R. | Dec 31, 2007 1:04:50 PM

brent..... If something like Social Security is unconstitutional then why hasn't anyone with standing tried to have it eliminated through the court system since the 1930's? The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says and in 1937 it said SS was in fact constitutional.

Posted by: jeremyfix | Dec 31, 2007 1:04:59 PM

Here's the pink elephant in the room. When we are talking about "illegal immigrants" we are talking about the native people south of the border who are indigenous to this land. Read a history book and you will realize that this once was Mexico. It took Israel nearly 1960 something years to go back to their native lands, its been less than that for Mexicans. Secondly, the US Gov. had a treaty with all people of Mexican descent, but of course America's treaties as well as its laws are only worth the paper they are printed on...Last migrants and immigrants are what make us competitve...any US born citizen fightint for a job to become a janitor or grap picker really doesn't deserve to be in this country at all. Ron Paul has lost my vote.

Posted by: AC | Dec 31, 2007 1:13:01 PM

If you think we have managed healthcare right now, you're off your knockers. We have "managed" care, every since the government got involved in the 70s and put the insurance company inbetween the doctor and patient it has been going downhill from there.

Gabe Bastos,

So, is it impossible to like small government and love America? That's what we used to stand for.

Also, what seems to be the problem with states, cities, and people helping the situation? What is a need for a FEMA? You keep saying, "But it is the Republicans that did it!" Well that is exactly the problem. When you have centralized planning, you make the whole country suffer from mistakes - both Democrats and Republicans screw up.

A man who is for small government, and is anti-war, is somehow, not Republican enough? Have we forgotten Robert Taft? Barry Goldwater? Hell, even Ronald Reagan pre-presidency. "Extremism is the defense of liberty is no vice" ? (Barry Goldwater) "Libertarianism is the heart of Conservatism"? (Ronald Reagan) Please, stop being ignorant.

JeremyFix,

? I don't believe I said it was unconstitutional, even though it very well could be. That's besides the point. Eliminating it would be crazy, and something Paul doesn't advocate at all. Phasing it out, that's the key. Allowing new generations to get off it, while respecting the older generations who depend on it.

AC,

You never were going to vote for Paul.And if you were, you are clearly lost if you think this is the biggest issue we face. We have wars, death, destruction, people are becoming poorer and poorer because of the devaluation of the dollar. And you are mad at an ad that states that we should stop giving social welfare to immigrants? Hell, we should stop social welfare, period!

Posted by: Brent | Dec 31, 2007 1:24:21 PM

Post a comment