9 votes

finish the fight. VIDEO: Anti-Romney TV ad... from Republicans.

(edit: request for feedback/input erased due to the ad being in finishing stages. Outdated links/info removed)

Questions and Clarifications

Why is this about Romney? Isn't he just a pawn of the RNC, banks, et al? Yes and no. It is my understanding that a number of people on Romney's payroll actively collaborated with people in the RNC to disenfranchise voters in Maine, Tampa, and elsewhere. Also, in my estimation, going after Romney is currently the best way to strike back at the corrupt RNC elements in general.

How are funds raised/spent? After looking at all the options, I decided that a "super" PAC was the best way to raise funds. I have set up the PAC, Grand Old Principles, for this purpose. I am the treasurer and manager. I receive no salary. This PAC is really only there to raise money for this one single ad. No other strategies will be funded, and the PAC will be completely terminated after the election. In fact, I will probably stop accepting donations around Oct. 24th, because of the delays in transferring money and buying ad time, so we're talking about a TINY window of opportunity. The entire fundraising push will begin when the video is completed and last only last about 3 weeks. There will probably be a very small amount of money left in the bank at the end, to cover things like reversed donations. 100% of that will go to a worthy cause, such as the FSP or EFF. In case the usual FEC public reporting regulations and penalties aren't enough to instill confidence in me, I plan to release the actual bank record of withdrawals (expenditures), accounting for every single penny raised, at the conclusion of the campaign.

I think Romney is going to lose anyway, so why bother? It's really hard to say if that's true, since one moment in a debate or elsewhere could tank the Obama campaign or strengthen the Romney campaign overnight. In any event, it's sort of beside the point. If he loses, I suggest that it benefits us to have Romney not only lose, but to suffer an embarrassing defeat. It's really about establishing the precedent of consequences. About making the bite be felt as strongly as possible, not whether it happened to be the fatal bite this time around or not.

What the proposal IS:

*Above all, a precedent. A warning to establishment Republican leadership that they drew the short stick. They're in the one corrupt political party with a highly motivated and organized self-policing element.
*A warning to independent and undecided voters for the general election about Mitt Romney.
*Sincerely Republican, as in the Republican Party. I see this as ballsy entrenchment, not spiteful retreat.
*About justice for Republicans and all people that value fairness and honesty.
*Hopefully going to receive a good amount of free media publicity, due to the novelty of it being a general election attack ad from within the same party.
*100% grassroots. Either gauntlet-approved, or gauntlet-denied.
*highly pragmatic and long-term goal-oriented.
*Synergistic with other campaigns like "write in Ron Paul 2012" or "Gary Johnson 2012", for obvious reasons.
*An effort to make Romney lose (or come closer to losing, or lose by a larger amount).

What the proposal ISN'T:

*An effort to make Obama win (or come closer to winning - it's about Romney/RNC/etc., not about his opponents).
*about political policies. (it's very narrowly focused on corruption and Romney's illegitimacy.)
*Hoping to appeal to party loyalist Republicans. (under no illusions, there)
*Officially (or even unofficially) related to the Paul campaign or Ron Paul.
*Produced with the blessing or supposed blessing of Ron Paul. If Ron Paul, or anyone else for that matter, suggested that the TV campaign should be suspended, they would be roundly ignored. That's because this is about serving the disenfranchised voters, not serving any politicians, great though they may be.
*An actual ad for Gary Johnson, any other candidate, or a Ron Paul write-in campaign.
*A general ad to warn off political parties from corruption. Instead, it's more a message specifically to the corrupt Republicans that they won't get the free ride that the other corrupt parties get.

^^I'm not saying the above are good/bad goals, but I am saying that this specific ad campaign will be strengthened by having a narrow focus. This isn't for legal reasons, it's just that I don't want to let subjectivity enter the picture, and give the establishment a position to argue from. Romney has no defense against these claims, except a really weak "I don't/didn't know because I was focused on the issues instead of the process" defense, but that is no defense at all, since these actions have been coordinated by multiple people on Mitt's own payroll, under his direct supervision.

To my mind, this is the most obvious thing since breathing, and I'm genuinely surprised that I haven't seem MULTIPLE other similar proposals gaining traction all over the place. But maybe I'm mistaken on that. I guess time will tell.

A lot of us are extremely unhappy with the spending choices of liberty "candidate campaigns" and "issue campaigns" we've been donating to, and we've been getting pretty weary of donating something other than our time and energy. Here is something so specific that you know ahead of time where the money is going, and if it's something you support, you can donate to airtime, here: http://www.grandoldprinciples.com


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Based on things I've been hearing from people so far, I'm working on softening the language on Obama and clarifying the structure of the message a bit, and I'm making some changes to the logo, which I think looks ok in HD, but looks extra cheesy in small youtube-ized formats.


If Romney loses really bad maybe the GOP will start looking more seriously at their libertarian branch.

I understand going after Romney.

Revenge would be sweet but, what does it accomplish? Romney is bad. Obama even worse. So, now what do I do? There is no alternative.

If available, I would add a link at the end

Something like; "For more information, please visit (website)".

I don't know if there's already a website done that focuses on the shenanigans that went on during the primaries and at the RNC. If there isn't, and someone knows how to make one quick, we could list a good amount of incidents that took place.

I also agree with the poster that commented on the symbol not being up to par. Not sure if you're allowed to make an authentic copy anyway in case of copyright laws or whatnot. God luck with this.

At least for the online

At least for the online version of the ad there will definitely be an extra spot at the end with a longer time to link people to info.

Well done

The only thing I can think of is the sound effects at the beginning, where you say "Grand Old Principles is responsible for the contents of this advertisement." I would rather it be silent there except for the voice. Also, the symbol doesn't look professional to me (the stars, yes, the elephant, no). Maybe the printed words by themselves would be more professional looking?

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

I have some ideas on redoing

I have some ideas on redoing the logo shield. I don't think I would want to lose it, but maybe the ad would be Republican-y enough without it.

On second thought ...

... maybe you do need to have an elephant logo. It'll tell people who don't pay attention to audio much that this vid was done by Republicans.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine


I am wondering if you could contact Doug Wead and see if he could add anything helpful as far as resources/connections?

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
-Thomas Paine

he might

but my thinking is that enough of the info is really out there already, and that it's more a matter of chronicling it in comprehensive pieces, like the One Square Light article did.

Well, I can't really help you

Well, I can't really help you with the legal aspect of it, and as far as I know, it's accurate. There's only so much time to dispense information in a 30 sec spot, so it's pretty surface level, but it does get in a quote about Romney's foul play. Overall impressions are good. I liked it. I'm not sure how Joe Republican would react to it, but maybe that's not the point. It's more of a message to the party leadership, as far as I understand it, and in that regard, I like it. I hope some people have more pointed comments for you.


Well, it's not really meant for Republicans. I have some pretty solid reasons for wanting to start the ad off with a very harsh comment about Obama, but it seems to be giving people the impression that this is aimed at Republicans, when it's meant to be a "We're Republicans and we want to support our nominee, and even WE can't so you swing voters CERTIANLY shouldn't" kind of thing. The slow fade is also probably part of the reason for confusion, so I might have to change those things to make the commercial more clear, even though I actually really like them and had fairly good reasons for having it set up that way. Oh well. I'll try some things in editing and on the script and sleep on it.

reedr3v's picture

Well I liked it a lot. Good for you to tackle this

project on your own. That is independent and effective thinking. I'm not able to give you the crits you ask for; Other than support for the delegates and RP of course, I didn't follow the GOP/Mitt crooked stuff closely.
I hope others with useful information and links will chime in. Thanks for highlighting character and principles above all.