I was hoping for Ron Paul to win Iowa convincingly and his third place finish is slightly disappointing, but here are some important points that need to be looked at by his campaign to increase his chances in the upcoming contests.

1. He has not gone after Mitt Romney as aggressively as he went after Gingrich and he needs to do this urgently and clearly. All he keeps saying is “Romney represents the status quo”, but that is an abstract concept for most people who have little idea what is really going on. He should say more concrete and tangible things like:

a) Romney’s biggest contributors are the corrupt bankers that were bailed out by tax payer money and printed fiat money which steals from Americans. His biggest contributors include Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse Group, Morgan Stanley, Barclays Bank, etc. All were bailed out using TARP and the $16 trillion created by the Federal Reserve secretly and they will not waste millions on a candidate unless he represents what they want, which is more corruption in government politics. Do you want a president who is up for sale?

b) These same corporations financed Obama’s campaign. Obama is a dismal failure and there is a reason these same people are also financing Romney.

c) Romney has held contradictory positions on several issues including abortion and gun rights. Just because he says he is now more conservative does not mean anyone should believe him. He has shown a clear tendency to say anything to get elected.

d) Many voters have been misled to believe Romney represents real change. He does not. He represents cosmetic change. A vote for him is essentially the same as a vote for Obama since the same people are backing them both and they hold more or less the same positions on several key issues such as more wars, no audit of the Federal Reserve, more foreign aid to Israel and its enemies, etc.

2. He should put to rest the newsletters issue specifically with respect to his statements in 1996 when he was running for election. The media are using what he said to suggest he actually knew of the bigoted statements in 1996 since he defended what he wrote, when he was infact referring to the investment newsletter and not the survival report or the other newsletters. He has not made this clear enough and he needs to hold a press conference to settle the issue. At the conference, he should address all the arguments point by point and post everything on his website.

3. Ron Paul should start challenging every false and misconstrued statement made about him by the media. In interviews, if they say things like “You want to legalize drugs”, he should right there and then say something like “Where did you get that silly notion from? When did I ever say I want to legalize drugs? All I said was that it should be left up to the states. Can you stop distorting things and stop asking me loaded questions that are deliberately aimed to misrepresent my views.” Gingrich did this sort of thing in debates very effectively.

4. He should place great emphasis on experts that share his views. Rather than saying “Iran is nowhere near getting a nuke”, which makes it sound like a crazy opinion, he should say things like “Why do people ignore what the CIA and the DOD and 9/11 Commission reports are saying? Their reports are the basis of my position and they know far more than any of us. If you reject what I am saying as kooky, then you are saying that the CIA has insane people writing their reports. You should be questioning why the other candidates are ignoring what our own intelligence people are saying.”

5. He should more vigorously challenge the idea that he is not “mainstream” by first asking “Who or what is the ‘mainstream'”? He should then show that the neocons who have hijacked the Republican party with their endless war mongering are the ones who are outside the mainstream.

6. He should point out that most people who attack his views never actually make any rational arguments against them. They just say the ideas are loony but never explain why.

7. Ron Paul should clearly show the electorate how his opponents are distorting his views. For example, they say things like “Ron Paul does not mind a nuclear Iran”. He should vigorously defend this and emphasize that his opponents are lying. He should emphasize the word LYING since they know exactly what he has said on the issues. He should then follow up with “Do you want a liar in the White House? If you are a Christian or someone who believes in integrity in the White House, don’t vote for lying politicians. They promise you the world but are only there to advance corporate interests.”