Whatever you feel about the ad yourself, I find it hard to believe that you don’t think it was aimed at the sort of effect, in general, that Regular Jack and the rest of us are talking about.

When the local animal shelter is trying to get me to adopt a pet, do they show a commercial with a cute puppy or a commercial with a mangy, diseased mongrel?

When the pro-immigration people show me a television ad with a handsome Mexican fellow serving as part of the volunteer fire brigade, are they using that commercial to extrapolate an evaluation of an entire class of people? Is this okay? Are only the pro-immigration people allowed to show photos and run commercials, since the opposition will necessarily be painting people of a different race in a negative light?

It may be that I’m missing the point. That there was something visceral and vile in the photograph.

To Brad’s point: ‘To put it another way, when the guy who ordered those flyers made (not, I’m sure, Ron himself), do you think he told his graphics guy “Find me a picture of a guy who looks unqualified to receive public entitlements?” or do you think he said “Find me a picture of a lazy Mexican?”

Honestly.’

I could see him saying either one, although he would have to augment the first with, “Oh, and make sure the picture is of a Mexican, since the graphic is regarding illegal immigration.”

To some extent, I think your question underlines the most salient point of the discussion. That is, the fact that the image depicted (if an image was needed at all, as Rojas noted earlier) a Mexican individual was a necessity. There’s almost no image they could show that would make any sense if it didn’t contain a Mexican. Given they are against immigration it seems unreasonable to expect them to depict the individual shown in a positive light. Since they wanted to show a negative image and they were (essentially) required to show a Mexican, the fact that the eventual image turns out to depict a Mexican in a negative light strikes me as wholly unsurprising.

I think maybe this is just something that we can’t find the common ground on which to agree. I’m willing to concede that I may just be missing some requisite life experience, which hobbles my understanding of the issue.

1) It may be not be the way most people see it, according to you, but it is honestly the way I see it.
2) There are far worse types, I assure you. The photo is quite tame.
3) That’s your interpretation, I don’t think the flyer goes so far as to say “all” illegal immigrants are “utter looser leeches.” You may be reading in your own prejudices here.
4) Admirably in the sense that it achieves the goal it set out to do, not that the goal is admirable.
5) That seems more of a fault of the target audience than anything else.

Let’s see what the flyer says:
If You Sneak Into America
Ron Paul Says – No Social Security For You!

It’s time we end Social Security payments to illegal aliens.
That is why Ron Paul sponsored the Social Security for Americans Only Act in Congress.

From the text of the flyer, it appears the intellectual argument is:
If you are an illegal immigrant, Ron Paul believes you should not get Social Security payments.

Now if we put the picture into the discussion, then can conclude that the picture is an example of a possible illegal immigrant who might want Social Security payments in the future.

Is the picture an inaccurate example of such a possible illegal immigrant? I would say no, it is not inaccurate. Is it the painting illegal immigrants in the best possible light? No, it is trying to paint illegal immigrants as socially undesirable, and it performs admirably in that regard. Is it true that some illegal immigrants are socially undesirable? Yes, undoubtedly. Is this because of their RACE? No. It is because of the fact that they are ILLEGAL.

A small-government movement CAN arise from the ashes of the Paul campaign, and probably cannot arise from elsewhere. And yet…it is going to have to be a movement completely shorn of the neo-Confederate, conspiracy, and radical anti-immigration elements. No movement involving those groups is sustainable at the national level. This campaign has proven that conclusively.

And the Paul campaign, at this point, is not merely giving us no help in creating such a movement, it is actively catering to those elements which would inevitably destroy any such effort.

It’s a hell of a mess.

Also, I don’t particularly care whether this movement is entirely contained within the Republican Party (although it seems to me that its Centre of Gravity will be in GOP-land).