# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Redo: Who Should we draft in 2012?

## nate895

This is a poll to determine who are the most well supported potential candidates among Ron Paul supporters for President in 2012. In order to best determine who we should raise funds for and open a draft committee, I decided to list all names mentioned the "full list of possible RP Republican who we could nominate in 2012" thread and see who is most popular. In order to achieve a winner, that person must gain a majority, there will be multiple rounds of polling, using these rules:

Round 1: Qualifying, those getting under 10% are eliminated, poll closes in three days

Round 2: Qualified candidates, one person makes a detailed case for each candidate, candidates under 20% are eliminated, poll opened for three days

Round 3: All candidates who qualified in round two, one person makes a detailed case for each candidate, and one person can make a negative statement on each candidate, top two face off, open for three days

Round 4: Top two from round 3, two people make a detailed case for their candidate, two rebuttals from opponents of that candidate

Edit: Only GOP primary candidates. We can determine who we support in the General if need be when the time comes.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> This is a poll to determine who are the most well supported potential candidates among Ron Paul supporters for President in 2012. In order to best determine who we should raise funds for and open a draft committee, I decided to list all names mentioned the "full list of possible RP Republican who we could nominate in 2012" thread and see who is most popular. In order to achieve a winner, that person must gain a majority, there will be multiple rounds of polling, using these rules:
> 
> Round 1: Qualifying, those getting under 10% are eliminated, poll closes in three days
> 
> Round 2: Qualified candidates, one person makes a detailed case for each candidate, candidates under 20% are eliminated, poll opened for three days
> 
> Round 3: All candidates who qualified in round two, one person makes a detailed case for each candidate, and one person can make a negative statement on each candidate, top two face off, open for three days
> 
> Round 4: Top two from round 3, two people make a detailed case for their candidate, two rebuttals from opponents of that candidate


Good idea. You should specify if you mean candidates overall or just GOP primary candidates.

----------


## nate895

> Good idea. You should specify if you mean candidates overall or just GOP primary candidates.


Thanks for reminding me.

----------


## Nathan Hale

Remember folks - regardless of who we pick, the public will vet a candidate as well.  If the candidate is not a current or former Governor, US Rep, US Senator, CEO of a major corporation, General/Admiral, Vice President, Ambassador/major administration official, or mayor of New York City, he will not be taken seriously in the primary and thus will not be worth supporting.  We're only going to get one shot at this, so consider VIABILITY as the primary bottleneck through which our candidate must pass.

----------


## Jeremy

there are so many good names here... a lot would have no reason to run though

i would support Bruce Fein any day too

but my vote goes to Gary of course

----------


## trey4sports

schiff

he has the most economic credibility especially now the economy is in the $#@!ter

----------


## nate895

C'mon guys, I at least want this to go beyond one poll so we can get some detailed reasons why to support someone instead of group think.

I voted Goldwater because it will be his last chance to run, and we want to use all our talent possible. He will also get media attention and support for being the son of "Mr. Conservative."

----------


## constitutional

I voted Gary Johnson, he shows interest in running and actually winning. Funny we forgot about Jesse Ventura.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> C'mon guys, I at least want this to go beyond one poll so we can get some detailed reasons why to support someone instead of group think.
> 
> I voted Goldwater because it will be his last chance to run, and we want to use all our talent possible. He will also get media attention and support for being the son of "Mr. Conservative."


He;s also only a Congressman, and while that's certainly beyond the viability threshold, he need a Governor or Senator to really be considered in the "top tier"

----------


## nate895

> I voted Gary Johnson, he shows interest in running and actually winning. Funny we forgot about Jesse Ventura.


He wouldn't run in the GOP primary, so I excluded him. We can decide who to support in the General if this candidate should lose the primaries.

----------


## nate895

> He;s also only a Congressman, and while that's certainly beyond the viability threshold, he need a Governor or Senator to really be considered in the "top tier"


I would normally agree with you, but this is the son of the preeminent conservative politician of the 20th Century. That alone qualifies him for the top tier.

----------


## Captain Bryan

Gary Johnson & Barry Goldwater Jr as the VP?

----------


## Kludge

John Stossel.

----------


## nate895

> Gary Johnson & Barry Goldwater Jr as the VP?


I'd reverse it because a 73-year-old isn't the greatest pick for VP, especially when he is only a former Congressman.

----------


## BuddyRey

If he's not still too young to run in 2012, B.J. Lawson!

----------


## tggroo7

As I said in another thread, Johnson/Napolitano would be perfect IMO.

----------


## 0zzy

I like Mark Stanford cause I think he would have the issues and GOP backing him. Gary Johnson is good too, I like Andrew but he won't run, Jones is a good Congressman but its hard to win presidency from there. Jeff Flake, Peter Schiff, etc. same. I dono who william Fallon is.

----------


## dr. hfn

goldwater as running mate and johnson as president

----------


## Jeremy

> schiff
> 
> he has the most economic credibility especially now the economy is in the $#@!ter


i would support him... but i just dont think he has any reason to run

besides, wouldnt he have to be like a congressman or something first?

----------


## RSLudlum

I like a *Sanford/Johnson* ticket.  Just because you don't see Sanford in the national media that much doesn't mean he has no clout in the conservative base.  He's definitely a libertarian leaning conservative (and usually described that way in the media).  He declined on a private school's offer to educate his children for free when he became Governor bc. the SC citizens didn't have any way (through vouchers) to do the same for their children (John Stossel wrote about Sanford and his stance on education at length in the book "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity")....He didn't take the housing stipend while serving in congress, opting to sleep in his office.   He's constantly vetoing state bills, even going to the extent of bringing two pigs in the the state house to protest 'pork'.  He is against Real ID and loathes overbearing centralized power by the federal gov't (very pro-States Rights even to the extent that he recently appeared in Washington telling congress he doesn't want their bailout money, and insisted they cut spending and taxes instead)....Also believes in term limits, as he did when he was a congressman.  BTW, Sanford's term for governor is up in 2010 and he can't serve again. 

I don't know all that much about Johnson but from what I've read on the forum and his speech at the R4R he seems like a very good choice.

To sum it up for a GOP ticket:  *Sanford/Johnson* or even *Sanford/Napolitano*


Now for a non-GOP ticket I would say possibly *Ventura/Johnson* (vice versa)

----------


## m72mc

rand paul or ventura

----------


## dr. hfn

oh $#@!, Ventura said he might run, but I think the majority of people might think hes too crazy

----------


## Jeremy

> oh $#@!, Ventura said he might run, but I think the majority of people might think hes too crazy


not only crazy, but us libertarians should realize that he is not a serious liberty supporter... he seems more interested in breaking the 2 part monopoly than supporting freedom

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> not only crazy, but us libertarians should realize that he is not a serious liberty supporter... he seems more interested in breaking the 2 part monopoly than supporting freedom


not true.

----------


## Grimnir Wotansvolk

> not only crazy, but us libertarians should realize that he is not a serious liberty supporter... he seems more interested in breaking the 2 part monopoly than supporting freedom


That's as important as liberty. It is liberty, I think.

Imagine getting a liberty GOP member to the nomination, having him push for third parties in the debates, that sounds win-win to me. Even better if we can get some anti-bailout democrats behind us.

----------


## robert4rp08

Ron Paul

----------


## RSLudlum

> That's as important as liberty. It is liberty, I think.
> 
> Imagine getting a liberty GOP member to the nomination, having him push for third parties in the debates, that sounds win-win to me. Even better if we can get some anti-bailout democrats behind us.


I was just thinking the same damn thing!  Thats exactly how TPTB do it isn't it??

----------


## kombayn

Gary Johnson baby.

----------


## Dark Aerow

SHould have given the option to select 3 people rather than just 1.

----------


## Alawn

If you want a realistic shot then you need someone who has held public office before and a governor is the best option.  Governor > senator > house representative.  

Johnson is the best option.  Napolitano would be best as a supreme court justice that our guy nominates since he is a judge.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> i would support him... but i just dont think he has any reason to run
> 
> besides, wouldnt he have to be like a congressman or something first?


Peter Schiff, if he could win, has more reason to run than about anybody.

----------


## yongrel

John McCain

----------


## Kludge

> John McCain


Thank God he's got all that experience!

----------


## Indy4Chng

Gary Johnson or Mark Sanford!  Whoever can best get the GOP behind him.

----------


## Goldwater64

Mark Sanford has to have the best shot of the bunch.  I've heard his name mentioned in non-RP circles along side Jindal and Palin and Romney.

----------


## scandinaviany3

> Mark Sanford has to have the best shot of the bunch.  I've heard his name mentioned in non-RP circles along side Jindal and Palin and Romney.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfd2R...eature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXS5I...eature=channel

----------


## ClayTrainor

Try our asses off to get Gary Johnson the Rep nod, and if we fail,

Ventura independant ticket!!!

----------


## rsvforronpaul

What about personality...unfortunately the american presidential election result depends on the candidates' personality and also on the media coverage and portrayal of the candidates...Obama has both...our candidate should have both...the candidate should start early...and start campaigning early...and remember that PAC funds would be hard to come for a 'Ron Paul' candidate...so even more individual contributions reqd to match Obama's millions

I dont think we will win with an independent candidate...that would just split up the republican vote and hand 2012 to Obama...
Lets be more realistic...there was Reagan who had the charisma to carry on the Goldwater revolution...who do we have to carry on the Ron Paul revolution...unfortunately I dont think anyone matches Obama(the conman) in charisma...not even close...to be frank...Ron Paul himself looks the best candidate even though he may not run...all these guys look like good VP picks....VP doesnt need a great personality...he just has to reflect the views of the main candidate

Flake is a very good candidate...I am from AZ and I know he is quite popular...but he has voted 100% for the war in Iraq...he seems to have changed his views on that off late...not quite sure...

Just answer one question...do even 5% of the people in this country know any of these guys?

So whatever we do...we must pick a candidate with maximum strengths...get his name around and get on ground...
2010 will be important...Ron Paul candidates must win republican primaries...that would spread the message and would be a big win...if we have the message correct and all of the republican base behind us...we can toast the dems...

Let the revolution begin...

I would end with this quote:

"Whatever the arena in which your recovery takes shape, the important thing to remember is that we all have choices in life, even in defeat. No one can truly define success and failure for us - only we can define that for ourselves. No one can take away our dignity unless we surrender it. No one can take away our hope and pride unless we relinquish them. No one can steal our creativity, imagination, and skills unless we stop thinking. No one can stop us from rebounding unless we give up."

----------


## rsvforronpaul

I would also like to mention this...whatever votes the Libertarian party/the Constitution party/Reform party etc get are all mostly republican votes...the vote has already been split...the neocons are responsible for alienating a lot of voters...by trying to please the extreme social conservatives...they have lost all these votes...they vote for these parties or even vote democratic...if we get a good candidate I dont think anyone from these parties would run...we will have all the support

----------


## BenIsForRon

Voted for Gary Johnson, if I could have two votes, Jeff Flake would be the other choice.

----------


## TruthAtLast

> I would also like to mention this...whatever votes the Libertarian party/the Constitution party/Reform party etc get are all mostly republican votes...the vote has already been split...the neocons are responsible for alienating a lot of voters...by trying to please the extreme social conservatives...they have lost all these votes...they vote for these parties or even vote democratic...if we get a good candidate I dont think anyone from these parties would run...we will have all the support


good point.

What constitutes viability?  20 million to start the campaign to use in Iowa and New Hampshire?  I really believe that the first 4-5 states mean EVERYTHING.

The media marginalized Ron Paul more and more because his support "didn't translate into votes".  We MUST win some states, and win them EARLY!!!

So consider this when choosing who we may want to support.

Also, there have been some strategies suggested that we support 2 or 3 candidates to "gang up" on the neo-cons in debates so that our primary candidate isn't left alone and marginalized.  Though I see some merit in this, we would have to be very careful that this doesn't split our votes and cost us some of the early states.  This could be devastating.

I'm not sure how to get around this critical problem.  On one side, *we had better be prepared* for our candidate to be treated the same way by the other candidates and the media as Ron Paul was treated.  He will be an outcast and labeled a fringe candidate.  On the other hand, if we do dilute our competition by supporting multiple liberty candidates, NONE of them may gain enough support to win the primary. Plus, I'm not sure any of these people would want to run as controlled opposition.  They probably have too much pride and wouldn't be willing to "take one for the team".

----------


## BenIsForRon

One other thing, Johnson definitely does need to get himself a new lady, that is crucial for many mindless voters.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

Johnson/Ventura or Ventura/Johnson (the latter would be more viable, Jesse is a more engaging speaker and personality with a better backstory). Sanford pulled a cute stunt with pigs in the statehouse, yes, but when it came to taking a stand against the real pigs in the primaries, he failed to endorse his 'good friend' Paul. He was on youtube defending McCain's policies, and his opposition to real ID is largely due to the fortitude of the state legislature, not his own backbone.

----------


## Expatriate

I think a big problem with Ventura is that he's a truther. Unless there are some major revelations about 9/11 that get national attention or someone manages to piece all the evidence together to PROVE without a doubt that it was an "inside job", or the truth movement grows to encompass more than 50% of the population, anyone with the truther label attached to them is going to be relentlessly smeared and marginalized by the media.

I really like a lot of the stuff Jesse says, but I think he will run as an independent even if his views are vindicated in the press. He is just too distasteful of the Democrat/Republican two-party system.

I would suggest Gary Johnson with Ron Paul or Barry Goldwater Jr. as his running mate. And yes, it would help if Gary got married again.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I think a big problem with Ventura is that he's a truther. Unless there are some major revelations about 9/11 that get national attention or someone manages to piece all the evidence together to PROVE without a doubt that it was an "inside job", or the truth movement grows to encompass more than 50% of the population, anyone with the truther label attached to them is going to be relentlessly smeared and marginalized by the media.


There have been years of revelations, and most Americans believe the government has covered up the truth about it. Unless addressed, the path is laid for the next false flag, and the same excuses for not addressing the next inside job will again be made. Ventura has stood up extremely well when questioned about the matter in the media. I think some people here don't want to see such a candidate run because they simply don't want to be proven wrong.

----------


## Son of Detroit

Admiral Fallon would be interesting...  The media and other candidates certainly couldn't make fun of him, being a former four-star admiral and all.  It would be suicide to mock and make fun of a man of that stature.  

But, I don't know if he would be close to our movement/and I really really doubt he'd be interested in running.

----------


## Expatriate

> There have been years of revelations, and most Americans believe the government has covered up the truth about it. Unless addressed, the path is laid for the next false flag, and the same excuses for not addressing the next inside job will again be made. Ventura has stood up extremely well when questioned about the matter in the media. I think some people here don't want to see such a candidate run because they simply don't want to be proven wrong.


I definitely remember the polls that showed over 80% of Americans didn't believe the official story, and I think Ventura would be our best choice if somehow he and other dedicated and intelligent people managed to make the case for another investigation on a national stage. Nothing would make me happier than to see the truth movement vindicated by a proper investigation. There is so much evidence of foul play by now that it would be impossible for an unbiased inquiry to uphold almost any part of the official story.

However, there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction for a lot of people if they hear you say "9/11 was an inside job" that you are dishonoring the memory of those who died and being anti-American at the same time. That is why I have always thought that the catch-phrase should be "9/11 was a cover-up", since anyone with half a brain knows that the government has participated in cover-ups in the past. However a false-flag attack of that magnitude is just too hard for most to accept even if there is a great deal of evidence for it. Denial is a very powerful thing.

I just don't think a presidential campaign would be a great way to argue for something so controversial. If we can get an investigation started before then, Ventura would probably be a great candidate. I just wonder if he would ever consider running in one of the two major parties - which seems to be the only way to get much media attention.

----------


## crusader

where is jesse ventura on the list?

----------


## acptulsa

Tom Coburn?

Dr. Tom talks the talk eloquently, decisively and convincingly.  But he never seems to walk the walk.  Besides, it wasn't that long ago that he really wasn't a libertarian at all--he was a pretty classic evangelical when he first ran (or at least sounded a lot like one).  We really have difficulty in figuring out what to make of him around here.

Much as I'd like to see an Oklahoman finally achieve the White House, my vote went to Gary Johnson ftw!

----------


## american.swan

I chose Stanford, but now I don't know.

Why?

Because we need a candidate who holds to our views, but can pander to idiot votes mindlessly about jobs, income, taxes, and simple foreign policy.

----------


## nate895

> where is jesse ventura on the list?


As I have already stated, this is only for GOP Primary candidates, and Ventura is an Independent. 

Personally, I would never vote for Ventura anyway. The man is just along for the ride, he seems like the ultimate opportunist. One day he is hanging out in Mexico, next day he is up selling a book about the Revolution after it is already too late. If he really would have supported Ron Paul, he would have went up to Minnesota, at least, to campaign for Paul.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> As I have already stated, this is only for GOP Primary candidates, and Ventura is an Independent. 
> 
> Personally, I would never vote for Ventura anyway. The man is just along for the ride, he seems like the ultimate opportunist. One day he is hanging out in Mexico, next day he is up selling a book about the Revolution after it is already too late. If he really would have supported Ron Paul, he would have went up to Minnesota, at least, to campaign for Paul.


trust me, once you see the demorat and repuplipig candidates, you will vote for him.

----------


## nate895

> trust me, once you see the demorat and repuplipig candidates, you will vote for him.


I intend on voting for the LP or CP candidate in 2012, in the unlikely event our candidate loses the nomination:


BTW, why is this:
:bunchies:
in the smilies now? LOL!!

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> I intend on voting for the LP or CP candidate in 2012, in the unlikely event our candidate loses the nomination:
> 
> 
> BTW, why is this:
> :bunchies:
> in the smilies now? LOL!!


Jessie could very well be the LP candidate...and I was thinking the same thing lol! Surely some sort of nwo hypnosis image...

By the way. the media is already campaigning for Jindal and others for the 2012. We will have a steep GOP hill to climb, and I doubt we will break through.

----------


## Havax

How come no one realy mentions Barry Goldwater Jr.? He has the best name recognition, and seems like a really great speaker (of course his philosophy is great too). Did he ever say something about not wanting to run?

----------


## nate895

> How come no one realy mentions Barry Goldwater Jr.? He has the best name recognition, and seems like a really great speaker (of course his philosophy is great too). Did he ever say something about not wanting to run?


He hasn't said anything about not wanting to run, but I don't think he has been asked about it. If we opened a draft committee and raised several million in PAC money that would support him, and then got several million in pledges should he run, I doubt he would turn it down.

----------


## nate895

> Jessie could very well be the LP candidate...and I was thinking the same thing lol! Surely some sort of nwo hypnosis image...
> 
> By the way. the media is already campaigning for Jindal and others for the 2012. We will have a steep GOP hill to climb, and I doubt we will break through.


That is why we need to start the 2012 campaign ASAP, and I think Goldwater would have the easiest time breaking through the media blockade in the primary season since he is the son of Barry Goldwater, and he is already a regular invite onto a couple of conservative talk radio shows I listen to. I think Savage might endorse him, and that would bump him up into the "top tier" if he wasn't already up there.

----------


## SeanEdwards

My opinion is that efforts to shoehorn a liberty candidate into the whitehouse are doomed to fail until the rest of the federal government has some reasonable fraction of liberty minded politicians.

We're not going to teleport ourselves out of the wilderness and directly into the throne of the kingdom. We have to mount an organized assault on the castle, replace the current footmen with ones loyal to the cause of liberty, and then we can mount a reasonable attack on the throne.

----------


## V3n

Goldwater Jr. is too old.

Even after 4 years as President, Obama will still look half the age that Goldwater does.  Republicans need to shake the Dole/McCain "crazy-old-man-who-stoll-my-frisbee-when-it-went-into-his-yard" persona and re brand themselves.

They need someone young and media savvy to battle the Obama machine.

----------


## nate895

> My opinion is that efforts to shoehorn a liberty candidate into the whitehouse are doomed to fail until the rest of the federal government has some reasonable fraction of liberty minded politicians.
> 
> We're not going to teleport ourselves out of the wilderness and directly into the throne of the kingdom. We have to mount an organized assault on the castle, replace the current footmen with ones loyal to the cause of liberty, and then we can mount a reasonable attack on the throne.


You can't make an assault on the castle without someone wanting the title of the man on the throne. We must have a face of the movement, and the only way to do that in politics is to have someone running for the leadership job.

----------


## justinc.1089

> MARK SANFORD, more mainstream, against Real ID, was one of 2 congressman voting against useless waste, and government spying, guess who the other no vote was? Ron Paul. 
> 
> SUPPORT SANFORD.


Amen. Preach it my friend. Lol.

----------


## Xenophage

Where's Rand Paul?

----------


## nate895

> Where's Rand Paul?


Rand Paul wasn't mentioned in the other thread I got the names from, at least not before I started making this post. Also, it's not like he would have a snowball's chance in hell anyway.

----------


## american.swan

> Goldwater Jr. is too old.
> 
> Even after 4 years as President, Obama will still look half the age that Goldwater does.  Republicans need to shake the Dole/McCain "crazy-old-man-who-stoll-my-frisbee-when-it-went-into-his-yard" persona and re brand themselves.
> 
> They need someone young and media savvy to battle the Obama machine.


That's exactly what the elite plan.  After eight years of Obama they already have a small group of young energetic GOP candidates ready to keep the fascism going.  So we have to have that kind of excitement and youth.

and what is the green smiling thingy about?

----------


## american.swan

> Rand Paul wasn't mentioned in the other thread I got the names from, at least not before I started making this post. Also, it's not like he would have a snowball's chance in hell anyway.


That's not the point.  Look, can you imagine Rand, Goldwater Jr, Johnson, and Stanford all running for the GOP nomination?   All three have very different backgrounds and similar views.  One might pull it off.  We have to make our views seem "mainstream" GOP views.  Our candidateS should focus themselves on jobs and welfare and the economy, just like the others do.  Also remember the WAR will still be going on in 2012.  Obama won't get all the troops out.  We don't have to convince the whole GOP to vote for our candidate.  Mob mentality will set in.  We just have to get enough to seem "viable".  To seem "viable" we again need to have many of our candidates there to make it clear that we are "mainstream".  If it's 8 elitist against one liberty candidate we have no chance at winning.

I will almost bet the 2011 GOP primaries will include more Thompson and Hucksters copying our message.   We have to have varied candidates.

Elections are also about making money.  This is important.  We need our "four" candidates to make money for themselves and their campaigns.  They all need varied tactics.  

I'll say it again,  one liberty GOP primary candidate has no chance.  But I'd still support the dude or woman.

----------


## nate895

> That's not the point.  Look, can you imagine Rand, Goldwater Jr, Johnson, and Stanford all running for the GOP nomination?   All three have very different backgrounds and similar views.  One might pull it off.  We have to make our views seem "mainstream" GOP views.  Our candidateS should focus themselves on jobs and welfare and the economy, just like the others do.  Also remember the WAR will still be going on in 2012.  Obama won't get all the troops out.  We don't have to convince the whole GOP to vote for our candidate.  Mob mentality will set in.  We just have to get enough to seem "viable".  To seem "viable" we again need to have many of our candidates there to make it clear that we are "mainstream".  If it's 8 elitist against one liberty candidate we have no chance at winning.
> 
> I will almost bet the 2011 GOP primaries will include more Thompson and Hucksters copying our message.   We have to have varied candidates.
> 
> Elections are also about making money.  This is important.  We need our "four" candidates to make money for themselves and their campaigns.  They all need varied tactics.  
> 
> I'll say it again,  one liberty GOP primary candidate has no chance.  But I'd still support the dude or woman.


We would be divided with our money, volunteer hours, and votes if we have more than one. That is what happened to the "conservative" base last go around. McCain was the only liberal (according to average GOP voter) after Giuliani lost Florida. Therefore, McCain was able to nearly sweep on Super Tuesday. The same thing will happen to us. Four second-tier candidates with little money and little name recognition are no substitute for a single united force of liberty lovers.

----------


## Printo

Schiff would be a good economic advisor, not so much a president though.  Johnson & Sanford are both good choices but Johnson has been out of politics for a few years now.

----------


## TruthAtLast

> We would be divided with our money, volunteer hours, and votes if we have more than one. That is what happened to the "conservative" base last go around. McCain was the only liberal (according to average GOP voter) after Giuliani lost Florida. Therefore, McCain was able to nearly sweep on Super Tuesday. The same thing will happen to us. Four second-tier candidates with little money and little name recognition are no substitute for a single united force of liberty lovers.


This discussion between Nate and American.Swan is really the pivotal issue.

On one side, we can prevent the isolation of ideas where the neocons gang up on our candidate and the media makes him seem out of touch and fringe in the GOP. I can see the merit in this as we push "controlled opposition" to steal the spotlight from the other GOP clowns.

On the other side, if we don't WIN at least 3 of the first 5-6 states, we will not be viable no matter how many candidates we have. And I do fear that dividing our votes and resources could be detrimental.

I don't know the answer. Both strategies have merit.  But even if there was enough money to go around. There wont be enough VOTES to go around.  Ron Paul raised a ton of money and the media kept calling him a longshot because he couldn't translate it into votes. (though maybe calling him a longshot has something to do with that).

Anyone else want to comment on this issue?  I really see it as one of the most important strategic decisions we face.

----------


## nodope0695

Sarah Palin.

----------


## nate895

> This discussion between Nate and American.Swan is really the pivotal issue.
> 
> On one side, we can prevent the isolation of ideas where the neocons gang up on our candidate and the media makes him seem out of touch and fringe in the GOP. I can see the merit in this as we push "controlled opposition" to steal the spotlight from the other GOP clowns.
> 
> On the other side, if we don't WIN at least 3 of the first 5-6 states, we will not be viable no matter how many candidates we have. And I do fear that dividing our votes and resources could be detrimental.
> 
> I don't know the answer. Both strategies have merit.  But even if there was enough money to go around. There wont be enough VOTES to go around.  Ron Paul raised a ton of money and the media kept calling him a longshot because he couldn't translate it into votes. (though maybe calling him a longshot has something to do with that).
> 
> Anyone else want to comment on this issue?  I really see it as one of the most important strategic decisions we face.


With the debates, Ron Paul wasn't exactly the World's greatest debater. If we get a good debater (something I am not sure any of these guys are), that person will be able to make the other people look like morons. If you are the average voter watching, and all the candidates start ganging up on one guy, the voter will either assume 1) he is ahead, 2) he is right, or 3) they (the voter) think he is a dumbass, and that would be because they already think he is one, and we can't change the "I absolutely hate liberty in any form" voter to vote for our guy anyway.

----------


## escapinggreatly

A lot of the talk seems to be about "drafting" someone using the GOP structure. What about "drafting" someone by forming a new kind of grassroots political movement that isn't in bed with one of the two main parties?
__________________

*The Melting Pot Project: Proportional Representation. New Parties. Intern Jokes.*

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> With the debates, Ron Paul wasn't exactly the World's greatest debater. If we get a good debater (something I am not sure any of these guys are), that person will be able to make the other people look like morons. If you are the average voter watching, and all the candidates start ganging up on one guy, the voter will either assume 1) he is ahead, 2) he is right, or 3) they (the voter) think he is a dumbass, and that would be because they already think he is one, and we can't change the "I absolutely hate liberty in any form" voter to vote for our guy anyway.


Which is why the MSM will try to do exactly what they did to Paul all through 2007: pre-define who the 3 'frontrunners' are, direct almost all real debate time to those three, and leave the liberty candidate off of almost every poll they sponsor to ensure that candidate stays locked at 1% (so they can then say "he's a fringe candidate, look at his low numbers!").  Our next candidate will have to pay for his own Zogby, Rasmussen and other phone polls during the crucial early months, to ensure he IS mentioned and in the most favorable light, to bypass the media's pre-blackout. Otherwise, he'll be silently marginalized through these tactics all over again.

----------


## nate895

> Which is why the MSM will try to do exactly what they did to Paul all through 2007: pre-define who the 3 'frontrunners' are, direct almost all real debate time to those three, and leave the liberty candidate off of almost every poll they sponsor to ensure that candidate stays locked at 1% (so they can then say "he's a fringe candidate, look at his low numbers!").  Our next candidate will have to pay for his own Zogby, Rasmussen and other phone polls during the crucial early months, to ensure he IS mentioned and in the most favorable light, to bypass the media's pre-blackout. Otherwise, he'll be silently marginalized through these tactics all over again.


Yes, that is why we need this to get underway immediately. If our candidate has money and some decent poll numbers up before the media has the opportunity to do that, we will be several steps ahead of where Paul was.

----------


## RSLudlum

> Yes, that is why we need this to get underway immediately. If our candidate has money and some decent poll numbers up before the media has the opportunity to do that, we will be several steps ahead of where Paul was.



Shhhhhh,,,,They're watching us!!!

----------


## TruthAtLast

> Yes, that is why we need this to get underway immediately. If our candidate has money and some decent poll numbers up before the media has the opportunity to do that, we will be several steps ahead of where Paul was.


so, is there anyone with the experience, the conviction, the political savvy, and the oratory skill to actually pull this off.  I want a Ron Paul with Obama's charisma and voice.  Ok, so the guy pulled the wool over everyone's eyes and ran a campaign on basically NOTHING but a slogan.  But it worked.  Now imagine if you had the message of freedom and liberty behind it.  Who is this ideal candidate?  Do we even have one?

----------


## nate895

> so, is there anyone with the experience, the conviction, the political savvy, and the oratory skill to actually pull this off.  I want a Ron Paul with Obama's charisma and voice.  Ok, so the guy pulled the wool over everyone's eyes and ran a campaign on basically NOTHING but a slogan.  But it worked.  Now imagine if you had the message of freedom and liberty behind it.  Who is this ideal candidate?  Do we even have one?


I don't know, but I think Goldwater and Johnson are only hopes of getting close. Anyone with a good adviser, political experience, and passion can do it. We need someone who you can feel the passion when they speak. I haven't seen that with Johnson, but I know Goldwater has it in him.

----------


## Son of Detroit

In a few years, Jeff Flake could be that guy.  Get him some more experience, maybe a senate or gubernatorial run.

He's certainly got the looks, and charisma.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LymRr0CEIwk

----------


## jmlfod87

The best speakers on the list are Napolitano and Schiff, but I chose Johnson because he has the background, clout, and image to win the primaries.

----------


## nate895

> In a few years, Jeff Flake could be that guy.  Get him some more experience, maybe a senate or gubernatorial run.
> 
> He's certainly got the looks, and charisma.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LymRr0CEIwk


Jeff Flake didn't endorse Ron Paul, he supports the war, and I don't see him with Ron Paul on those "434-1" votes. I like 90%+ supporters of liberty, and no one in Congress is that but Paul at the moment.

----------


## nate895

> The best speakers on the list are Napolitano and Schiff, but I chose Johnson because he has the background, clout, and image to win the primaries.


I have watched Napolitano speak, and he is good. Schiff, on the other hand is much more dry. He would come off like a doom and gloomer to most voters.

----------


## Nathan Hale

Schiff, regardless of anything else, has no political experience and as such would not be treated as a viable candidate in the Presidential race.  Folks, please, I need to know that we as a general population have at least that much understanding of reality.

----------


## worl

Ventura & chuck norris vp.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> Ventura & chuck norris vp.


"Ass Kicking Party"

I like it :bunchies:

----------


## jmlfod87

> Schiff, regardless of anything else, has no political experience and as such would not be treated as a viable candidate in the Presidential race.  Folks, please, I need to know that we as a general population have at least that much understanding of reality.



While I agree Schiff certainly isn't the best candidate whether he is viable depends on whether or not he would get into the Republican debates. As far as I know he is a registered Republican and the President of a highly profitable investing firm. He might just get into the debates, not that I think he would make the best candidate.

----------


## RSLudlum

> While I agree Schiff certainly isn't the best candidate whether he is viable depends on whether or not he would get into the Republican debates. As far as I know he is a registered Republican and the President of a highly profitable investing firm. He might just get into the debates, not that I think he would make the best candidate.



The media would have a field day and possibly crucify Schiff with his father's story.  But, that would definitely bring to the forefront the subject of the immorality of the income tax.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Gary Johnson.  Period, end of story.

Didn't Johnson already say somewhere he'd run if Obama won?

----------


## Kludge

> Admiral Fallon would be interesting...  The media and other candidates certainly couldn't make fun of him, being a former four-star admiral and all.  It would be suicide to mock and make fun of a man of that stature.  
> 
> But, I don't know if he would be close to our movement/and I really really doubt he'd be interested in running.


Forget about Admiral Stockdale?

----------


## James Madison

None of the above...add Ventura.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> None of the above...add Ventura.


This is GOP only. I understand your point of view, though.

----------


## nate895

As soon as we go through this process and we have a winner, someone will have to setup an official draft committee. I'd do it myself, but I am only 16 and my parents don't want to get "too involved." PM me if you want to help.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Ventura, no.

He would never win the republican primary.  And I still think it is best to work within the party.

Only if our candidate (hopefully Veto Johnson) loses do you try Ventura.

----------


## Kludge

> Ventura, no.
> 
> He would never win the republican party.  And I still think it is best to work within the party.
> 
> Only if our candidate (hopefully Veto Johnson) loses do you try Ventura.


I'm afraid of Ventura saying something to the effect of "$#@! you, slimeball" in response to a smear ad.

----------


## nate895

> I'm afraid of Ventura saying something to the effect of "$#@! you, slimeball" in response to a smear ad.


I want to see that.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> I'm afraid of Ventura saying something to the effect of "$#@! you, slimeball" in response to a smear ad.


by then, the people will be so hungry for a truth-teller that that might HELP his numbers. GOP prudes might not support it, but Jesse will be taking away more votes from the center and left anyway than the GOP.

----------


## Imperial

Honestly, I think Gary Johnson is the best pick. However, for the sake of the thread we need other choices. 

After plugging the numbers, as of now Sanford is sitting at about 11.3%. That means only those above or including him make the cut: Sanford, Napolitano, Schiff, Johnson.

So, I will throw my vote in with Goldwater Jr. for the sake of political discourse. 

Admiral Fallon is an interesting option. I was tempted to throw my vote in, but I think Fallon would be better in a VP slot. Let's be honest; our candidates on this poll are not known as foreign policy experts, although they know more than the mainstream challengers ever will. However, Fallon builds military cred and fp experience. A Johnson/Fallon or Sanford/Fallon ticket would be pretty strong I think.

----------


## The_Orlonater

I like the idea of Schiff running. I don't think he'd do good, especially because he admits that sometimes people need to go under and is against this corporate welfare. I don't disagree, but the sheep do.

By the way, what's this? 
:bunchies:

----------


## The_Orlonater

> I'm afraid of Ventura saying something to the effect of "$#@! you, slimeball" in response to a smear ad.


I love hostile and belligerent people. That's what this country needs, $#@! everybody else. If you don't like my insults, well don't make lying campaign adds. It's like when you cuss in this country, an asteroid will hit a home and kill a family of five.

----------


## nate895

Vote Goldwater, Jr. he is, IMO, the best chance to actually make the average GOP primary voter realize that Ron Paul represents real conservatism, and the son of not just any conservative, but _the_ conservative is telling them so.

----------


## TruthAtLast

> I'm afraid of Ventura saying something to the effect of "$#@! you, slimeball" in response to a smear ad.


I can't wait for the attack ads showing him when he was "the body" in the WWF. haha

----------


## james1906

> I'm afraid of Ventura saying something to the effect of "$#@! you, slimeball" in response to a smear ad.


I want a straight shooter with upper management written all over him.

----------


## james1906

Oh....and........

$#@! YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## TruthAtLast

which ones have the best chance at the early states:

Iowa
Wyoming
New Hampshire
Michigan
Nevada
South Carolina
Florida


Think of these states as virtually the only states in the campaign because the primary (unlike the general election) is HUGELY based on momentum.  VERY EARLY you are seen as viable or a long shot and it all depends on how you do in these states.  We need to win at least 3 and place top 3 in the others.

So, considering this, who has the best shot at pulling this off?  Who will appeal to the voters in those early states?  Does anyone have connections in those states?

Also, I don't want a campaign that hordes cash!!!  We will raise a ton of money and I want them to spend it.  If they do well before super Tuesday more donates will come flooding in.

----------


## nate895

> which ones have the best chance at the early states:
> 
> Iowa
> Wyoming
> New Hampshire
> Michigan
> Nevada
> South Carolina
> Florida
> ...


The only ones that are going to be, for sure, early states for 2012 are Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and probably Nevada. All the others aren't necessarily going to go early.

----------


## TruthAtLast

> The only ones that are going to be, for sure, early states for 2012 are Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and probably Nevada. All the others aren't necessarily going to go early.


ok, then even if we just focused on those four.  What would it honestly and realistically take to win those four states?  Huckabee won Iowa and nearly won South Carolina.  McCain won New Hampshire and South Carolina. Romney won Nevada.

Do we focus on building a massive grassroots organization in those 4 states?

----------


## Jeremy

Johnson would do good in MI because they aren't crazy drug warriors.  Weren't they the ones who just legalized medical marijuana? As far as NH goes, the more libertarian the candidiate is, the better they will do I think (because they will get more support from freestaters).  If Mike Huckabee is running, Iowa might not be our focus.  I think Johnson can do good in NV as well.  Sanford would obviously do better in SC than any other candidiate.  It's quite obvious he would beat anyone.  I am not ruling Sanford out... I just don't know anything about him.

----------


## nate895

> ok, then even if we just focused on those four.  What would it honestly and realistically take to win those four states?  Huckabee won Iowa and nearly won South Carolina.  McCain won New Hampshire and South Carolina. Romney won Nevada.
> 
> Do we focus on building a massive grassroots organization in those 4 states?


Massive organization is the key to winning in Iowa and Nevada. Money with a decent sized organization is what is needed in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

----------


## Jeremy

> Iowa-  *Huckabee, or Jindal*
> Wyoming????????
> New Hampshire- *Sanford, Jindal*
> Michigan- *Sanford, Romney*
> Nevada- *Romney*
> South Carolina- *Sanford*
> Florida- *Sanford*


assuming theres no Palin

Iowa-  *Huckabee, or Jindal*
Wyoming- *Johnson*
New Hampshire- *Johnson*
Michigan- *Romney or Johnson*
Nevada- *Romney 1st, Johnson 2nd*
South Carolina- *Sanford*
Florida- *Sanford*

----------


## TruthAtLast

would it really be possible to support Sanford and Johnson?  Would we be diluting our votes and resources too much to get both in the debates?

It seems like they each may be able to take different states and when one of them finally drops out and endorses the other we may end up with a SUPER liberty ticket: Johnson/Sanford or Sanford/Johnson

I just fear that we would fraction the Movement.  Which one would Ron Paul and CFL endorse?


This may be risky.  I worry about Jindal.  It looks like the GOP is grooming this guy. And Huckabee pulled a LOT of support this election so who knows if he can build on those in-roads and grassroots that he already has.

----------


## Jeremy

> would it really be possible to support Sanford and Johnson?  Would we be diluting our votes and resources too much to get both in the debates?
> 
> It seems like they each may be able to take different states and when one of them finally drops out and endorses the other we may end up with a SUPER liberty ticket: Johnson/Sanford or Sanford/Johnson
> 
> I just fear that we would fraction the Movement.  Which one would Ron Paul and CFL endorse?
> 
> 
> This may be risky.  I worry about Jindal.  It looks like the GOP is grooming this guy. And Huckabee pulled a LOT of support this election so who knows if he can build on those in-roads and grassroots that he already has.


That would be a completely different strategy that I don't know if we're ready for yet.  One of them would have to drop out, but we wouldn't have momentum behind one person like we did with Ron Paul and it could cause infighting here.

----------


## TruthAtLast

> That would be a completely different strategy that I don't know if we're ready for yet.  One of them would have to drop out, but we wouldn't have momentum behind one person like we did with Ron Paul and it could cause infighting here.


you might be right.  we have infighting already.  What if Johnson was the VP.  Has anyone ever named and campaigned with their VP in the Primaries?  Talk about breaking the mold!
Then we could sweep several of the early states. hahaha

But then we may have GaryJonsonForums and MarkSanfordForums.  That means I'd have to log in twice. what a pain in the ass.

----------


## anaconda

The recent talk of Ron Paul and Sarah Palin teaming up to try to take over the party has interesting potential. I still think Palin is uneducated but I don't think it matters. She is very popular with the red staters and Paul is tapped into the libertarian base. If they join together they might be big enough to pull enough moderates to completely take over and oust the RNC puppet masters. Then they could grow the party through 2012 with an entirely fresh brand name. Palin could study up on national and world affairs and be very well prepared. She can always spin her debacle with the press this time by saying the McCain/neocon machine had uncomfortably scripted her but now the gloves and the words are her own. 

This would also provide a mainstream thoroughfare for RP to really get his ideas mainstreamed. Palin is perhaps already there and just needs to help sell the anti-war message. I've always felt that this should be an easy sell to the red staters by spinning the notion that wars are caused by greedy profiteers and that the good ole boys support the Constitution first.

----------


## TruthAtLast

> The recent talk of Ron Paul and Sarah Palin teaming up to try to take over the party has interesting potential, I think. I still think Palin is uneducated but I don't think it matters. She is very popular with the red staters and Paul is tapped into the libertarian base. If they join together they might pull enough moderates to completely take over and oust the RNC puppet masters. This would also provide a mainstream thoroughfare for RP to really get his ideas mainstreamed. Palin is perhaps already there and just needs to help sell the anti-war message. I've always felt that this should be an easy sell to the red staters by spinning the notion that wars are caused by greedy profiteers and that the good ole boys support the Constitution first.


Palin is no rocket scientist but I also don't think she is quite as dumb as the media has portrayed her too.  They ripped her apart and she was really not used to high-stakes politics. Her dozens of handlers screwed with her head and she was forced to defend McCain's positions (many of which she really didn't agree with).  She has performed much better when she has been able to be herself.

There are still things I don't like about her but I don't have the complete loathing hatred that many others seem to have and I don't think she as clueless as they made her out to be.

But I can't take any more of Tina Fey on SNL.  For that reason alone I couldn't endorse her. lol

----------


## Antonius Stone

Peter Schiff should run.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

FORGET SANFORD. Really, neither Sanford or Johnson impress me from a charisma or public speaking point of view, but Johnson has near spotless credentials. He didn't even support Bush in 2000, and endorsed Ron Paul. Sanford is a Bilderberger and McCain backer. Dump him. Johnson, GOP, Ventura, Indy, nuff said.

----------


## Flash

I'm going with Gary E Johnson. He has the most potential out of them all. Although I hope that more than one Liberty Ron Paul-minded candidate runs for president.

----------


## Jeremy

> FORGET SANFORD. Really, neither Sanford or Johnson impress me from a charisma or public speaking point of view, but Johnson has near spotless credentials. He didn't even support Bush in 2000, and endorsed Ron Paul. Sanford is a Bilderberger and McCain backer. Dump him. Johnson, GOP, Ventura, Indy, nuff said.


Why do you mention Ventura though. ._.  I'm sure he has less of a libertarian record than Sanford.  All he cares about his breaking the 2 party monopoly.  That's not good enough for us.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> Why do you mention Ventura though. ._.  I'm sure he has less of a libertarian record than Sanford.  All he cares about his breaking the 2 party monopoly.  That's not good enough for us.


#1 it should be. 

#2 Jesse has a chance at doing it because he can break the media blockade. If johnson is a real Ron Paul candidate, he will get even less time than Paul did from the media in the primary.

#3 Jesse is a left-leaning libertarian. Read one of his books.

----------


## V3n

I just had another thought in defense of putting up someone younger (say, younger than 62 years old today)...

Not to be a defeatist, but looking around this country and the media right now you have to figure Obama is in for 8 years, regardless of who's running against him in 4.  He's got to really screw up _big time_ to be out after 1 term.

So, imagining Obama doesn't screw up big time in his 1st term, nobody else has got a shot until 2016 - but that doesn't mean we can't use 2012 to build momentum and name recognition.  But if we put up a 76-year-old in 2012, they're going to be 80 in 2016... no way they've got a shot then, so we have to start over with someone new or run with an 80-year-old.

No.. Put up someone younger in 2012.. They'll have a good run, get their name out, get some publicity.. then in 2016 when the country is tired of Democrats and Obama's term limits are up - we've got a younger person that people remember from 4 years earlier going against Biden who will look really old by that point.

(age is the focus of the post, but it is not the most important thing to me - I'm only thinking about the masses who are still sleeping where age, looks, and charisma are _their_ focus)

And as far as Ventura goes, it would be great to have him as an Independent, as a backup plan if a Ron Paul Republican doesn't get through the Primaries.

----------


## nate895

> I just had another thought in defense of putting up someone younger (say, younger than 62 years old today)...
> 
> Not to be a defeatist, but looking around this country and the media right now you have to figure Obama is in for 8 years, regardless of who's running against him in 4.  He's got to really screw up _big time_ to be out after 1 term.
> 
> So, imagining Obama doesn't screw up big time in his 1st term, nobody else has got a shot until 2016 - but that doesn't mean we can't use 2012 to build momentum and name recognition.  But if we put up a 76-year-old in 2012, they're going to be 80 in 2016... no way they've got a shot then, so we have to start over with someone new or run with an 80-year-old.
> 
> No.. Put up someone younger in 2012.. They'll have a good run, get their name out, get some publicity.. then in 2016 when the country is tired of Democrats and Obama's term limits are up - we've got a younger person that people remember from 4 years earlier going against Biden who will look really old by that point.
> 
> (age is the focus of the post, but it is not the most important thing to me - I'm only thinking about the masses who are still sleeping where age, looks, and charisma are _their_ focus)
> ...


I think Obama will be a one term President. When he gets into office he will raise taxes, and the economy will be in an even worse state than it is today. I see him as being the next Jimmy Carter. so I think it should be relatively easy to beat Obama next go around. Also with Obama, he built up everyone's expectations as if everything is going to "change," but everything will stay just the same as it has for some time.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> I think Obama will be a one term President. When he gets into office he will raise taxes, and the economy will be in an even worse state than it is today. I see him as being the next Jimmy Carter. so I think it should be relatively easy to beat Obama next go around. Also with Obama, he built up everyone's expectations as if everything is going to "change," but everything will stay just the same as it has for some time.


I agree

----------


## worl

If your going to pick someone to win the presidency, they must be well known by the public in order to get media attention. Let's face it the media picks the pres. so find someone they can't Ignore. I only know about 3 in that list. Jessie Ventura is already well known by the public & the media. I don't know much about his record in office & his past but all of that would have to be researched. But as far as independant & third party we all know they won't have a chance.

----------


## Son of Detroit

Also, not to be a pessimist, but what makes us think any of these people are interested and would actually run?

Sanford says he's retiring from politics.

Johnson has been out for a good 5 years.

Goldwater Jr. will be 74 in 2012, and has been retired from politics.

Napolitano and Schiff have never held political office, what would make them want to become politicians now?

That would really, really suck if we put forth movements to draft some of the mentioned candidates and they all decline.

----------


## nate895

> Also, not to be a pessimist, but what makes us think any of these people are interested and would actually run?
> 
> Sanford says he's retiring from politics.
> 
> Johnson has been out for a good 5 years.
> 
> Goldwater Jr. will be 74 in 2012, and has been retired from politics.
> 
> Napolitano and Schiff have never held political office, what would make them want to become politicians now?
> ...


Johnson has mentioned a possible run if Obama won. I doubt Goldwater would refuse if we had millions of dollars and volunteers already pledged.

----------


## TruthAtLast

> I think Obama will be a one term President. When he gets into office he will raise taxes, and the economy will be in an even worse state than it is today. I see him as being the next Jimmy Carter. so I think it should be relatively easy to beat Obama next go around. Also with Obama, he built up everyone's expectations as if everything is going to "change," but everything will stay just the same as it has for some time.


I haven't really determined what Obama will do yet.  He has already backed off some of his campaign promises.  I think Obama is the kind of guy that will say and do ANYTHING to stay in power and would not be surprised if he isn't also already positioning himself for re-election.  But everything really depends on what he does in the first year and how bad the country gets.

In the short term, he might be able to continue to paper over this recession and make it "appear" that he saved us from the brink of disaster (though most people wouldn't know that an even bigger disaster would be waiting for us because of it).

Obama is a master at molding perception.  He could do just about anything and somehow convince people that these "hard sacrifices are needed for real change".  It is a true Marxist-Leninist method of gaining trust in a population so they trust YOU and don't look at the policies.

----------


## TruthAtLast

> Also, not to be a pessimist, but what makes us think any of these people are interested and would actually run?
> 
> Sanford says he's retiring from politics.
> 
> Johnson has been out for a good 5 years.
> 
> Goldwater Jr. will be 74 in 2012, and has been retired from politics.
> 
> Napolitano and Schiff have never held political office, what would make them want to become politicians now?
> ...


Ron Paul wasn't interested in running either.

----------


## rebelson

where's Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura?

----------


## nate895

> where's Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura?


Ron Paul is not going to run again, he'd be too old. We also need to move pass him, politically he is damaged goods at this point to the average voter.

As for Ventura, this is for GOP primary candidates only, as I have stated about 5 times now.

----------


## constitutional

> Ron Paul is not going to run again, he'd be too old. We also need to move pass him, politically he is damaged goods at this point to the average voter.
> 
> As for Ventura, this is for GOP primary candidates only, as I have stated about 5 times now.


I have hard time taking this poll seriously. Peter Schiff and Andrew Napolitano (commenter/radio show host). What's even laughable is how many people voted for them.

----------


## nate895

> I have hard time taking this poll seriously. Peter Schiff and Andrew Napolitano (commenter/radio show host). What's even laughable is how many people voted for them.


I only put them up there because they were mentioned in the thread that I took the names from. At this point I am going to call the race for Johnson anyway. He will wind up winning by the end of the second round.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> I have hard time taking this poll seriously. Peter Schiff and Andrew Napolitano (commenter/radio show host). What's even laughable is how many people voted for them.


Its the "most of these guys will sell out to the GOP establishment, and while Gary Johnson might not, he is a boring speaker" protest vote.

----------


## scandinaviany3

> I have hard time taking this poll seriously. Peter Schiff and Andrew Napolitano (commenter/radio show host). What's even laughable is how many people voted for them.


neither will run...but its is amazing how people voted on this.

The only real possibilities from the socially liberal side are ventura, from the mix moderate point of view is johnson and from the conservative side of the movement is sanford.

Probably the best thing to do is support ventura to run democrat and support johnson and sanford run republican and have fun with it.

Will make for some interesting primary debates

----------


## Shotdown1027

Sanford, Johnson, and Judge Moore are the names im hearing the most for the GOP primary in 2012.

----------


## nate895

> Sanford, Johnson, and Judge Moore are the names im hearing the most for the GOP primary in 2012.


Moore, that's a blast from the past. I would have no qualms supporting him, but many of the atheists on the forums would be offended by his stand to keep the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court.

----------


## Shotdown1027

"Moore, that's a blast from the past. I would have no qualms supporting him, but many of the atheists on the forums would be offended by his stand to keep the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court."

Moore has threatened to run in 2004, 2008, and now in 2012---so it may just be him testing the waters again--but the man would get TONS of support from the WorldNetDaily types. Huckabee and Fred Thompson types.

----------


## pastortony

Johnson - drug positions won't sell on a national stage
Napolitano & Schiff - No experience and therefore can't carry the national vote.
My choice is Sanford, but Goldwater is a possibility as well.
The rest are far too unknown.

----------


## nate895

> "Moore, that's a blast from the past. I would have no qualms supporting him, but many of the atheists on the forums would be offended by his stand to keep the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court."
> 
> Moore has threatened to run in 2004, 2008, and now in 2012---so it may just be him testing the waters again--but the man would get TONS of support from the WorldNetDaily types. Huckabee and Fred Thompson types.


I tend to agree, but as you have stated, he has continuously threatened to run but to no avail. Also, this movement needs to stay as united as possible for the purposes of Congress and other offices.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> Johnson - drug positions won't sell on a national stage


Didn't we just spend a whole campaign on someone with the same positions?

----------


## Shotdown1027

Judge Napolitano and Peter Schiff should be recruited to run for Congress in thier respective states (New Jersey and Conneticut).

Rumor has it that a Ron Pauler state-senator in Conneticut is going to run for Biden's seat.

----------


## scandinaviany3

> Johnson would do good in MI because they aren't crazy drug warriors.  Weren't they the ones who just legalized medical marijuana? As far as NH goes, the more libertarian the candidiate is, the better they will do I think (because they will get more support from freestaters).  If Mike Huckabee is running, Iowa might not be our focus.  I think Johnson can do good in NV as well.  Sanford would obviously do better in SC than any other candidiate.  It's quite obvious he would beat anyone.  I am not ruling Sanford out... I just don't know anything about him.


I didnt either...but now i am sold on him...

Watch all the videos on his you tube link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chuwp_Dmapo

----------


## scandinaviany3

[QUOTE=TruthAtLast;1814506]which ones have the best chance at the early states:

Iowa
Wyoming
New Hampshire
Michigan
Nevada
South Carolina
Florida


Think of these states as virtually the only states in the campaign because the primary (unlike the general election) is HUGELY based on momentum.  VERY EARLY you are seen as viable or a long shot and it all depends on how you do in these states.  We need to win at least 3 and place top 3 in the others.

So, considering this, who has the best shot at pulling this off?  Who will appeal to the voters in those early states?  Does anyone have connections in those states?

Also, I don't want a campaign that hordes cash!!!  We will raise a ton of money and I want them to spend it.  If they do well before super Tuesday more donates will come flooding in.[/QUOTE

If the following candidates were to run in 2012:

Sanford-SC
Jindal-LA
Huckabee-AR
Romney-Mass
Palin-AK
Johnson-NM

Expected vote splits and strengths by state:



Iowa--Huckabee, Palin, Sanford, Romney
Wyoming-Romney
New Hampshire-Romney, Sanford,Johnson
Michigan-Romney
Nevada-Romney, Sanford
South Carolina-Sanford
LA-Jindal
Hawaii-unknown
Florida-Sanford,Huckabee, Palin, Romney
Maine-Romney,Sanford, Johnson

Super Tuesday breakdown:

Al-Sanford,Huckabee, Palin
Ak-Palin,Huckabee, Sanford
AZ-Sanford
AR-Huckabee
CA-Palin,Romney,Sanford,Huckabee
CO-Palin,Romney, Sanford, Huckabee
CT-Romney, Sanford
DE-Romney, Sanford
GA-Huckabee, Palin, Sanford, Romney
Ill-Huckabee,Palin, Sanford, Romney
Mass-Romney, Sanford
Minn-Huckabee, Palin, Sanford, Romney
Miss-Huckabee, Palin, Sanford, Romney
MT-Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Sanford
NJ-Romney,Johnson
NY-Romney,Johnson
ND-Romney
OK-Huckabee, Palin, Sanford
TN-Huckabee, Palin, Sanford
UT-Romney, Palin, Sanford, Huckabee
WV-Palin, Huckabee, Sanford

No real room for any one else from LA or NM unless the whole voting order for super tuesday is changed up.

IT would be a super dog fight between Palin, Romney, Huckabee and Sanford.

----------


## scandinaviany3

> Moore, that's a blast from the past. I would have no qualms supporting him, but many of the atheists on the forums would be offended by his stand to keep the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court.


Would definitely confuse huckabee and palin voters..hmm....that has merits on its own. Maybe Moore, Johnson and Sanford should all run.

We give them each 5 million to launch on and see who leads after iowa.

But your right the atheists would be offended.

He did a good job coming out of no where on his first run to get 35% against a sitting republican governor and is hard core anti NWO and has wrote on it.

I guess if we decide to try to team up with huckabee voters that is an option, they got hosed as bad as we did last election.

But i have to wonder if sanford isnt close enough for those christian voters blocks.

But i do  think moore has no negative baggage like the bilderberg thing to figure out.

Maybe worth taking our list we have now and posting on the huckabee forums to see who we have in common???

----------


## scandinaviany3

> I tend to agree, but as you have stated, he has continuously threatened to run but to no avail. Also, this movement needs to stay as united as possible for the purposes of Congress and other offices.


true but i dont think we can win even if we are united...we need more supporters and converts.

This year if we could have united paul, thompson, huckabee, tancredio, and hunter voters behind one candidate that group would have won.

The neo cons have to break us all down by a factor of 3 to 5 to beat us.

----------


## nate895

> If the following candidates were to run in 2012:
> 
> Sanford-SC
> Jindal-LA
> Huckabee-AR
> Romney-Mass
> Palin-AK
> Johnson-NM
> 
> ...


That would be the default position, with money and the message reaching voters, anything can happen. In Iowa and all other caucus states, absolutely anyone can win that can identify and get to the caucus their voters. 40,000 votes won Iowa last time, and I think that we can identify 50,000 voters to turn out and beat Huckabee in Iowa. In New Hampshire, we can win if we have a candidate that has money and will be willing to spend every moment on the campaign trail. We need the candidate to spend 100 full days in New Hampshire in the year before, and maybe 150-200 days in 2009-2010. The rest of the time needs to split up, with 100 days split between the other early states (including Iowa) in the year prior, and the rest of the days just random states that have plenty of delegates to be won. 

Whoever we pick, they need to get used to campaigning almost every waking moment, maybe 50 days of rest a year. I'd be willing to work that much for the guy if I was getting paid, but alas, they probably wouldn't.

----------


## TruthAtLast

> That would be the default position, with money and the message reaching voters, anything can happen. In Iowa and all other caucus states, absolutely anyone can win that can identify and get to the caucus their voters. 40,000 votes won Iowa last time, and I think that we can identify 50,000 voters to turn out and beat Huckabee in Iowa. In New Hampshire, we can win if we have a candidate that has money and will be willing to spend every moment on the campaign trail. We need the candidate to spend 100 full days in New Hampshire in the year before, and maybe 150-200 days in 2009-2010. The rest of the time needs to split up, with 100 days split between the other early states (including Iowa) in the year prior, and the rest of the days just random states that have plenty of delegates to be won. 
> 
> Whoever we pick, they need to get used to campaigning almost every waking moment, maybe 50 days of rest a year. I'd be willing to work that much for the guy if I was getting paid, but alas, they probably wouldn't.


you bring up a good point that I nearly forgot.  Ron Paul had split duty.  The campaign itself admitted that they were very limited in the number of traditional fundraising events, interviews, and campaining they could do.  There were many instances when media outlets were contacting Ron Paul's campaign for an interview and/or information and there was no return phone call.  Grassroots was often left trying to fend for themselves early on and sometimes we had people who really didn't know what they were talking about in front of the cameras.

----------


## TruthAtLast

> Sanford-SC
> Jindal-LA
> Huckabee-AR
> Romney-Mass
> Palin-AK
> Johnson-NM


I'm not sure all of these people would run. Someone's got to drop out from this race.

I think it depends on who the GOP elite see as their new neocon candidate.  I thought a lot of people in McCain's staff were blaming Palin for the loss.  And there has been talk about Jindal being the next "big thing" in Republican politics.

Would Romney drop another $50million of his own money? Huckabee has a pretty good network of supporters to go off of and he he won quite a few states but after Romney dropped out he could have just been pulling in the anti-McCain vote.

----------


## scandinaviany3

> I'm not sure all of these people would run. Someone's got to drop out from this race.
> 
> I think it depends on who the GOP elite see as their new neocon candidate.  I thought a lot of people in McCain's staff were blaming Palin for the loss.  And there has been talk about Jindal being the next "big thing" in Republican politics.
> 
> Would Romney drop another $50million of his own money? Huckabee has a pretty good network of supporters to go off of and he he won quite a few states but after Romney dropped out he could have just been pulling in the anti-McCain vote.


This seems to be the prevailing wind in the party for now

Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Sanford, Jindal and our addition Johnson

I would imagine romney, his positives for dropping out, the mormon church, and his money will go against the bulk of the christian vote with Huckabee, Palin, Sanford splitting this.

Then comes the fiscal conservatives which Romney and Sanford will lead on.

Sanford will win SC. Romney will win NH, NV, MI.  The battle then will be for Iowa. I am not sure if Huckabee has a chance given then how the deck would be stacked against him and likewise Palin. Only then would Sanford have enough of support to place close seconds and win at least one early state to fight Romney.

After that not sure...it actually maybe a little early for Jindal...he may wait until 2016

I doubt Jindal would effect anything for 2012 if these other power hitters come in.

Romney, Huckabee, Palin and Sanford being past governors well liked in the conservative movement will be a titan match.

Johnson maybe able to take or place second in some of the more moderate states. But he will face exactly what ron paul faced. 

"he cant win" statements by voters in NH will kill his northeast odds since he will finish very poorly in Iowa and with these titans battling it out it will look like he cant win. They will know sanford will win SC and if johnson places below 3rd in iowa they wont support him.

Most likely 2012 is romney vs sanford matchup...one of them will win.

----------


## nate895

> I'm not sure all of these people would run. Someone's got to drop out from this race.
> 
> I think it depends on who the GOP elite see as their new neocon candidate.  I thought a lot of people in McCain's staff were blaming Palin for the loss.  And there has been talk about Jindal being the next "big thing" in Republican politics.
> 
> Would Romney drop another $50million of his own money? Huckabee has a pretty good network of supporters to go off of and he he won quite a few states but after Romney dropped out he could have just been pulling in the anti-McCain vote.


The only one of those I don't see as a likely candidate unless if there is a significant draft movement is Sanford.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> While I agree Schiff certainly isn't the best candidate whether he is viable depends on whether or not he would get into the Republican debates. As far as I know he is a registered Republican and the President of a highly profitable investing firm. He might just get into the debates, not that I think he would make the best candidate.


That wouldn't get him into the debates.  Were he the President of a huge corporation, that might change things because it would show executive experience over a huge bureaucracy, but his firm is not a huge corporation so that experience angle evaporates.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Judge Napolitano and Peter Schiff should be recruited to run for Congress in thier respective states (New Jersey and Conneticut).
> 
> Rumor has it that a Ron Pauler state-senator in Conneticut is going to run for Biden's seat.


I disagree about Napolitano, but that's a good idea for Schiff.  Napolitano should keep himself out of politics and wait for a chance to get an administration spot (head of DoJ, Attorney General, etc)

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> Mark Sanford and Gary Johnson are the only 2 remaining viable ones.


I can't say this enough: McCain supporter and Bilderberger. A coward who knows the truth but dares not speak it.

This kind of background will not instill the kind of grassroots fervor and loyalty that Dr. Paul received. Without that, we don't have a chance. Even if you don't think that Bilderberg is a big deal, remember what an important role Alex Jones played in rallying the internet for Dr. Paul. The only way I would vote for him is if Jesse Ventura doesn't run and he is a clear lesser of evils.

----------


## literatim

I was looking for a way to contact Gary Johnson, but he doesn't seem to have a public email address.

----------


## Shotdown1027

"I can't say this enough: McCain supporter and Bilderberger. A coward who knows the truth but dares not speak it"

Like Goldwater Jr?

Goldwater Jr. is a hero to our movement and has proven, time and time again, that he is on our side.

----------


## TruthAtLast

> This seems to be the prevailing wind in the party for now
> 
> Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Sanford, Jindal and our addition Johnson
> 
> I would imagine romney, his positives for dropping out, the mormon church, and his money will go against the bulk of the christian vote with Huckabee, Palin, Sanford splitting this.
> 
> Then comes the fiscal conservatives which Romney and Sanford will lead on.
> 
> Sanford will win SC. Romney will win NH, NV, MI.  The battle then will be for Iowa. I am not sure if Huckabee has a chance given then how the deck would be stacked against him and likewise Palin. Only then would Sanford have enough of support to place close seconds and win at least one early state to fight Romney.
> ...


Jindal is also a governor but I can see your point regarding the overcrowding of power hitters.  Do you think Palin is tainted fruit now with such an embarrassing loss for McCain/Palin?  I know the women's league of voters is really campaigning hard for Palin right now but she was torn apart by the Media and it would seem unlikely for them to change their mind on her.

I can see Romney and Huckabee having some force.  Many people still wonder why Romney dropped out after Super Tuesday other than maybe there was a deal made to back him in 2012.  Huckabee was allowed to speak at the RNC so the establishment can't see him as too much of a threat.

Iowa is the first state and Ron Paul hadn't truly established his Grassroots in full force yet.  With that said, he still did pretty well in Iowa. We tend to do well in caucus states and one has to wonder if we would be able to pull off an upset in the state given 4 years to prepare.

But I think we need at least a 2nd place in New Hampshire and Nevada before we head to South Carolina which Sanford will win.  The media comes to their own conclusions so darn early that I just can't see it going well if our first win is in South Carolina.  They would spin it as an empty victory since we wouldn't have won any state that Sanford wasn't the Governor of.

My concern is having other candidates siphon off votes in those early states as Romney continues to rack up delegates.  If he has a huge lead heading into Florida and wins there, it will be over in the minds of most pundits.  He'll clean up on California and other Super Tuesday states and it will be all over.

I'm sure the Huckabee people would probably want us to back him rather than them backing Sanford.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> what about those rumors Ron Paul is a "Free Mason" do you think any less of him now?
> 
> Yeah I'll say going to bildiberg was wrong, but that does not change my overall opinion of him.


I'm not sure if A: Dr Paul is a freemason or B: there is anything wrong with that to begin with.

Bilderberg + McCain=F A I L

Remember, this is NOT just about winning! You don't win by electing another Reagan.

----------


## nate895

> Jindal is also a governor but I can see your point regarding the overcrowding of power hitters.  Do you think Palin is tainted fruit now with such an embarrassing loss for McCain/Palin?  I know the women's league of voters is really campaigning hard for Palin right now but she was torn apart by the Media and it would seem unlikely for them to change their mind on her.
> 
> I can see Romney and Huckabee having some force.  Many people still wonder why Romney dropped out after Super Tuesday other than maybe there was a deal made to back him in 2012.  Huckabee was allowed to speak at the RNC so the establishment can't see him as too much of a threat.
> 
> Iowa is the first state and Ron Paul hadn't truly established his Grassroots in full force yet.  With that said, he still did pretty well in Iowa. We tend to do well in caucus states and one has to wonder if we would be able to pull off an upset in the state given 4 years to prepare.
> 
> But I think we need at least a 2nd place in New Hampshire and Nevada before we head to South Carolina which Sanford will win.  The media comes to their own conclusions so darn early that I just can't see it going well if our first win is in South Carolina.  They would spin it as an empty victory since we wouldn't have won any state that Sanford wasn't the Governor of.
> 
> My concern is having other candidates siphon off votes in those early states as Romney continues to rack up delegates.  If he has a huge lead heading into Florida and wins there, it will be over in the minds of most pundits.  He'll clean up on California and other Super Tuesday states and it will be all over.
> ...


The 2012 primary calendar will not look the same. There is not as much reason to rush forward as there was in 2008, where there were two open contests that were bitterly contested. 2012 will be one contest that may or not be bitterly contested. Every Republican who has won South Carolina has went on to win the nomination since 1980, so it is likely that will happen again. 

I don't think Sanford will run without a serious draft effort, and we are the only movement that would be able to make a serious draft campaign. Johnson will run if we put our efforts into drafting him. I will post a plan for a draft committee on the next thread in the OP. If things don't radically change in the results, I will make the thread tomorrow afternoon a few hours before this closes.

----------


## literatim

> what about those rumors Ron Paul is a "Free Mason" do you think any less of him now?
> 
> Yeah I'll say going to bildiberg was wrong, but that does not change my overall opinion of him.


Rumors are just stupid rumors.

----------


## scandinaviany3

> Mark Sanford and Gary Johnson are the only 2 remaining viable ones.


Our best bet given romney and huckabee has to put sanford up front and pull in stealth like johnson for vp...just like mccain did with palin

----------


## TruthAtLast

> I can't say this enough: McCain supporter and Bilderberger. A coward who knows the truth but dares not speak it.
> 
> This kind of background will not instill the kind of grassroots fervor and loyalty that Dr. Paul received. Without that, we don't have a chance. Even if you don't think that Bilderberg is a big deal, remember what an important role Alex Jones played in rallying the internet for Dr. Paul. The only way I would vote for him is if Jesse Ventura doesn't run and he is a clear lesser of evils.


I like Johnson and Sanford but what is the goal here?  To lose a bid of trying to elect an ideal "Ron Paul" candidate, or possibly win an election for a fiscal conservative that agrees with a lot of what Ron Paul believes but may not be so vocal about it due to the fact that he can do what Ron Paul can't and wouldn't.... play the political game.

I love Ron Paul and everything he stands for. That's why we are all here. But his purpose was NOT to win the presidential election.  He ignited the Movement.  Now its time to play with the big boys and that doesn't involve getting our asses handed to us each election season by choosing what the Media and the rest of America see as extreme long shot candidates.

Personally, it would be great if both Johnson and Sanford ran. I can see Johnson as being like a "rabbit" in track & field.  A guy that sets the pace for a quick time then drops out to let the other runners continue from there.  Having a carefully crafted plan of controlled opposition in the early debates can make the conservative platform look more mainstream.  It would be pretty cool to have a "fall guy" to pound away at Romney, Palin, and Huckabee.  The problem is that most candidates are so darn egocentric that they'd never go for that plan because they all want to win.  I wish the two guys could get together and make a deal for a Sanford/Johnson ticket once Sanford won the nomination.


BTW, I'm not saying these are the only two guys we should be considering. But it seems to be the direction most people are going.  Because the early states are so important, I like the fact that Sanford is governor of South Carolina. 

*Important Note:*  "_Since the inception of the South Carolina Primary in 1980, no candidate has ever lost the South Carolina Primary and gone on to become the Republican Party's nominee for President._"
Don't think that the superstitious wont remember this.

Edit: nate just quoted the same thing above.

----------


## nate895

In order to make an effective draft committee, we would need the following positions filled:

Chairman/Manager-I'll take this post if there is no protest
Treasurer-preferably an accountant, files all paperwork with the FEC
Volunteer Coordinator
Youth Coordinator
E-Campaign Director
Fundraising Director
Media Coordinator/Spokesman-if you speak well and aren't afraid of the camera, this is your job
Writers-10 of them at least, I have one volunteer already 

Specific duties of each person I will post with the next poll. PM me if you would like to help. If you want to be a coordinator/director, tell us your experience with coordinating, and how successful you were, we want the best person for those jobs.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> I like Johnson and Sanford but what is the goal here?  To lose a bid of trying to elect an ideal "Ron Paul" candidate, or possibly win an election for a fiscal conservative that agrees with a lot of what Ron Paul believes but may not be so vocal about it due to the fact that he can do what Ron Paul can't and wouldn't.... play the political game.
> 
> I love Ron Paul and everything he stands for. That's why we are all here. But his purpose was NOT to win the presidential election.  He ignited the Movement.  Now its time to play with the big boys and that doesn't involve getting our asses handed to us each election season by choosing what the Media and the rest of America see as extreme long shot candidates.
> 
> Personally, it would be great if both Johnson and Sanford ran. I can see Johnson as being like a "rabbit" in track & field.  A guy that sets the pace for a quick time then drops out to let the other runners continue from there.  Having a carefully crafted plan of controlled opposition in the early debates can make the conservative platform look more mainstream.  It would be pretty cool to have a "fall guy" to pound away at Romney, Palin, and Huckabee.  The problem is that most candidates are so darn egocentric that they'd never go for that plan because they all want to win.  I wish the two guys could get together and make a deal for a Sanford/Johnson ticket once Sanford won the nomination.
> 
> 
> BTW, I'm not saying these are the only two guys we should be considering. But it seems to be the direction most people are going.  Because the early states are so important, I like the fact that Sanford is governor of South Carolina. 
> 
> ...


If we don't have candidates that agree with Ron Paul's 4 main points, what good are they? I campaigned for Ron Paul in Iowa and in my home state of Maryland. I won't even get out of bed to vote for a chump that talks a good "fiscal conservative" game he more than likely has no intention of pursuing. Some people here either ARE new to politics or act like it. They don't remember 2000. They don't remember 1980. They don't remember when Ron Paul republicans Bush and Reagan lied to our face to get elected. Our support for a 2012 candidate needs be be based around TRUST. The 4 points are a litmus test, because to agree to them you have to sacrifice political mainstream-ism to stand for whats right. Let me tell you right now, if I don't hear a word out of Mark Sanford about the Fed, I will do everything in my power to make sure that this movement wastes neither time or money on the fraud.

----------


## scandinaviany3

> Jindal is also a governor but I can see your point regarding the overcrowding of power hitters.  Do you think Palin is tainted fruit now with such an embarrassing loss for McCain/Palin?  I know the women's league of voters is really campaigning hard for Palin right now but she was torn apart by the Media and it would seem unlikely for them to change their mind on her.
> 
> I can see Romney and Huckabee having some force.  Many people still wonder why Romney dropped out after Super Tuesday other than maybe there was a deal made to back him in 2012.  Huckabee was allowed to speak at the RNC so the establishment can't see him as too much of a threat.
> 
> Iowa is the first state and Ron Paul hadn't truly established his Grassroots in full force yet.  With that said, he still did pretty well in Iowa. We tend to do well in caucus states and one has to wonder if we would be able to pull off an upset in the state given 4 years to prepare.
> 
> But I think we need at least a 2nd place in New Hampshire and Nevada before we head to South Carolina which Sanford will win.  The media comes to their own conclusions so darn early that I just can't see it going well if our first win is in South Carolina.  They would spin it as an empty victory since we wouldn't have won any state that Sanford wasn't the Governor of.
> 
> My concern is having other candidates siphon off votes in those early states as Romney continues to rack up delegates.  If he has a huge lead heading into Florida and wins there, it will be over in the minds of most pundits.  He'll clean up on California and other Super Tuesday states and it will be all over.
> ...


Really good points you make on palin. I am very curious to see if this is the case. She did so bad with Katie couric...i cant imagine that such things wouldnt be used against her. She seemed totally lost on that campaign. A little Dan Quayle like. If that were the case and she sits out then we really would have a dog fight. But there will be a lot of pressure to pull her out. The thing is that Huckabee, Romney and Sanford have very strong resumes. Plus sanford was also part of the 94 house takeover. So he has that going for him.

huckabee, romney, sanford, would be a very interesting battle. 

I believe hunter and tancredo voters would be closer to sanford than huckabee if they were approached given sanfords anti real id and anti illegal immigration stands. This is something really good in iowa to lead on. If Sanford could have a super strong organization i do think he could win. Paul lost thousands of votes on election night do to that student situation messing up the voter turnout. Predictions for turnout had him in 3rd or tied for 3rd and not getting 5th from the people we had on the ground. Plus everyone knows the buchanan story and how he was robbed. I do believe Sanford fits that buchanan model look to those iowa voters.

I do think sanford could fight for 1st or 2nd against huckabee and romney in iowa...if he lost against any of them it wouldnt be by 20 points, which would make it a dead heat going into NH. This sounds then a lot like what happened between reagan and bush sr. In that case huckabee looses since romney and sanford would pick up the next two states on their own and huckabee would most likely drop to 3rd in many of the following states.

This should turn into a Sanford vs Romney battle.

----------


## scandinaviany3

Seems like huckabee people are very worried so far about the media's darlings of romney and Jindal

who is mike's most likely competition in 2012 primary
Gov Sarah Palin-AK 	       10% 	 10%  	[ 2 ]
Gov Mark Sanford-SC 	5% 	 5%  	[ 1 ]
Gov Mitt Romney-MA 	40%  40%  	[ 8 ]
Gov Bobby Jindal-LA 	45%  45%  	[ 9 ]
Judge Roy Moore-AL 	0% 	 0%  	[ 0 ]
Gov Gary Johnson-NM 	0% 	 0%  	[ 0 ]
Total votes : 20

This makes a lot of sense. So if Palin doesnt run and Jindal does we have a ethnic culture war for president thought up between obama and jindal, or the big money and mormon church support for romney.

very interesting...

----------


## literatim

I will point out that out of all those in the poll, Gary Johnson is the only one who has expressed an interest in running in 2012.

----------


## TruthAtLast

> If we don't have candidates that agree with Ron Paul's 4 main points, what good are they? I campaigned for Ron Paul in Iowa and in my home state of Maryland. I won't even get out of bed to vote for a chump that talks a good "fiscal conservative" game he more than likely has no intention of pursuing. Some people here either ARE new to politics or act like it. They don't remember 2000. They don't remember 1980. They don't remember when Ron Paul republicans Bush and Reagan lied to our face to get elected. Our support for a 2012 candidate needs be be based around TRUST. The 4 points are a litmus test, because to agree to them you have to sacrifice political mainstream-ism to stand for whats right. Let me tell you right now, if I don't hear a word out of Mark Sanford about the Fed, I will do everything in my power to make sure that this movement wastes neither time or money on the fraud.


fair enough. There are probably legit reasons to be skeptical of anyone who is playing the political game, but from what I know so far of Sanford, he hasn't just talked about being conservative.  I'm not aware of his position on the FED, but even if he believes that it is a fraud and steals wealth from the People by controlling the money supply, to campaign on abolishing the FED is a mistake.  I care about what his beliefs are but I don't just want a token candidate that is destined to be marginalized and defeated by a media and public that seem him as too extreme.

You're right. It does need to be about Trust.  If Ron Paul had come to us and said "ok, I believe all of these things, but I'm not going to bring up a few of them because it is not beneficial to the campaign"  most of us would have gone with him on that because we trust Dr. Paul.  So do we need to fully vet these potential candidates?  Maybe we need to ask Ron Paul himself what he thinks.  I'd hope that most of us would trust his opinion.

CFL has got to be working on something for 2012 right? Other than building the precinct leader network, does anyone know what the CFL or Ron Paul himself has planned for the 2012 presidential election?

----------


## literatim

Mark Sanford on the issues
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted NO on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm

----------


## James Madison

> Mark Sanford on the issues
> Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
> Voted NO on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
> Voted YES on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
> Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
> 
> http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm


He was at Bilderberg this year if I'm not mistaken.

----------


## literatim

> Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson (a perennial dream candidate for the LP) has endorsed Ron Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				I am endorsing Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President because of his commitment to less government, greater liberty, and lasting prosperity for America. We are at a point in this country where we need to reduce our dependency on government and regain control of our future. To this end, Ron Paul will bring back troops, end the War in Iraq, and will strengthen the U.S. dollar and the economy. For these reasons and more, Ron Paul has my support, respect, and vote.


http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124527.html

Here is an interview with him.

----------


## nate895

bump for the night

----------


## Dan Chisholm

Can we get Mitt Romney added to the list?  I know many of you don't like him, but it will be interesting to see who does like him.  I'm not asking anybody to change their opinions, I just want to see as many choices for us to look at as we can.

----------


## nate895

> Can we get Mitt Romney added to the list?  I know many of you don't like him, but it will be interesting to see who does like him.  I'm not asking anybody to change their opinions, I just want to see as many choices for us to look at as we can.


We are already on to the second round, and so far the majority is for Johnson. This isn't about getting a feel for who the movement, it is to determine who we will setup an official draft campaign for, and not many Ron Paul people will get behind Romney for a draft campaign.

----------


## yongrel

> In order to make an effective draft committee, we would need the following positions filled:
> 
> Chairman/Manager-I'll take this post if there is no protest
> Treasurer-preferably an accountant, files all paperwork with the FEC
> Volunteer Coordinator
> Youth Coordinator
> E-Campaign Director
> Fundraising Director
> Media Coordinator/Spokesman-if you speak well and aren't afraid of the camera, this is your job
> ...


What qualifies you to lead an effective political organization? What makes you think that this political organization will achieve anything meaningful that would justify its consumption of resources and energies? Why should I care who you want to draft?

----------


## nate895

> What qualifies you to lead an effective political organization? What makes you think that this political organization will achieve anything meaningful that would justify its consumption of resources and energies? Why should I care who you want to draft?


That's your business on if you care who wins the poll. It isn't about me, I just stepped because this movement has a lack of people willing to step up. If I would have just put that up there, I would have gotten people looking to volunteer for the background stuff, like I already have, no one is willing to fill a leadership role. The only way anyone is going to learn is by experience, so if you don't like whoever is filling those posts, step up yourself and ask other supporters if they agree.

----------


## Kludge

> That's your business on if you care who wins the poll. It isn't about me, I just stepped because this movement has a lack of people willing to step up. If I would have just put that up there, I would have gotten people looking to volunteer for the background stuff, like I already have, no one is willing to fill a leadership role. The only way anyone is going to learn is by experience, so if you don't like whoever is filling those posts, step up yourself and ask other supporters if they agree.


IIRC, we have over 5,000 precinct leaders, C4L, and a LOT of failures in terms of grassroots leadership.

Blimp
Trevor Lyman (Sorry, m8... I love you, I really do.)
Granny Warriors
C4L (not grassroots, but it's failboating pretty hard)
Ron Paul NASCAR
Ron Paul Membership Card
Ron Paul High Tide ad (the ad itself was amazing, but the lack of resources and "followers" [who are leaders of themselves!] led to it being a far smaller success than it ought to have been)



The smaller and more conventional the project, the more likely it is to exceed expectations.

----------


## nate895

> The smaller and more conventional the project, the more likely it is to exceed expectations.


While I am not going to maintain this will be a small project, it is one of the most conventional things proposed. Draft movements occur every election, starting at around this time. My proposal is to take it to the next level and use the draft campaign to be a platform for the expansion of our influence in politics. This would combine a Presidential campaign with a PAC for the purposes of electing our candidates, and nothing is more conventional in politics than the formation of a PAC for the purposes of electing Congressional candidates.

----------


## Captain America

I'd like to see Schiff run for Governor or Senator in 2010 then run for president in 2012 or 2016. Same with the Judge

----------


## Nathan Hale

> I'd like to see Schiff run for Governor or Senator in 2010 then run for president in 2012 or 2016. Same with the Judge


I find it obnoxious when people run for an office they have no intention of serving in.  If Schiff ran for Senate (and I'd rather he run for something more localized like Congress) then he should run to serve in the Senate, not as some springboard for a quick trip to the White House.  Besides, experience is still necessary.

----------

