# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Are you opposed to Ron Paul running in 2012?

## Austin

I'm sure we've all heard by now that Ron is considering running again, and will likely make a decision within the next 6 months. I've since heard a broad range of responses to this news, but it's all spread out across various threads. So, what do you think of Ron running in 2012?

----------


## newyearsrevolution08

Depends

Is he going to run in a FULL ATTEMPT to become president OR is he going to run AGAIN as an educator trying to get the word out about what all is wrong with our country?

If he is running to win the presidency at all costs then yes. We need to WIN that seat among many others and simply telling the rest of the world how wrong they are will not do it.

We need someone who will WIN the election and not simply end up with many of us saying "sure he lost BUT he stood by his convictions and the constitution the entire time!"

I think there needs to be a REAL campaign manager, a real marketing team and a real effort to get the general public backing him.

Complete overhaul of his campaign team and fill them with WINNING campaign strategists.

No matter how RIGHT he is, if he never can get into an office and actually make change happen then what all did we accomplish? We need to get our candidates into the right offices no matter what so that we can get our nation back. For that to happen we need to get the average mccain supporter or average obama supporter backing him and currently they will not.

His morals are stronger than mine so odds are he would never do anything against his morals and convictions and simply continue NOT winning the presidency but I personally wouldn't care one damn bit if he put up a platform of, attack iran, more spending, more government and free cars for all JUST TO GET INTO OFFICE and then as president take away the fed EVERYTHING and put things back into how they should be BEFORE they odds are try and assassinate him.

I would want to know who his campaign manager is going to be as well as the campaign team itself and how many elections they have currently won and WHICH candidates exactly.

----------


## Cowlesy

I doubt he'll run, but if he does, I'll support him.

I am sure if he decides to do so, it will be a very different campaign with more options than the 2008 campaign.

Let us play it by ear as developments emerge.

----------


## Dreamofunity

If he runs I'll support him no doubt, however I don't believe it to be the best idea given his age and people who already wrote him off.

----------


## anaconda

Let's not forget Carol. But if her health is fine, it might be a blast for her!

----------


## Matt Collins

Let me clarify my vote.. I would give him support, but I would not work as hard as last time because he has much less chance of winning this time due to his age.

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> Let me clarify my vote.. I would give him support, but I would not work as hard as last time because he has much less chance of winning this time due to his age.


the age might slightly reduce his chances but not that much imo especially when you consider that will be off set by many factors

his name recognition is a million times bigger than it was during the primaries  

his grassroots teams are basicly in place and ready to roll + he will have a couple year head start on the 2008 campaign and a huge mailing list to get the word out and donations in instantly

also consider many of his detractors have or are starting to come around

----------


## Matt Collins

Let me further clarify it... I don't think the public would be very accepting of his age. And another campaign or even the Presidency at that age would probably kill him as it would anyone. Do you forget that a strenuous schedule ages people more than twice as fast as the normal rate of aging? I wouldn't want to see Ron go through that. And it would happen to anyone his age, even if they are in perfect physical health like Ron is. The best hope we have is to get someone into the debates to "educate" and and change the course of dialog, while getting liberty candidates into Congress and State offices.

----------


## Number19

The economy is going to keep tanking. Ron Paul is going to be on the news a lot. He already has a start on name recognition. Being right on the economy is going to build his cred. If he decides to run, he will build and improve on this past year's learning experience. Remember, his campaign really began to gather steam only in the middle of last year. He will have 18 months more leading up to 2012.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Let me further clarify it... I don't think the public would be very accepting of his age. And another campaign or even the Presidency at that age would probably kill him as it would anyone. Do you forget that a strenuous schedule ages people more than twice as fast as the normal rate of aging? I wouldn't want to see Ron go through that. And it would happen to anyone his age, even if they are in perfect physical health like Ron is. The best hope we have is to get someone into the debates to "educate" and and change the course of dialog, while getting liberty candidates into Congress and State offices.


Old age might be a problem, in the public's eyes. 

I don't think stress is much of a factor, though. I think he's learned to deal with it, after years of 434 -1 or 432-3 votes and stuff. He tends to let things roll off of his back, like, hurricanes in his home district. 

They attacked McCain for being old, and he actually acted old. Ron Paul has some sort of special liberty juice or something that seems to revive him when he's on the trail.

As to the poll, of course I would not be against Ron Paul running, but I'm not going to put all my chips on it this early in the game. We should be working on a very close plan B to go ahead with should he decide not to. We also have a very important 2010 election to focus on.

----------


## Anthony T

I would support him. Not expecting him to win but to get in the debates and spread the message would be a good idea.

----------


## Mister Grieves

I think Ron Paul would have a much larger, more effective impact if he supports someone who is younger and more energetic the next go around. I mean this as no slight to Paul, but I'm afraid the reality of the situation is that if he runs at age 77 in 2012 that he will be regarded as a Ralph Nader sideshow type who soley runs to get a message out there and not to really win.

I'm sure Ron will do what he thinks is best, and I doubt that would be to run.

----------


## hypnagogue

I'm opposed only so far as we can find someone younger and more energetic to run instead. If we really can't find someone to take up the mantle, then of course I'll support him.

----------


## yongrel

I won't canvass hundreds of housesholds or make my own signs or ruin relationships for a Ron Paul 2012 campaign like I did the 2008, but I'll go so far as to say "woo! Ron Paul!"

He won't be running though, so no worries.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

Here 's the way I see it.  Why not put full effort into it and get that message out there even more.  I just hope he starts MUCH sooner...the sooner the better.  He might not win the primary...but look at the forum he will get!  More attention to the message...he caused quite a stir last time..and he's had even more television exposure now.  I will support him full force and keep pumping that message out and keep gaining more folks into the liberty movement.  I actually can't wait to get started.  GO GO GO!  Tones

----------


## RedLightning

I'd support him and work harder then I did for 2008, that said I think he should pass the torch and support someone younger...

----------


## Imperial

I would support him as completely as possible. However, that doesn't mean he should run.

Either way, I will support Ron Paul. Once the decision is made, we will have to stand united and not splinter our votes.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

Well i guess i'm not so worried about winning the presidency because it appears others are pulling the strings on that.  i am looking at it as a way to continue to rally people and get more exposed to Ron Paul's message.  tones (I am beginning to think it's a waste of energy to worry about the presidency...but be more focused on local and state where we actually do get our votes counted)

----------


## WRellim

WAAAYYYY too old.

He would be even LESS likely to actively campaign than he did this last election cycle (where he spent fewer days in even the early states than the MOST lazy of the other candidates, Fred "Idowannacampaign" Thompson).

In addition, we would probably get yet another incompetent campaign team that would, once again, proceed to throw millions of dollars down the drain on useless and ineffective ads and personnel. (And if Ron's non-management technique is any indicator, his ACTUAL administration would, sad to say, be a disaster!)

We need someone who stands on Ron Paul's principles, but who actually knows HOW to campaign (and furthermore, who actually WANTS to win) -- and some experience in management or executive office wouldn't be a bad thing either (Johnson, Sanford, etc).

----------


## pastortony

I would support him in a general sense, but I doubt I would volunteer or contribute any money.  For one he would be too old, and more importantly he is not a good communicator of the message.  We need someone to better articulate our principles in order to gain a the support needed to win.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I wouldn't go with him unless he (or someone)purges the RP of the neocon elements.  As TW would say, politics is a sociopathic cult!

----------


## satchelmcqueen

i pray that he runs again. i will do all i can from here on out to help him.

----------


## Nathan Hale

i would rather he didn't run, as there are better Revolution candidates out there, but if he did run and the other Revolution candidates demurred, I'd support him with all my heart.  But PLEASE, let's not get caught up in Paul running - we're better off supporting a stronger candidate.

----------


## Roxi

as with this campaign my involvement was never about the election, was always about the education, and i will work harder to educate people about his views next go round... not that im stopping for the next 4 years either

----------


## SnappleLlama

I'm all about Ron Paul running again, as long as he's truly willing to go the whole way and his wife is okay health-wise.  I don't think his age will really be a detriment, because once people hear the man speak, they won't think, "wow, he's old!"  I always forget how old he is, because he's so energetic (the man is addicted to exercise, for crying out loud!  Stamina, FTW!).  If he chooses to run, I'll definitely support him in any way I can.

note: I'm also biased, because I think he's hot!

----------


## Andrew Ryan

> note: I'm also biased, because I think he's hot!

----------


## SnappleLlama

> 


LOL!!!  

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Sure I would, as long as Jesse is his VP.

----------


## Kludge

I'll be supporting his congressional run if it's in jeopardy. Otherwise, there are more worthy candidates (in terms of their likelihood to change something for the better as a result of their run).

Edit: Before I'm skewered, I was speaking of local and congressional candidates.

----------


## ClayTrainor

I will support Ron no matter what he wants to do!

If Ron runs, it keeps us all together.  You know if Ron doesn't run, we are all going to divide amongst other candidates.


Some will support Ventura if he runs
Some will support the libertarians
Some will support another republican (tones )
etc.

If ron paul runs... the power of unity will be much stronger, and we can actually have a chance at making a serious impact and waking the nation up!

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> I will support Ron no matter what he wants to do!
> 
> If Ron runs, it keeps us all together.  You know if Ron doesn't run, we are all going to divide amongst other candidates.
> 
> 
> Some will support Ventura if he runs
> Some will support the libertarians
> Some will support another republican (tones )
> etc.
> ...


qft

----------


## hazek

You people are insane. And that's by the definition of insanity.

Insanity: repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result


UNLESS you people finally REALIZE that *reason will not* get ANYONE with the right ideas into office, you are doomed to fail, and although I love Ron and what he says and does he is not the right guy for the job. Sorry.

I strongly suggest you all reread this thread of mine.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You people are insane. And that's by the definition of insanity.
> 
> Insanity: repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result


lmao

Did you just hear that from the girl on that Neil Cavuto youtube and repeat it?

That is *NOT* the defintion of Insanity in any dictionary i've taken a look at.

I agree ron paul has to show that he is ACTUALLY running to hold the office of president.  If he does then we have our candidate!

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Ron too may do as he pleases, as long as he harms no other in their person or property.<IMHO> *

----------


## robert4rp08

Full force ahead.  He had his hands full with educating people this time around. By 2012, after the economy collapses and people realize that Obama is not 'change', people will be ready for Ron Paul.

----------


## pacelli

I'll support him if he runs again.  But I've learned some things in the 2008 campaign so I will be much more conservative with my donations, especially if he runs another presidential campaign in parallel with a congressional campaign.  If he does that again, I guarantee I won't be anywhere close to maxing out.  Every time I see Ron on TV doing a town hall, I'll donate that much of my time canvassing for him.

----------


## hazek

> Full force ahead.  He had his hands full with educating people this time around. By 2012, after the economy collapses and people realize that Obama is not 'change', people will be ready for Ron Paul.


Which is exactly the opposite of my point. 

For the 32852384th time ....


... people don't realize anything ....


they are feed opinions through the media appealing to their emotions and guiding their opinion through them........................

This is sooo essential that if those who intend to run the next presidential campaign for any candidate we could support wont utilize, they are doomed to fail from the very start.

How $#@!ing hard can it be to understand this!?

----------


## Perry

oops, I clicked on the first option before I read the second.

----------


## worl

Unless things change there is no way. I agree with him on almost every issue & convinced a lot of others to vote for him but unless he can get the christian vote he has no chance. Huck. will probably run & all he has to do is identify him with legalizing drugs & a libertairian view of removing religion out of view.

----------


## Natalie

He is not too old.  Some of you are making it sound like we can just find someone else to run.  Well, unfortunately, it's not that easy.  Third Parties are basically pointless, so we need someone to run as a Republican/Democrat.  Ron Paul is the only chance we have at getting someone on the Republican ticket in the near future.  Yeah, maybe in like 25 years from now, there could possibly be another Ron Paul, but I seriously doubt it.  

If he ran again, he probably would not win, but more people would wake up, and it would be easier for other liberty candidates to get elected to local and federal offices.

----------


## Melissa

I would do everything I did this cycle and more, those of you that want a younger person to run need to think for a minute, it was not just the message that got us here it was the voting record to back it up, someone new may talk the talk but who can we show that has walked the walk other then Dr. Paul right now

----------


## Austin

> I would do everything I did this cycle and more, those of you that want a younger person to run need to think for a minute, it was not just the message that got us here it was the voting record to back it up, someone new may talk the talk but who can we show that has walked the walk other then Dr. Paul right now


I hadn't thought of that before. Dr. Paul's voting record is something only he has..

----------


## hazek

I guess my rant is being ignored. Oh well you deserve to fail miserably then.

----------


## dude58677

> I guess my rant is being ignored. Oh well you deserve to fail miserably then.


It's really annoying when people make a negative claim without a reason behind it. Until you give a reason there is no debate.

----------


## hazek

> It's really annoying when people make a negative claim without a reason behind it. Until you give a reason there is no debate.


Ok. I'll give you a reason if you can't figure one out!


How about Ron not getting elected president after he got so much money and support for his campaign not to mention him being a near perfect candidate.

How's that for a reason?!

You wanna go through that again with the same result? Fine by me, be my guest. 


And when you do fail, just remember, you were warned but were too ignorant to follow my advice.

----------


## Melissa

> Ok. I'll give you a reason if you can't figure one out!
> 
> 
> How about Ron not getting elected president after he got so much money and support for his campaign not to mention him being a near perfect candidate.
> 
> How's that for a reason?!
> 
> You wanna go through that again with the same result? Fine by me, be my guest. 
> 
> ...


What a silly argument, no offense, Hillary and Rudy got more and even Romney had more money and they all lost, we would all be better prepared this time and we would have more time to get things done. If at first you don't succeed.. try, try, again

----------


## hazek

Good luck.

Even though it won't help you.

----------


## Natalie

> Good luck.
> 
> Even though it won't help you.


Is _someone_ a little grumpy?

----------


## hazek

Ignorance usually makes me grumpy, yea..

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Ignorance usually makes me grumpy, yea..


Don't act like your not ignorant... It's not like you have the secret clue that can make us win the presidency.

Paul's potential 2012 run, needs to be discussed... raise constructive criticism sure, but don't be a tool!

----------


## dude58677

> Ignorance usually makes me grumpy, yea..


The Republican Party is split apart. There is no leader and the Democrats are in office so now is a time to start fresh. His name recognition is much better now than it was in 2008 primaries and it will be even better by the time 2012. Ronald Reagan had few supporters in 1976 and won in a landslide in 1980. Guess who endorsed him in 1976? His age will be in question but Republicans don't seem to care about age and when Barack Obama screws up, it time for real change.

----------


## scandinaviany3

From the get go he should promote a younger conservative for vp so people feel they have nothing to loose and everything to gain...

someone that the majority of US citizens like...

----------


## thasre

I'd rather see Gary Johnson run, who doesn't have Ron Paul's negatives but has almost all of his positives. Ron Paul would make a more effective surrogate... and imagine him as Secretary of the Treasury! You know if someone Ron Paul endorsed in the primaries made it to the White House, that's the position Paul would get. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for THAT scenario.

----------


## stick

Hazek is a NEO CON. Get out trash!

----------


## hazek

> Hazek is a NEO CON. Get out trash!


I don't care what some troll says about me..

The truth can always be read in my posts.

----------


## AdamT

Lose the gangs of clowns from the last run. Lose Benton first and foremost. Get a new campaign staff....professional ones ready and determined to win this thing.

----------


## Primbs

IS there an option for undecided?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Lose the gangs of clowns from the last run. Lose Benton first and foremost.


I agree 100%. The guy is completely incompetent, and he has NO people skills.





> Get a new campaign staff....professional ones ready and determined to win this thing.


Yes... hire people who have won national elections before.

----------


## HenryKnoxFineBooks

I think Ron should parley his name recognition and fundraising abilities and run for a Senate seat in Texas.

----------


## pacelli

> I agree 100%. The guy is completely incompetent, and he has NO people skills.
> 
> 
> Yes... hire people who have won national elections before.


Fully agreed.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

I will support Paul in '12 if he truly runs to WIN as specified by many on this thread. Below is what I wrote months ago about what exactly he needs to do next time:

My preference is that Paul run one more time in 2012, and in the meantime we focus on getting as many RP Republicans, Democrats and 3rd Party candidates in office as possible in '08 and '10. This will set the stage for a much more formidable Paul presence in the GOP going into the next presidential cycle. When 2011 rolls around, Paul should do A LOT of things differently to undo the mistakes made in this campaign, including:

1) Bring in basically a complete new campaign team, a team that is 100% running to WIN from day one to election day.

2) During the exploratory phase, line up early major endorsements BEFORE formally announcing his candidacy. 

3) DON'T announce his candidacy on a cable-audience only forum like C-Span, make it a major press conference where people like Buchanan, Perot, Alex Jones, an major Evangelical leader, a Second Amendment and Pro-life group leader, a Libertarian celebrity et al join him on the podium. 

4) Announce on day one he is jointly running for the GOP, LP and CP nomination, and WILL be in it through Election Day 2012. This makes it clear there will be no bait and switch about what the mission is, and that he unequivocally is running to win the election from start to finish. 

5) Make clear he will pursue vote fraud, and 9/11 issues (a real investigation, and prosecution of the false-flag operators) and ALL other issues of widespread concern to the liberty movement. This will make clear there will be no needless division or infighting as with this year, and show he will be truly leading the entire movement. 

6) Sponsor major Paul-friendly surveys each month, and publish results showing he is strongly placing (double digits) in many polls, thereby creating his own legitimate news wave. DON'T let the MSM control the polling as they did throughout 2007, omitting him from almost all of them so it could justify their chanting the "he's not being covered because he's only in single digits" mantra.

7) Push the precinct system from DAY ONE so activists have a year to work the neighborhoods needed to get Paul's name and message out. Get the supporters to emphasize outreach ACTUAL VOTERS (as in broadcast TV spots and presentations at senior centers, versus cable interviews or keg parties for young non-voters).

8) Emphasize more OFFLINE organization and communication (appointing coordinators for EACH state, to have real back and forth feedback with the grassroots per state), versus further online consolidation (the echo-chamber insularity of which is now a proven failure).

9) Have a professional team develop the commercial spots, or youtube them and have the grassroots select which spots to air. Blanket the country with Paul billboards and newspaper ads, versus blimps to reach average voters. De-emphasize the legacy campaign media (as all the buttons, signs, and bumper stickers did not create votes).

10) Start the money bombs from day one, space them at least a month apart so there are constant 'bursts' of big money coming in, in addition to the steady stream of donations. This will ensure the bombs have greater impact, and keep people from going broke sending funds on frequent bombs scheduled on short notice. 

11) Run 435 'Ron Paul candidates' for Congress in 2012, so there can be a local Paul effort in each CD to be coattailed into the national race.  Most of these candidates obviously are not going to win, their real purpose is to complement Paul. This will help saturate the country with Revolution campaign activity.

12) Emphasize the first 3-4 primary races to get a strong showing in at least 1 or 2 of them. If this means going near broke by the first two weeks to WIN the race, then do it in order to WIN (the wait for the others to go broke and quit/or 'tortoise beats the hare' approach, while in theory feasible, relied on too many things lining up the right way to actually pan out, as we saw this year). 

There's more to brainstorm, but that's what I think to be the most important dozen 'regrouping' ideas.

----------


## Nathan Hale

I admire your posting of so strategic an outline.  While I would rather see Paul cede power to another candidate for the 2012 season, here is my strategic, supportive criticism of your plan:




> 1) Bring in basically a complete new campaign team, a team that is 100% running to WIN from day one to election day.


Don't make the same mistake we made in Iraq.  Paul needs advisors who are 100% running to win, but he created an effective team in 2008, one capable of leveraging and working with a huge grassroots movement.  I didn't agree with every move they made, but don't disassemble everything because of it.  Cut off the head - replace top executives with strategists, but let the campaign team otherwise stay intact.




> 3) DON'T announce his candidacy on a cable-audience only forum like C-Span, make it a major press conference where people like Buchanan, Perot, Alex Jones, an major Evangelical leader, a Second Amendment and Pro-life group leader, a Libertarian celebrity et al join him on the podium.


Just say no!  Paul's announcement should be about assisting his run.  Alex Jones shouldn't be allowed near the stage!  He's poison to an individual's credibility.  Paul needs to pick speakers that strengthen his position.  Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson, Andrew Napolitano, Gary Johnson and Barry Goldwater Jr (hopefully Governor at the time), these are the people who should be introducing Paul.  




> 5) Make clear he will pursue vote fraud, and 9/11 issues (a real investigation, and prosecution of the false-flag operators) and ALL other issues of widespread concern to the liberty movement. This will make clear there will be no needless division or infighting as with this year, and show he will be truly leading the entire movement.


This is a divisive statement.  Truthers are not the majority of the liberty movement, they aren't even a significant minority.




> 6) Sponsor major Paul-friendly surveys each month, and publish results showing he is strongly placing (double digits) in many polls, thereby creating his own legitimate news wave. DON'T let the MSM control the polling as they did throughout 2007, omitting him from almost all of them so it could justify their chanting the "he's not being covered because he's only in single digits" mantra.


Don't fight the MSM for controlling polling.  Polls sponsored or affiliated with the campaign or its surrogates is far more suspect to the general population than MSM polling.  The GOP is in flux right now - if Paul runs in 2012 he'd likely get the respect afforded a top tier candidate, assuming we play our cards right.  That should be the goal - then the media would follow suit.




> 8) Emphasize more OFFLINE organization and communication (appointing coordinators for EACH state, to have real back and forth feedback with the grassroots per state), versus further online consolidation (the echo-chamber insularity of which is now a proven failure).


More kudos!  This revolution needs to move out of the easy chair.




> 9) Have a professional team develop the commercial spots, or youtube them and have the grassroots select which spots to air. Blanket the country with Paul billboards and newspaper ads, versus blimps to reach average voters. De-emphasize the legacy campaign media (as all the buttons, signs, and bumper stickers did not create votes).


Don't denegrate the button/sign/bumper sticker approach.  It did get votes, because it created public consciousness.  TV and radio spots are essential priorities, especially in early states, but physical ads (signs, bumper stickers, buttons, billboards, LTEs, etc) are also part of the equation.  They raise regional awareness and give the campaign the impression of a grassroots success.  Plus, they're totally free to the campaign itself as the local groups fund it.




> 11) Run 435 'Ron Paul candidates' for Congress in 2012, so there can be a local Paul effort in each CD to be coattailed into the national race.  Most of these candidates obviously are not going to win, their real purpose is to complement Paul. This will help saturate the country with Revolution campaign activity.


Let's not get greedy.  Better to have 10 people working on the Paul campaign than 10 people fighting to win their own campaigns.  Let the strength of each precinct determine the number of candidates it can viably put up, but we shouldn't put pressure on precincts to produce candidates.  2010 is the big test for Ron Paul candidates for Congress, Senate, and Governor races.  If we don't win GOP primaries then, we're not going anywhere in 2012 because the GOP civil war will be over by then.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

I stand by points 3 and 5, the movement should not let the CFR media dictate what views or persons on our side are 'respectable' or not. We are not remaking the establishment if we are disowning ourselves in order to kowtow to it. Multiple polls done on this forum over the months have shown 9-11 truth is a in fact a major issue in this movement, so Paul should not make the same mistake in '12 of deep sixing the matter as was done in this campaign. 

And on point 9, I said we should de-emphasize the old-school buttons and signs approach, not neglect it. Yes, you can get votes with them, but not very many in the big scheme of things compared to more effective outreach and media. Obama raised $600 million (and will probably top that in 2012 running as an incumbent), campaign buttons are simply not going to be competitive with that.

----------


## itshappening

I really just think the media will ignore him again, nothing will change as they're under orders 

however, someone who is RP in disguise might stand a better chance though obviously, no candidate will be 100% comparable

----------


## RickyJ

I would love to see him run in 2012. I don't think he will qualify for the Olympic team, but hey, maybe he can carry the torch.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*I don't know about running.  At 76, some good walks would probably do Ron some good. *

----------


## pcosmar

> I doubt he'll run, but if he does, I'll support him.
> 
> I am sure if he decides to do so, it will be a very different campaign with more options than the 2008 campaign.
> 
> Let us play it by ear as developments emerge.


Good plan.
Of course I would support him. Though I wonder how much of the present speculation is just wishful thinking.

I have real doubts about there being an election in 2012.
If at all, I expect another staged media circus, much like this year.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Good plan.
> Of course I would support him. Though I wonder how much of the present speculation is just wishful thinking.
> 
> I have real doubts about there being an election in 2012.
> *If at all, I expect another staged media circus, much like this year.*


That's the more likely scenario.  As long as people continue believing their mythology, they will be able to go on being criminals.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> I stand by points 3 and 5, the movement should not let the CFR media dictate what views or persons on our side are 'respectable' or not.


Don't try to tie my points in with approval of concepts such as "CFR media".  I have yet to see any evidence that the CFR is anything but a foreign policy think tank.




> Multiple polls done on this forum over the months have shown 9-11 truth is a in fact a major issue in this movement, so Paul should not make the same mistake in '12 of deep sixing the matter as was done in this campaign.


Though I haven't seen any of these polls, let's assume you're right.  Even so, these are polls conducted on this site.  This site is not a cross-section of the movement.  I've been to the rallies, I've been to the fundraisers.  I've seen Paul's polling.  Trutherism is not a major function of this movement.




> And on point 9, I said we should de-emphasize the old-school buttons and signs approach, not neglect it. Yes, you can get votes with them, but not very many in the big scheme of things compared to more effective outreach and media. Obama raised $600 million (and will probably top that in 2012 running as an incumbent), campaign buttons are simply not going to be competitive with that.


But you also said that campaign buttons, signs, and bumper stickers "did not create votes".  I disagree.  They raise awareness and show popularity, which drive hits to the web site and exposure to the candidate.  They create votes.  Perhaps not as effectively as a TV spot, but they are an integral part of an effective campaign and should remain at the core of the marketing effort.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> I really just think the media will ignore him again, nothing will change as they're under orders 
> 
> however, someone who is RP in disguise might stand a better chance though obviously, no candidate will be 100% comparable


"Under orders"????  Ron Paul is CONSTANTLY invited to appear on mainstream media shows.  Even when he was running, there was no media conspiracy to keep him down - he got a far greater share of media coverage than any other candidate polling the way he polled.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> "Under orders"????  Ron Paul is CONSTANTLY invited to appear on mainstream media shows.  Even when he was running, there was no media conspiracy to keep him down - he got a far greater share of media coverage than any other candidate polling the way he polled.


'A famous journalist (and wonderful writer) for a famous print
publication calls a friend to say that "You would not believe the
pressure all across the media not to write about Ron Paul, unless it
is something quirky. I am ashamed to say my own editor is part of the
blackout."'

---LRC blog note (by Rockwell himself) from January 29

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the
political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as
my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the
inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and
economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal
working against the best interests of the United States,
characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring
with others around the world to build a more integrated global
political and economic structure one world, if you will. If that's the
charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

---David Rockefeller, Memoirs, 2002, p. 405

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time
Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended
our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost
forty years...It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan
for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity
during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared
to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of
an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the
national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

---David Rockefeller, at the June 1991 Bilderberger meeting

----------


## eleganz

The only way Ron Paul will win is if the media is actually willing to support him so that he gets support from the actual majority percentage of the people.

Because of his age, he will need the support of the media.  Will the independent media companies that are already set up-be enough to get him the position he needs?

I will definitely support him though but given his current age, can he be healthy enough for another 4 years, a presidential run and if he gets elected, another 4 stressful years in office?  I really do hope and pray he is super healthy and can make the 8 years and hell, 12!!

----------


## Nathan Hale

> 'A famous journalist (and wonderful writer) for a famous print
> publication calls a friend to say that "You would not believe the
> pressure all across the media not to write about Ron Paul, unless it
> is something quirky. I am ashamed to say my own editor is part of the
> blackout."'
> 
> ---LRC blog note (by Rockwell himself) from January 29


You're taking Rockwell, a known and vehement partisan, at his word - without knowing the name, affiliation, or ideology of his source.

I'm not going to rely on hearsay. I'm going to look directly into the horse's mouth, using only the meager evidence of Ron Paul's actual media appearances, and that evidence shows me that Paul was given a huge amount of media play considering his position in the field, far more than other candidates in similar positions were afforded.




> "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the
> political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as
> my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the
> inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and
> economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal
> working against the best interests of the United States,
> characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring
> with others around the world to build a more integrated global
> political and economic structure one world, if you will. If that's the
> ...


Ahh, this old quote.  All this says is that Rockefeller believes in internationalism.  So what?




> "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time
> Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended
> our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost
> forty years...It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan
> for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity
> during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared
> to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of
> an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the
> national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
> ...


While I have a lot to say about this quote, I want to play a little Socratic method with you.  To start with, please source this quote.  Where did you read it?  Do you have a transcript from the 1991 Bilderberg meeting?

NOTE: Before we start getting into Rockefeller/CFR/Bilderberg debates, I want you to read an old thread where I played a pretty major role.  The thread is called "Something fishy is going on with the Clintons and the Rockefellers".  My reason for asking you to read it is that I really don't want to have the same conversation again.   http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=102962

----------


## klamath

> I'd rather see Gary Johnson run, who doesn't have Ron Paul's negatives but has almost all of his positives. Ron Paul would make a more effective surrogate... and imagine him as Secretary of the Treasury! You know if someone Ron Paul endorsed in the primaries made it to the White House, that's the position Paul would get. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for THAT scenario.


Just a heavy pot user past and a man that is so egotistical he can't keep his family together. Yeaw right

----------


## Andrew-Austin

I don't think its a great idea that he run again, but I'd support him for sure.

He should probably just run for Senate.




> I wouldn't go with him unless he (or someone)purges the RP of the neocon elements.  As TW would say, politics is a sociopathic cult!


About 70% of your post history is just you saying "I agree with Truth Warrior".

----------


## nate895

> I don't think its a great idea that he run again, but I'd support him for sure.
> 
> He should probably just run for Senate.


In Texas, you cannot be on the ballot for more than one office, unless if one office is President. If he runs for Senate, he will certainly lose his House seat for an unlikely go at the Senate. He can keep his House seat if he goes for the Presidency, and he'd have a national stage.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Ahh, this old quote.  All this says is that Rockefeller believes in internationalism.  So what?...
> 
> While I have a lot to say about this quote, I want to play a little Socratic method with you.  To start with, please source this quote.  Where did you read it?  Do you have a transcript from the 1991 Bilderberg meeting?


No, the quotes show he admits to a specific network he is a part of that is actively engaged in building a global government, for which the MSM provides ongoing cover. All sources for the '91 quote say only it was attributed to him, so it is moot as to where it came from. Since you decline to concede patently outright admissions (of which more could have been supplied), obvously conversation beyond this is hopeless. If I showed you the risen Christ Himself, ye probably would still not believe.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> No, the quotes show he admits to a specific network he is a part of that is actively engaged in building a global government,


So?  This still tells you nothing of substance.  Obviously if he believes in internationalism and is working toward it he is working with other people, just as we all work together for our own goals.  You're still not showing that he somehow is directing policy or otherwise in control of the situation.  As far as I can tell he's just another guy trying to bring about his ideology.




> for which the MSM provides ongoing cover.


Unsubstantiated.




> All sources for the '91 quote say only it was attributed to him, so it is moot as to where it came from.


Name the sources.




> Since you decline to concede patently outright admissions (of which more could have been supplied),


Name one outright admission that I have failed to concede.




> obviously conversation beyond this is hopeless.


Only if you expect me to convert to your religion without you providing substantiated, respectably sourced evidence.




> If I showed you the risen Christ Himself, ye probably would still not believe.


Here's the thing.  You're not showing me the risen Christ.  You're not showing me anything close.  What you're showing me is more like what I get from the two nice young men who come by every Sunday pitching the Christ bit to me.  And while their argument is well and good, I find myself having to take a little too much on faith.

----------


## AbolishTheGovt

If he runs, I'll support him.

If not, I'll support Gary Johnson.

----------


## JohnJay

> I hadn't thought of that before. Dr. Paul's voting record is something only he has..


I agree - without something substantial like RP's house bill sponsorship, debate archives on everything from DR-CAFTA (early opponent, it "won" by 217-215 in secret session) to terrorism and Patriot Act, etc. etc. -
I don't see any other candidates who we can be sure would back up the talk.

He did very well in the GOP debates and on talk shows like Jay Leno . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LZyHoAPL3M

People that listened to him know he was largely cut off or misinterpreted - and outright misquoted - by the media, 
and that had alot to do with why he lost.

 I think he would have an even bigger impact in shaping the future of the GOP in 2012 - 
and he would be the Republican Party's chance to keep from disintegrating.

McCain looks 10 years older than he is, while RP seems about 10 or more years younger than he really is -
 I do not think he is too old to run in 2012.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> McCain looks 10 years older than he is, while RP seems about 10 or more years younger than he really is -
>  I do not think he is too old to run in 2012.


And I, personally, do not think he is too old to run in 2012.  But remember, our strategy should have nothing to do with what we think.  The age issue is about what THEY think - the voters who will select the party nominees for the 2012 race.  WE are but a small contingent of the overall voting populous, so we require support from a large number of people who do care about age in order to win.  How Ron LOOKS is really irrelevant, because he does have a specific age attached to him, and that age can be held against history (older by almost ten years than anybody elected to the Presidency) and physical reality (how many 76 year olds do we even trust to drive a car?).

Step outside of your personal assessment of the situation for a moment and look at the race from an undecided primary voter.  This empathy is ESSENTIAL in order for us to ever win a primary.  It's the basis of all electoral strategy.  I don't mean to rail on you, because the age issue is but a small factor among our hurdles, but it seems I'm always offering the same advice on these boards - we need to open our minds and see things from the perspective of the voters we have to win, rather than our own desires and ideologies.

----------


## JohnJay

> . . .Step outside of your personal assessment of the situation for a moment and look at the race from an undecided primary voter.  This empathy is ESSENTIAL in order for us to ever win a primary.  . . . we need to open our minds and see things from the perspective of the voters we have to win, rather than our own desires and ideologies.


I pretty much do that and feel I have been doing that all along . . . yet still disagree with you about this. 
 The Grand Ole Party is trying to hang on to their generational ties too.

I feel plenty of older voters do vote for someone of older age - in their own age group. I feel plenty of old timers voted for McCain just for that reason - especially in the primaries.

If you think about it - all things considered - RP may have an advantage *because* of his age - 
as long as health is not an issue as it was for McCain - with an appeal to older voters and younger voters.

----------


## politicsNproverbs

He's not too old, imo.




> *2012 RP Campaign Slogan:*
> 
> *Maturity, Brains, Wisdom -- vs. -- Youth, Charisma, Good Looks.*

----------


## The_Orlonater

It's not a good idea for him to run again.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> I pretty much do that and feel I have been doing that all along . . . yet still disagree with you about this. 
>  The Grand Ole Party is trying to hang on to their generational ties too.


But this is a path to failure, which is why we see the party reaching out to the youth and the internet, things that Obama parlayed into victory.  The days of the GOP being the party of old people will fade into the past, or the GOP itself will fade into the past.




> I feel plenty of older voters do vote for someone of older age - in their own age group. I feel plenty of old timers voted for McCain just for that reason - especially in the primaries.


I don't doubt this, I could say the same for Obama's voters and their being drawn to his youth - but in either case there is also a strong case against (though in all fairness the criticisms of younger candidates' age tend to be more related to lack of experience, while criticisms of older candidates' age focuses on age itself).

The key is to find the sweet spot.  In my opinion our candidate should be between 50 and 62.




> If you think about it - all things considered - RP may have an advantage *because* of his age - 
> as long as health is not an issue as it was for McCain - with an appeal to older voters and younger voters.


Once again, health wasn't the issue with McCain.  McCain faced the same challenges as Paul with regard to his age - references to him being potentially the oldest President elected to office.  Rarely was McCain's skin cancer made the issue.  I don't see Paul benefiting by virtue of his age, because he would be in such a better position if he were in the sweet spot of 50-62.

----------


## kombayn

If he ran I would support him but I don't think he should, that's not smart and he won't win.

----------


## DXDoug

i think we have a winner.. RUN Paul Run

----------

