# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Should Ron Paul change his message?

## boneyard bill

I know. This has got to be heresy. It's Ron Paul's message that has gotten him here today. Without that message he'd just be another Tom Tancredo or Tommy Thompson who failed miserably in the 2008 presidential run. People on these boards support him because of his message, not because he looks like Gandolf or has delivered over 4,000 babies.

But we've been discussing the things Ron Paul needs to do to win in 2012, and I would contend that one of those things is that he needs to change his message.

I'm not arguing that he needs to change his philosophy. I agree completely that his following derives from that philosophy, and he has done a good job of expounding that philosophy. And if you want 2012 to be like 2008, an educational campaign for the public, then that would be fine.

But here's the problem. The public doesn't really care what their candidates believe. They want to know what they will do. If Ron Paul could wave a magic wand, he would change America radically. But as president for four years, he won't have that kind of power. He will only be able to make a few major changes.

An educational campaign can enunciate a broad philosophy precisely because winning isn't the point of the campaign. But to govern, you have to prioritize your goals. And the public wants to know your priorities far more than it wants to know the full breadth of your philosophy.

It's fine to say that you want to balance the budget, but it's also important to say how you are going to do that. If eliminating social security is your primary method, you're going to lose the election. Yet Ron Paul is on record as opposing social security. You can be sure that his opponents will jump on that. But RP is also on record as wanting to keep social security for the time being and for making sure that retirees benefits continue. In other words, eliminating social security is not one of his high priorities. 

Ron Paul also wants to withdraw from our overseas bases. But he has co-sponsored a bill with Barney Frank that would withdraw our troops from Iraq,  Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. That's a substantial reduction, but not a complete withdrawal. They estimate that it would save $100 billion a year (Although it would probably reduce the foreign exchange deficit by a lot more than that and that is probably even more important than the budget deficit).

The Frank/Paul plan might be doable in a four year term. Total withdrawal from all foreign bases probably is not. So there's no point in making it a part of his  program. Even though it still will remain a part of his philosophy.

Ron Paul favors the legalization of marijuana. So do I. But do I want Ron Paul to spend the bulk of his political capital on that issue? Definitely not. There are more important items on the table.

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the Fed. Fine. But can you do that when you're on a fiat money system? Even RP admits that a return to the gold standard might not be feasible because we might not have enough gold to defend the price. And what should the price be? Drastically reducing the power of the Fed is probably doable in the short term but eliminating it altogether is another matter. Even Peter Schiff opposes that. Do you want to give that power back to Congress? Schiff asks.

So Ron Paul needs to establish his priorities and he needs to distinguish his long-term goals, about which he can do little in the White House, from his short-term goals which are achievable.

Let me ask this question. If Ron Paul were elected president what do you think is the first thing he would do?

Frankly, I have no idea. He has not communicated his priorities. It is really much like the difference between Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. Like Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater was a strong advocate of the free market and of limited government (except, unfortunately in foreign policy), and like Ron Paul he ran a largely ideological campaign. This resulted in his spending most of the campaign fending off questions about social security or the federal government's Arizona dam project.

Goldwater never prioritized his objectives. I have no idea what Goldwater's first action would have been, or his second or third for that matter. In contrast, Ronald Reagan clearly set forth his priorities: cut taxes, increase defense spending, promote de-regulation. It could be summed up in two slogans - "Peace through strength", and "Get the government off our backs."

He also favored a balanced budget, but when asked how he would reconcile increased defense spending and tax cuts with balancing the budget, he responded that it's a matter of "priorities." Reagan favored a balanced budget, but there were other matters that were more urgent, and he understood that and communicated that. 

But this isn't simply a matter of simplifying the message or creating catchy slogans. It is about governing, and it is about communicating how Ron Paul would actually go about that.

Ultimately, I don't think it matters how good the strategy is or how expertly it is implemented. If Ron Paul is going to win, he is going to have to tell us, and the American people, what he wants to be elected to do.

----------


## libertybrewcity

Okay, just look for a second how many people were exposed to Ron Paul's consistent message of liberty and small government before Ron Paul. He inspired millions of people because of his message. One of his strong points is that he never deterred from his positions. He wouldn't vote for one thing because he could get some payoffs from some corporation.

In 2007 and 2008, Ron Paul was polling at 1% or less. Now he is at 13 percent in New Hampshire! In 2012 his supporters will pour out onto the streets and expand the base by millions more. Even if he doesn't win the general election in 2012 or the Republican nomination he will have inspired a movement so large that it will do nothing but grow and continue to take or the Republican party.

As for what he can do in office? For one, he can veto every spending, war, stimulus, big government, and bailout bill that come before him. That is enough to get him into office. He would be the commander in chief so he could withdraw troops from wherever he wanted.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi

----------


## MRoCkEd

Nah, man. Ron should just say what he's thinking as always.

----------


## boneyard bill

> Okay, just look for a second how many people were exposed to Ron Paul's consistent message of liberty and small government before Ron Paul. He inspired millions of people because of his message. One of his strong points is that he never deterred from his positions. He wouldn't vote for one thing because he could get some payoffs from some corporation.
> 
> In 2007 and 2008, Ron Paul was polling at 1% or less. Now he is at 13 percent in New Hampshire! In 2012 his supporters will pour out onto the streets and expand the base by millions more. Even if he doesn't win the general election in 2012 or the Republican nomination he will have inspired a movement so large that it will do nothing but grow and continue to take or the Republican party.
> 
> As for what he can do in office? For one, he can veto every spending, war, stimulus, big government, and bailout bill that come before him. That is enough to get him into office. He would be the commander in chief so he could withdraw troops from wherever he wanted.
> 
> "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi


But you're just saying what I already said. That's fine for an educational campaign, but if you're going to win, you're going to have to govern. So Ron Paul needs to address these issues for his edification if not for ours.




> As for what he can do in office? For one, he can veto every spending, war, stimulus, big government, and bailout bill that come before him. That is enough to get him into office. He would be the commander in chief so he could withdraw troops from wherever he wanted.


But you seem to think that he can win without saying that that's what he would do.

----------


## boneyard bill

> Nah, man. Ron should just say what he's thinking as always.


That's a good idea if he would also think about what he would do in the presidency rather than what he is doing in Congress.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Ultimately, I don't think it matters how good the strategy is or how expertly it is implemented. If Ron Paul is going to win, he is going to have to tell us, and the American people, what he wants to be elected to do.


Why waste time on that in a polarized landscape.  The question right now is not what is going to get cut.  D's & R's don't agree on $#@! and the rest of the country is the same way.

The battle right now is philosophical.  What should the role of the federal government be.  If there is no agreement on the size and scope of government arguing over the budget is mental masterbation.

Ron has stated what the priorities are and they include starting with foreign policy, repeal legal tender,  eliminate federal agencies,  use the military to secure the border once they just come home to address the difficult issues of immigration, welfare, and social security.  On these issues Dr. Paul has stated those programs should not be mandatory and individuals should be able to opt-out.   Yet make them solvent for all of the present government addicts.

Ron Paul has talked a lot about what the role of government should be and what the priorities should be.  Ron Paul just hasn't spent any time on a specific set of numbers.  But I revert to the first question... if you are only polling at 13% what good will talking about specific numbers achieve if there is no philosophical consensus for limited constitutional government?

----------


## libertybrewcity

> But you're just saying what I already said. That's fine for an educational campaign, but if you're going to win, you're going to have to govern. So Ron Paul needs to address these issues for his edification if not for ours.
> 
> 
> 
> But you seem to think that he can win without saying that that's what he would do.


How would Ron Paul not be able to govern? He has the absolute BEST platform available.

1. Bring transparency to the executive branch
2. End our military empire
3. Abolish the income tax
4. Fix our monetary system via the gold standard
5. Stop the spending, balance the budget
6. Decentralize government, states rights
7. Obey the Constitution

This sounds like more than an educational campaign to me..these sound like a strong platform to govern upon.

If this isn't 'governable' then I don't know what is...

----------


## Jordan

> Nah, man. Ron should just say what he's thinking as always.


With a touch of an ego.

He has the leverage to completely ridicule every other man (woman?) on stage at the debate and probably won't be around much longer.  That is just asking for one final "I told you so, $#@!s."

----------


## libertybrewcity

> Ron Paul has talked a lot about what the role of government should be and what the priorities should be.  Ron Paul just hasn't spent any time on a specific set of numbers.  But I revert to the first question... *if you are only polling at 13% what good will talking about specific numbers achieve if there is no philosophical consensus for limited constitutional government?*


This is excellent and exactly right. Ron Paul and the rest of us inspired millions to return to a philosophy of limited government that subsequently produced the tea party movement that is now in the mainstream.

Boneyard, if you want to return to the typical RINO-DINO schmucks that preach one thing and do another, be my guest. If we elect another Bush-type and he/she presents some facist, big government policies, I will not go along with it. You can be my guest.

----------


## pacelli

Yep.  For 2012, Ron Paul should say that he wants to stop the wars, end the federal reserve, abolish the IRS, and call every single opponent "poopy pants".

Seriously though, the only thing he needs to change about his message for 2012 *if he wants to win the presidency* is his delivery style.  If he wants to run another 30 million dollar educational campaign, then RP doesn't need to change a thing.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> People on these boards support him because of his message, not because he looks like Gandolf or has delivered over 4,000 babies.


why change what we like?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Meh, I think ppl are misunderstanding what bill is saying here.  He's not /actually/ saying th change the message, the thread title is misleading, instead he's saying to focus on action items for a Presidential campaign.  In other words, instead of saying "these are the best ideas for a free Republic," say "when I am President, I will start by doing a, b, and c."

I don't see that as a "change" in message per-se, but more of focusing on a different aspect of the same message.

The point is actually valid -- people tend to vote on action-words rather than ideas.  the only action-words that are likely to come from Ron Paul will necessarily align with his ideas anyway.

So if we want more people to vite for Ron Paul, focus more on telling them what concrete actions he will be taking once he is elected.

The point really is valid -- when canvassing in 2008 I ran into this time and again.  People would get annoyed at the philosophical discussion and ask, "yeah, ok but what is he gonna DO if he is elected?  I don't want to hear all this crap about ideas and philosophies, what's he gonna DO in office?"

So I think the thread title is quite misleading.  What bill is talking about here is not so much a 'change in message' as it is focusing on the action items in the same message as before, in order to reach more voters.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> Meh, I think ppl are misunderstanding what bill is saying here.  He's not /actually/ saying th change the message, the thread title is misleading, instead he's saying to focus on action items for a Presidential campaign.  In other words, instead of saying "these are the best ideas for a free Republic," say "when I am President, I will start by doing a, b, and c."
> 
> I don't see that as a "change" in message per-se, but more of focusing on a different aspect of the same message.
> 
> The point is actually valid -- people tend to vote on action-words rather than ideas.  the only action-words that are likely to come from Ron Paul will necessarily align with his ideas anyway.
> 
> So if we want more people to vite for Ron Paul, focus more on telling them what concrete actions he will be taking once he is elected.
> 
> The point really is valid -- when canvassing in 2008 I ran into this time and again.  People would get annoyed at the philosophical discussion and ask, "yeah, ok but what is he gonna DO if he is elected?  I don't want to hear all this crap about ideas and philosophies, what's he gonna DO in office?"
> ...


I thought focusing on a platform was obvious in a campaign, even Ron Paul's campaign.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I thought focusing on a platform was obvious in a campaign, even Ron Paul's campaign.


It is, but think back to 2008 -- platforms include both political philosophy AND "action items" such as 'this is what I will do when I am elected.'

During 2007 and 2008, RP focused almost exclusively on philosophy, and the cretins focused almost exclusively on action items.

Action items are what the sheeple are used to hearing, and they are what they expect to hear from a Presidential candidate.  I think not "changing the message" (again, misleading thread title) but focusing more on action items from the same message will get a larger percentage of the vote, because it lines up with the sort of thing voters are more accustomed to.

RP did a LITTLE of this in 2008, "I will abolish the IRS and the Dept of Education" but we need more of that.

----------


## Kregisen

One of the things I tell other people about when trying to get them to support Ron is "he'll get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing" - that's a huge point that the majority of americans (anyone who pays income tax) will care about.

Cater to your audience....if you're talking with someone who's a more moderate independent type of republican and against the wars, go all in about how Ron is the only republican against he trillion dollar wars.

If you're talking with a typical neo-con conservative, talk about how he's the best candidate on gun rights and against abortion. (even though he believes it should be states rights)


If americans hear his message they'll love him....and his popularity is growing. Just remember to get a Ron Paul 2012 bumper sticker (this $4 sticker will literally gather views from thousands and thousands of people by 2012) and keep spreading his name as you go.







> he looks like Gandolf

----------


## libertybrewcity

> It is, but think back to 2008 -- platforms include both political philosophy AND "action items" such as 'this is what I will do when I am elected.'
> 
> During 2007 and 2008, RP focused almost exclusively on philosophy, and the cretins focused almost exclusively on action items.
> 
> Action items are what the sheeple are used to hearing, and they are what they expect to hear from a Presidential candidate.  I think not "changing the message" (again, misleading thread title) but focusing more on action items from the same message will get a larger percentage of the vote, because it lines up with the sort of thing voters are more accustomed to.
> 
> RP did a LITTLE of this in 2008, "I will abolish the IRS and the Dept of Education" but we need more of that.


In 2008, Ron was probably 'testing' the philosophy and seeing which issues rang the best with his base. Almost two years later, I think we have a pretty good idea.

Term limits
transparency
Abolish income tax(IRS)
Fed Audit, elimination and strong currency
Bring home the troops

----------


## libertybrewcity

> 


great image.

----------


## trey4sports

make no mistake, if ron paul runs and I have a choice between a rand paul style campaign that could win us an election or a Ron Paul campaign which will turn millions onto the ideas of freedom and awake them from their apathy you bet I'll take an educational campaign.

The way I see it is this, Rand Paul is Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul is Barry Goldwater. Reagan may have been able to get some small things done for liberty but he did not inspire a revolution. Ron Paul will inspire a revolution. Hell, he already has.

I would prefer a 10 year plan which will legitimately change the political paradigm rather than a 4 year plan to get in the White house stealthily and play right-left politics.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Change his message?  No.

Change going on Alex Jones' show, keeping D*n Bl*ck money and hiring an incompetent campaign staff?  Absolutely.  Changing that alone I think would be a big step towards being considered legit.

----------


## libertybrewcity

In all honesty, if Ron Paul runs a focused FTW campaign, he would still have thousands of volunteers running an educational campaign. It would be a well-rounded meal for likely voters

----------


## boneyard bill

> Meh, I think ppl are misunderstanding what bill is saying here.  He's not /actually/ saying th change the message, the thread title is misleading, instead he's saying to focus on action items for a Presidential campaign.  In other words, instead of saying "these are the best ideas for a free Republic," say "when I am President, I will start by doing a, b, and c."
> 
> I don't see that as a "change" in message per-se, but more of focusing on a different aspect of the same message.
> 
> The point is actually valid -- people tend to vote on action-words rather than ideas.  the only action-words that are likely to come from Ron Paul will necessarily align with his ideas anyway.
> 
> So if we want more people to vite for Ron Paul, focus more on telling them what concrete actions he will be taking once he is elected.
> 
> The point really is valid -- when canvassing in 2008 I ran into this time and again.  People would get annoyed at the philosophical discussion and ask, "yeah, ok but what is he gonna DO if he is elected?  I don't want to hear all this crap about ideas and philosophies, what's he gonna DO in office?"
> ...


You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. Though I don't think the term "message" is misleading. What you say is your message. It just needs clarification, but I thought I did that in the post.

I recall during the 2008 campaign that Paul would take a position that seemed pretty radical, like abolishing social security or ending the Fed. Elsewhere he would say that he had "transition plans" to achieve these programs without producing a lot of disruption. What I'm suggesting is that he needs to lead with the transition plans rather the broad principles that would govern his actions but would be his actions.

I remember what happened to Barry Goldwater in 1964. He got attacked endlessly for wanting to make social security voluntary, for wanting to end agricultural subsidies, and for wanting to get rid of numerous other government programs. (It didn't help that Goldwater's responses were always the best, as when he said he would do nothing to bring disaster on American farmers "suddenly.") Ron Paul didn't get attacked on these things much in 2008 because he wasn't that high in the polls. But if he begins to have an impact, you can be sure that it will come, probably even more from the media than from his opponents.

I'm suggesting that if Ron Paul wants to avoid that, he needs to preempt it by leading off with the non-disruptive transition plans that he would propose rather than by leading with his ultimate goal.

But there's another point. If he wins, RP will only be elected to a four-year term. So it is important to say what he intends to do first, and then second, and then third, and then fourth, and he isn't likely to get any further than that.

----------


## boneyard bill

> make no mistake, if ron paul runs and I have a choice between a rand paul style campaign that could win us an election or a Ron Paul campaign which will turn millions onto the ideas of freedom and awake them from their apathy you bet I'll take an educational campaign.
> 
> The way I see it is this, Rand Paul is Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul is Barry Goldwater. Reagan may have been able to get some small things done for liberty but he did not inspire a revolution. Ron Paul will inspire a revolution. Hell, he already has.
> 
> I would prefer a 10 year plan which will legitimately change the political paradigm rather than a 4 year plan to get in the White house stealthily and play right-left politics.


I have no argument with that, and I'm not sure I wouldn't even agree with you. If we have any success, it will probably come after the establishment self-destructs and we're still around to pick up the pieces. No doubt a collapse of the dollar or similar catastrophe could bring down the establishment we have now but will likely lead to calls for an even more authoritarian government. So we need to spread the word on liberty and be available with the alternative option.

Nevertheless, I would rather avoid the catastrophe, and Ron Paul is the only possible presidential aspirant who even has a clue about how to do that. But it will take a Rand Paul, Ronald Reagan kind of campaign to do that.

----------


## boneyard bill

> why change what we like?


Because there aren't very many of us.

----------


## goRPaul

> I know. This has got to be heresy.


Yup.




> But we've been discussing the things Ron Paul needs to do to win in 2012, and I would contend that one of those things is that he needs to change his message.


Nope.




> .. if you want 2012 to be like 2008, an educational campaign for the public, then that would be fine.


I don't like your tone here.  It was a _revolutionary_ campaign more than it was educational.  I feel there were more people inspired by the freedom message than there were people fluently educated on the freedom philosophy.




> Ron Paul also wants to withdraw from our overseas bases. But he has co-sponsored a bill with Barney Frank that would withdraw our troops from Iraq,  Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. That's a substantial reduction, but not a complete withdrawal. They estimate that it would save $100 billion a year.


I fail to see the contradiction here.  He's doing all he can as a congressman; imagine what he'll be able to do as president.




> (Although it would probably reduce the foreign exchange deficit by a lot more than that and that is probably even more important than the budget deficit).


More explanation is needed than to simply claim that the foreign exchange deficit would decrease more than $100 billion/yr AND that that's a bigger problem than the budget deficit (a point you chose to express in parentheses... why??).




> The Frank/Paul plan might be doable in a four year term. Total withdrawal from all foreign bases probably is not. So there's no point in making it a part of his  program. Even though it still will remain a part of his philosophy.


Now you're just a naysayer.  




> Ron Paul favors the legalization of marijuana. So do I. But do I want Ron Paul to spend the bulk of his political capital on that issue? Definitely not. There are more important items on the table.


It has never been the "bulk" of his political capital, and it will never be.  Did you even think this through?




> Ron Paul wants to eliminate the Fed. Fine. But can you do that when you're on a fiat money system? Even RP admits that a return to the gold standard might not be feasible because we might not have enough gold to defend the price. And what should the price be? Drastically reducing the power of the Fed is probably doable in the short term but eliminating it altogether is another matter. Even Peter Schiff opposes that. Do you want to give that power back to Congress? Schiff asks.


You're showing how little you know about this issue.  This is Ron Paul's #1 issue, he talks about it all day, all night, in his sleep, on his bike rides, and when he's munching on chocolate chip cookies.  He wrote a book about it, which you very obviously didn't read.




> So Ron Paul needs to establish his priorities and he needs to distinguish his long-term goals, about which he can do little in the White House, from his short-term goals which are achievable.


You're selling himself short.  You only just joined, you have only 16 posts, and that smell....  smells like you've been sitting under a bridge for years.





> But this isn't simply a matter of simplifying the message or creating catchy slogans. It is about governing, and it is about communicating how Ron Paul would actually go about that.


Here you contradicted yourself from the beginning of the post, basically, your post was a whole lot of blah blah blah for nothing.  I'm sorry to have read it.

Either you're on board or you're not.  Don't question Dr. Paul's methods, he is much wiser than thou.  He's doing all he can, and we need to do the same.  If you prefer trolling, then we don't need you.

----------


## K466

Boneyard Bill, you make some good points. We don't want this to be an educational campaign, we need to win.

----------


## Nathan Hale

Boneyard Bill is absolutely right.  We're thinking too much with our hearts and too little with our heads.  Ones political platform is not ones political ideology writ official.  A political platform is a plan of action for the coming term of office, one that engages existing political ideas and current legislation, not some picture for a pie-in-the-sky ideological endgame.

----------


## jmdrake

> make no mistake, if ron paul runs and I have a choice between a rand paul style campaign that could win us an election or a Ron Paul campaign which will turn millions onto the ideas of freedom and awake them from their apathy you bet I'll take an educational campaign.
> 
> The way I see it is this, Rand Paul is Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul is Barry Goldwater. Reagan may have been able to get some small things done for liberty but he did not inspire a revolution. Ron Paul will inspire a revolution. Hell, he already has.
> 
> I would prefer a 10 year plan which will legitimately change the political paradigm rather than a 4 year plan to get in the White house stealthily and play right-left politics.


A Rand Paul style campaign would not work outside of KY.  Rand can afford to simply cater to neocons.  Ron (from what I hear) ran a "Rand Paul" style campaign in his early local elections too.  Also part of the reason Rand is able to run his campaign and win is because half of his supporters think he's lying to the other half.  If Rand were running nationally he wouldn't be able to say "I'm just not going on CNN and MSNBC anymore".  And he'd have to have a broader reach than just the "tea party" crowd.  Ron's style of campaign built a broad coalition.  By contrast look at Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo's numbers.  (They ran a "Rand style" campaign in 2008).  Neither of them ever did better than Dr. Paul and now they're political has beens.  Some of the people who are sticking by Rand right now have *publically* stated they will "wait and see" how he votes in the senate.  Up until this point Rand has not had any real political record so he's a blank slate that everyone can write their hopes on.  Let's say he gets elected (very good chance of that) and lets say a vote on a war with Iran comes up.  Let's say president Obama calls Rands bluff and actually asks for a vote for declaration of war.  Then what?  Does Rand vote yes to please his teocon constituents, or does he vote no which will please his dad's base?  If he votes no and then runs for president in 2012 he'll have to *explain* that no vote somehow to the teocons.  Ron being open about what he believes didn't happen in a vacuum.  He had a voting record that he had to explain.  Hard to be "stealthy" around that.

----------


## HarryBrowneLives

I don't think he needs to "change" his message, but I do think he could have tailored it a bit better with simple things.

Ex. "Humble foriegn policy" = Sensible foriegn policy  ... thought he made some bad word choices from time to time.

----------


## Eric21ND

Ron was percieved to be weak on national defense by republicans last time.  He needs to address that a little.  Maybe take a page out of Rand's playbook, by saying national defense is one of the major areas addressed in the Constitution.

----------


## BlackSand

He needs to address his immediate goals. One of my greatest fears about Paul is that hell get to office...and be a lame duck for 4 years.

----------


## newbitech

NO!  I don't think the message needs to be changed.  The message is a timeless message and the only thing that is missing is people with ears willing to hear the message.

IMO, Ron Paul is the perfect candidate to deliver this message because he has built his political career around it.

If you want to know what Ron Paul will do when he gets in to office, look at his voting record, look at the legislation he has written, and the bills he has sponsored/co-sponsored.   To me it is pretty clear what he will do.

We must keep in mind that the president does not make laws.  It is still up to all of us to make sure that the people in Congress hear his message.  The revolution doesn't happen when Ron Paul becomes president.  The revolution happens when enough people not only hear this message but embrace it and demand that the civil servants holding positions of authority in this country derive that authority from the same place that the message derives its appeal.

A side effect is that Ron Paul becomes president and hundreds of people willing to serve this message enter the halls of congress and the halls of government around the country.

I don't like the excuses we heard about why Ron Paul did not do well in 2008.  "It was an educational campaign".  That has to be the worst excuse ever!  Every campaign should be an educational campaign!!

The only difference I see between an "educational" campaign, and a "for the win" campaign is the outcome.  If Ron Paul runs "to win" in 2012 and he does not win, guess what?  It is still an education campaign!!!

I agree with folks who will say that Ron Paul needs to go on the attack.  I think anyone that challenges Ron Paul on the campaign trail needs to come under fierce attack by the campaign.  Early and often.  Ron needs to take this time to solidify his legacy.  He needs to show aggressiveness in his speech.  

Ron needs to understand that the people he is captivating with this message are pissed off.  I am sure that most of us would love nothing more than to have a John McCain, a Mitt Romney, a Mike Huckabee, or whoever else is the establishment puppet, in front of us for an hour so that we could rip them to shreds by exposing their fraudulent campaign platform and message.

Ron will have those folks in front of him for days and weeks and months and on national TV.  He needs to rip any and all challengers to shreds on his way to ripping the current administration to shreds on his way to ripping the current role of government to shreds.  And while he is doing this, he needs to constantly remind people how these fake "leaders" have ripped our constitution to shreds, and ripped our money to shreds, and ripped our jobs to shreds, and ripped our lives to shreds.

Thats IMO how he will win.  Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to put the country on notice that anyone found to be breaking the law, ie constitutional law, will serve jail time, including those $#@!ers who stole our national treasure and sent our soldiers to die in unconstitutional wars.  ALL WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!  Judgement day is here!  Go get em Ron Paul, FIGHT FOR US IN THE CAPITOL while we fight in the streets!

----------


## Nathan Hale

> NO!  I don't think the message needs to be changed.  The message is a timeless message and the only thing that is missing is people with ears willing to hear the message.


Right there, you articulate the problem.  People aren't willing to hear the message.  Sorry, but in our system, if people aren't willing to hear the message - you lose.  The goal, obviously, is to win.  So the message must be altered, even if only in an aesthetic form, to attract more people.  That's what our plan should be for 2012 - take the existing plan and adapt it to meet the needs of the voters, so that in 2012 people will pull the lever for our guy (whomever it might be).

----------


## boneyard bill

goRPaul writes:




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by boneyard bill View Post
> Ron Paul also wants to withdraw from our overseas bases. But he has co-sponsored a bill with Barney Frank that would withdraw our troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. That's a substantial reduction, but not a complete withdrawal. They estimate that it would save $100 billion a year.
> I fail to see the contradiction here. He's doing all he can as a congressman; imagine what he'll be able to do as president.


Yes. Imagine what he'll be able to do as president. Withdrawing all of our troops and abandoning all of our bases isn't one of them. For one thing, we have treaty obligations. For another thing, Ron Paul would have a lot of other matters he wants to get through Congress. 

Unlike his position as Congressman, President Paul will have to cut deals or he won't be able to get anything done. Look at Clinton. He wanted to issue a simple executive order allowing gays in the military, and he was forced to back down.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by boneyard bill View Post
> (Although it would probably reduce the foreign exchange deficit by a lot more than that and that is probably even more important than the budget deficit).
> More explanation is needed than to simply claim that the foreign exchange deficit would decrease more than $100 billion/yr AND that that's a bigger problem than the budget deficit (a point you chose to express in parentheses... why??).


I put it in parentheses because it is incidental to the issues I am raising. The Frank/Paul plan would save one hundred billion dollars a year. But that is basically the difference in cost between maintaining troops overseas as opposed to maintaining them here at home. Suppose the total cost of maintaining those troops is $300 billion a year. So we can maintain them at home for only $200 billion a year. We've saved a hundred billion a year in actual cost. But we've saved $300 billion in foreign exchange because the remaining $200 billion is being spent here instead of being spent overseas.

The reason it's more important than the budget deficit is because the dollar is on the verge of collapse. In the last decade, the amount of money accumulated by foreign governments has soared from $2 trillion to $11 trillion. Some of that is being held as a reserve for their domestic currencies, but they don't begin to need as much as they have. But they don't want to spend it here because we don't have anything they want to buy. With interest rates at zero, it doesn't make much sense to invest it here. If they spend start to spend it massively in other countries, the whole world will be awash in dollars and it will plummet in international markets. So right now they're just holding on to them. But they're still accumulating more. So how long can this last?

Once one country appears to be unloading their dollars, other countries would likely follow suit to get rid of them before the dollar goes any lower. The result is that the dollar would crash. This is the biggest problem the country faces today. It's bigger than the recession and bigger than the deficit problem. Everybody is ignoring it except Ron Paul. He's the only politician and practically the only economist that I'm aware of who has even mentioned the problem of the falling dollar. The dollar index has declined from 120 to 80 in just the last decade. Some experts are projecting that it will be at 40 by 2012. And that's even without a crash. That's just the normal trajectory.

A falling dollar means much higher prices for imports with no compensating wage increases and that means a lower standard of living for everybody.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by boneyard bill View Post
> Ron Paul favors the legalization of marijuana. So do I. But do I want Ron Paul to spend the bulk of his political capital on that issue? Definitely not. There are more important items on the table.
> It has never been the "bulk" of his political capital, and it will never be. Did you even think this through?


I said his political 'capital' not his political position. I have no idea what Ron Paul would spend the bulk of his political capital on and neither do you because Ron Paul hasn't communicated that information. But he needs to.  We need to know what his political priorities are and so does he. Governing isn't about political philosophy. It's about getting things done. He's not going to be able to do everything he wants. So what needs to be done the most? I'd like to know Ron Paul's views on that point. He needs to tell us.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by boneyard bill View Post
> Ron Paul wants to eliminate the Fed. Fine. But can you do that when you're on a fiat money system? Even RP admits that a return to the gold standard might not be feasible because we might not have enough gold to defend the price. And what should the price be? Drastically reducing the power of the Fed is probably doable in the short term but eliminating it altogether is another matter. Even Peter Schiff opposes that. Do you want to give that power back to Congress? Schiff asks.
> You're showing how little you know about this issue. This is Ron Paul's #1 issue, he talks about it all day, all night, in his sleep, on his bike rides, and when he's munching on chocolate chip cookies. He wrote a book about it, which you very obviously didn't read.


And the president has no legal or constitutional authority to get rid of the Fed. Technically, it isn't even a part of the executive branch. The Fed Chairman reports to the Congress, not the President. So how would President Paul get rid of the Fed? The answer is that he wouldn't. But he might be able to push through some very serious limitations on the Fed's powers if that was one of his priorities. But is it one of his priorities? He hasn't said.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by boneyard bill View Post
> So Ron Paul needs to establish his priorities and he needs to distinguish his long-term goals, about which he can do little in the White House, from his short-term goals which are achievable.
> You're selling himself short. You only just joined, you have only 16 posts, and that smell.... smells like you've been sitting under a bridge for years.


I was once very active in politics. I have no idea what relevance the number of posts on this board has to do with one's qualifications to discuss such issues.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by boneyard bill View Post
> But this isn't simply a matter of simplifying the message or creating catchy slogans. It is about governing, and it is about communicating how Ron Paul would actually go about that.
> Here you contradicted yourself from the beginning of the post, basically, your post was a whole lot of blah blah blah for nothing. I'm sorry to have read it.
> 
> Either you're on board or you're not. Don't question Dr. Paul's methods, he is much wiser than thou. He's doing all he can, and we need to do the same. If you prefer trolling, then we don't need you.


The problem is that this is nonsense. I don't have to check my brain at the door before posting here. And this is the last place where I would expect to be told that I have to get in lockstep with everyone else.

If I had been in a position to be able to tell President Bush to his face that he would be a complete idiot if he invaded Iraq, I would have considered that I was doing him a favor. He had gone a lot further in politics than Ron Paul had, and I suppose he might have informed me that he was a lot "wiser" than I am. 

But what LOGICAL response would he have had? 

If you think I'm wrong, argue with evidence not authority. Ron Paul may be a smart man, but that doesn't mean he can't be wrong. I consider that I am doing Ron Paul a favor in posting this although I doubt very much that he reads these posts.

----------


## boneyard bill

> A Rand Paul style campaign would not work outside of KY.  Rand can afford to simply cater to neocons.  Ron (from what I hear) ran a "Rand Paul" style campaign in his early local elections too.  Also part of the reason Rand is able to run his campaign and win is because half of his supporters think he's lying to the other half.  If Rand were running nationally he wouldn't be able to say "I'm just not going on CNN and MSNBC anymore".  And he'd have to have a broader reach than just the "tea party" crowd.  Ron's style of campaign built a broad coalition.  By contrast look at Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo's numbers.  (They ran a "Rand style" campaign in 2008).  Neither of them ever did better than Dr. Paul and now they're political has beens.  Some of the people who are sticking by Rand right now have *publically* stated they will "wait and see" how he votes in the senate.  Up until this point Rand has not had any real political record so he's a blank slate that everyone can write their hopes on.  Let's say he gets elected (very good chance of that) and lets say a vote on a war with Iran comes up.  Let's say president Obama calls Rands bluff and actually asks for a vote for declaration of war.  Then what?  Does Rand vote yes to please his teocon constituents, or does he vote no which will please his dad's base?  If he votes no and then runs for president in 2012 he'll have to *explain* that no vote somehow to the teocons.  Ron being open about what he believes didn't happen in a vacuum.  He had a voting record that he had to explain.  Hard to be "stealthy" around that.


Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter were not known as "Dr. No." They did not vote against the Iraq War or the Patriot Act. As far as I know, they never bucked their party or their president on anything. They did not begin to have the reputation for integrity that Ron Paul had. However, I am not criticizing the way Ron Paul ran his 2008 campaign. I am merely suggesting that a different approach is needed now that he could easily be ranked as a first tier candidate with a really serious chance of winning.

Rand Paul has said that he opposes the Afghan conflict, and I doubt very seriously that he would vote to fund it much less to declare war. I would be very, very disappointed in Rand if he did so.

I'm not suggesting that Ron Paul should compromise his principles. I'm just suggesting that he address practical problems in his rhetoric. It's fine to claim that the Afghan War is unconstitutional. How about also mentioning that we cannot afford it? How about pointing out that a number of generals have said that it would take 500,000 troops over there to succeed? How about pointing out that our own counter-insurgency manual (written under the supervision of General David Petreaus) calls for 1 soldier for every 50 civilians in counter-insurgency warfare? (There are 32 million Afghans. Do the math. That comes to 640,000 troops). How about asking those people who say we should "win at all costs" if they are really willing to pay that kind of cost?

----------


## boneyard bill

> Ron was percieved to be weak on national defense by republicans last time.  He needs to address that a little.  Maybe take a page out of Rand's playbook, by saying national defense is one of the major areas addressed in the Constitution.


Getting out of most of our overseas bases is one of the most important things we could do for national defense. We cannot afford the expense, but even more, we cannot afford the foreign exchange that it takes to maintain those bases. If the dollar collapses, we won't be able to afford any foreign bases and quite a few domestic ones. I think Ron Paul needs to make that point. But the point is stronger if he pledges to give up most, but not all, of our overseas bases. American forces do contribute to the political stability of a region when we don't use them. It's only when we use them that we de-stabilize a region. Eventually, it might be a good idea to withdraw from all of them, but a good deal of diplomatic groundwork would need to be done before we did that.

See also my previous post where I discuss Afghanistan. That operation is quite simply indefensible.

----------


## boneyard bill

> He needs to address his immediate goals. One of my greatest fears about Paul is that hell get to office...and be a lame duck for 4 years.


Ronald Reagan had three major priorities: cut taxes, strengthen our defenses, and de-regulate. He got them done and a little bit more. If you have 15 items at the top of your agenda, you're not likely to achieve any of them.

----------


## JeremyDahl

YouTube - Ron Paul in San Francisco - Amazing Speech!

This was this month...

I think Ron is doing fine.

----------


## civusamericanus

Change his message, I say Dr. No's message is fine! 

As president Ron Paul would likely veto all unconstitutional bills and most spending bills. This is the single issue that scares the hell out of the establishment. This is also why the RIGHT and LEFT, will do everything to keep Ron Paul from being elected. Imagine four solid years of Ron Paul with presidential Veto power, with legitimate facts backing him up.

----------


## boneyard bill

> YouTube - Ron Paul in San Francisco - Amazing Speech!
> 
> This was this month...
> 
> I think Ron is doing fine.


An excellent speech. If you could persuade a hundred million Americans to watch it, Ron Paul might very well win. Unfortunately, these days presidential elections are decided by 30-second sound bites. You don't get to explain what you mean. You have to pack it all into very short messages and repeat it over and over. It's not a very good way to choose our leaders, but it's the way we have.

----------


## JeremyDahl

30 second sound bites dont matter...

LOTS of things do... money matters almost most

----------

