# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  We must draft Ron Paul, starting over, not an option

## robertwerden

I see that some here are considering starting over with a different candidate for 2012. To me, it put us right back to the "google ron paul" days.

Remember how hard it was to get Ron Pauls name out?
Remember the vetting that had to be done to get past the lies about him and the BS?
Remember all the videos and news paper adds and constant arguing we did to defend him and educate people?

Why go through all that again for someone new????????????????????????????? 


We accomplished so much and to throw it away now is moronic. Ron gets on the news every week. He is a house hold name now. The news broadcasters who trashed him are now calling him for interviews regularly. 

If we allow him to not run, we will have spent all that time and money for nothing. We know he allows people to visit him in his office, so go see him. Lets start a draft Ron Paul campaign now before he officially says he is not running.

We need to pressure him to run, and focus on the GOP as well as pointing out the destructive nature of the Obama administration.  The Republican party is still strong and if they had honestly believed in McCain he would have won. We have the same weapon Obama had, and that is the youth vote.

Trevor where are you, this is the time to get the "draft Ron Paul" message cooking.

----------


## Primbs

I agree.

----------


## MRoCkEd

I agree.

----------


## Bruno

Agree, but this time he needs to build support then switch to 3rd party when the time is right, imo.  I know I will get hammered for that comment, and it may put his congressional seat in jeopardy, but a 3rd party can win.  

Obama gets 33%
GOP nominee gets 33% (same cast of characters that we saw last time) 
Ron gets 34% 

And full force in Iowa with many personal stops.  Do some infommercials like Perot.

----------


## JoshLowry

Agreed.

Although Bruno I couldn't even keep up with RP in Iowa.  Him not working his ass off is a misconception and I'm not sure how it got started.   

I was tired following him around at all the different places in Iowa and I didn't have to stand for hours at a time giving speeches.

----------


## robertwerden

3rd party should happen after he is in the White House.

----------


## Bruno

> Agreed.
> 
> Although Bruno I couldn't even keep up with RP in Iowa.  Him not working his ass off is a misconception and I'm not sure how it got started.   
> 
> I was tired following him around at all the different places in Iowa and I didn't have to stand for hours at a time giving speeches.


I guess I was just passing along what I had read also that he didn't campaign as much in Iowa.  I missed him here, and that is also through fault of the media, of course.  I didn't do my own research, and found him too late.   .  

Glad I'm on board now, though!  btw- Thank you and everyone else for all your hard work in Iowa and every other state.  This grassroots teamwork blows Obama's away.  

There's always more that can be done.   He got 10% here then, he can get 20% next time, especially since the economy and personal freedoms will be more of a focus.  The Iowa State Fair is huge!  Set up a booth at the front gate, and RP can greet people one the first day.  1,000,000 walk through the front gate in 10 days.  

Of course, the final decision will be his.  Does he want to go through all that again?  I bet he would, because of how much he cares for liberty and how amazed he was at all the people that he reached in the past two years.

----------


## PureCommonSense

He should run in the GOP first and build support.  If he doesn't get the nomination - it could happen if we plan ahead - and the GOP is another old-fashioned pseudo-conservative then he should run 3rd.  And himself this time...no "open 3rd party endorsements" that was lame.  Except for a few notable exceptions 3rd parties in America are a buncha losers.

----------


## torchbearer

> He should run in the GOP first and build support.  If he doesn't get the nomination - it could happen if we plan ahead - and the GOP is another old-fashioned pseudo-conservative then he should run 3rd.  And himself this time...no "open 3rd party endorsements" that was lame.  Except for a few notable exceptions 3rd parties in America are a buncha losers.


Funny, that is what the neocons say about us....

----------


## PureCommonSense

The reality is we have a two-party system.  It may not be ideal, but like it or not that's what we have to work with.  And the Republican Party is where most of our core values stand so this movement must remain a Republican movement.  End of story.  Everything else is just a waste of time.

----------


## torchbearer

> The reality is we have a two-party system.  It may not be ideal, but like it or not that's what we have to work with.  And the Republican Party is where most of our core values stand so this movement must remain a Republican movement.  End of story.  Everything else is just a waste of time.


Your wasting your vote argument.
If you don't vote for status quo you don't count.


I say, If you vote status quo, you get status quo.

----------


## PureCommonSense

> Your wasting your vote argument.
> If you don't vote for status quo you don't count.
> 
> 
> I say, If you vote status quo, you get status quo.


Don't get me wrong, I always believe in voting - that's civic duty in our democracy.  And if neither of the two candidates is good I sometimes do vote third, usually Constitution Party - after all if its a douche and a turd why not go for an apple pie that hasn't got a chance.

But that's my point, third parties rarely if EVER win - especially for president.  The closest ones ever come is Teddy Roosevelt Bull Moose in 1912 and he was a former president who had high popularity.  Voting for them sometimes is okay if its really the best option but we shouldn't make it the primary focus of our strategy or we're digging our own grave.

----------


## torchbearer

> Don't get me wrong, I always believe in voting - that's civic duty in our democracy.  And if neither of the two candidates is good I sometimes do vote third, usually Constitution Party - after all if its a douche and a turd why not go for an apple pie that hasn't got a chance.
> 
> But that's my point, third parties rarely if EVER win - especially for president.  The closest ones ever come is Teddy Roosevelt Bull Moose in 1912 and he was a former president who had high popularity.  Voting for them sometimes is okay if its really the best option but we shouldn't make it the primary focus of our strategy or we're digging our own grave.


They don't win because people keep spewing your argument.
Then people don't vote for them.
A self fulfilling prophecy.

----------


## PureCommonSense

> They don't win because people keep spewing your argument.
> Then people don't vote for them.
> A self fulfilling prophecy.


My "argument" is the way the world works.  I'm not saying its a good thing, but we have to change what we can within the context of the world.

Serenity Prayer:
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.

Ron Paul's philosophy of freedom is something we can spread, if we have the courage to.  But the two-party system is something we must have the serenity to accept, at least in the short term.

----------


## torchbearer

> My "argument" is the way the world works.  I'm not saying its a good thing, but we have to change what we can within the context of the world.
> 
> Serenity Prayer:
> God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
> 
> Ron Paul's philosophy of freedom is something we can spread, if we have the courage to.  But the two-party system is something we must have the serenity to accept, at least in the short term.



Self-fulfilling prophecy, you are doomed to suffer from the same government.
Enjoy it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

"Always vote for principle. Though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." — President John Quincy Adams

----------


## PaleoPaul

But guys, the "others" that "we" (not you guys, but others) may want aren't unknown.  They've already gained some national notoriety.  

So, it wouldn't be as hard to have to get their names out as it would have for Dr. Paul.

----------


## mstrmac1

*I Agree someone start a site to draft Ron Paul 2012 ... I think he is waiting on us to tell him. Lets do this!!!*

----------


## enjoiskaterguy

dispite whatever people may say to make Ron Paul look like he can't run because of his age, or because of the other candidates runnning, or the current times, or the Obama factor, I will still suppport ONLY Ron Paul in 2012 for president.

----------


## enjoiskaterguy

> *I Agree someone start a site to draft Ron Paul 2012 ... I think he is waiting on us to tell him. Lets do this!!!*



yes...a draft ron paul site must be made...I know trevor lyman isw doing some lame $5 dollers for freedom deal, but I think becuase of his name recognition in the money bomb world, he should create this website.  I also encourage anyone with web design skills to do it to.  Lets do this thing.

----------


## enjoiskaterguy

> Your wasting your vote argument.
> If you don't vote for status quo you don't count.
> 
> 
> I say, If you vote status quo, you get status quo.


I think you are misreading what the poster had meant.  Like Ron Paul, he too is a member of the Republican Party, so if you think that party is of status-quo, then you must think that Ron Paul too, is of the same.  That my friend is a double standard...maybe you didn't mean that though.  My point is this...If we are to change our government, we most first work within the confines of our limits, then we will be able to expand TRUE conserative/Libertarian/Free-thinking ideals and change the system.  Your rowing upstream without a paddle if you use the third party system for the most part...more if the specific area, or state is generally liberal or conservative.  The campaign for Liberty sees this too.  We have to use the Republican party, Get it back to its roots and spread what the REAL truths and values are to be upheld in our nation if we are to be free.

----------


## torchbearer

> I think you are misreading what the poster had meant.  Like Ron Paul, he too is a member of the Republican Party, so if you think that party is of status-quo, then you must think that Ron Paul too, is of the same.  That my friend is a double standard...maybe you didn't mean that though.  My point is this...If we are to change our government, we most first work within the confines of our limits, then we will be able to expand TRUE conserative/Libertarian/Free-thinking ideals and change the system.  Your rowing upstream without a paddle if you use the third party system for the most part...more if the specific area, or state is generally liberal or conservative.  The campaign for Liberty sees this too.  We have to use the Republican party, Get it back to its roots and spread what the REAL truths and values are to be upheld in our nation if we are to be free.


I'm working within the GOP at the detriment of the LALP.
Get that straight.

I vote for the principled candidate, regardless of his party affiliation, and regardless of the 'he can't win' bull$#@!.

If you vote republican, regardless of who is running... then you are apart of the problem.

----------


## ForLiberty-RonPaul

> My "argument" is the way the world works.  I'm not saying its a good thing, but we have to change what we can within the context of the world.
> 
> Serenity Prayer:
> God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
> 
> Ron Paul's philosophy of freedom is something we can spread, if we have the courage to.  But the two-party system is something we must have the serenity to accept, at least in the short term.


wow. that is a really good piece of manipulation there.  good stuff .....FOR ME TO POOP ON!

I choose to have the courage to change it and hope that my wisdom is just that and not some flawed douchebaggery.

----------


## amonasro

I think the GOP is our best chance.  It's still a long shot, but we stand a better chance of our ideas getting out than with a third party.  If we went third party: little to no MSM coverage, no debates, no support from current GOP members... the list goes on.

Bottom line, I think the positives outweigh the negatives.  Besides I don't believe Ron even wants to run third party.

I also agree we need someone like Trevor (with his amazing email list) to start a draft Ron Paul 2012 site.  Think how amazing the results would be if we started this far out.

----------


## mstrmac1

If someone can build the site.... I will fund it!!! lets get this going.

----------


## FourTwenty666

I agree with everything. Things are still not going good, Obama is not making good on many even basic promises he made, it's time for REAL CHANGE 2012. 

I too believe Ron Paul is the only guy for the job. It would be such a shame that such a brilliant, articulate, and honest man could be robbed of the opportunity to be the best president we ever had. 

I agree that we need to try to work with the republican party. Ron is getting on TV alot, and is becoming known, he needs to use this to his advantage. He needs to run republican 2012 the same way he did this year, go to the debates and everything, because it will be the best chance we have at getting this great man elected president. He needs to bring the republican party back to it's real roots, as everyone else has said, and stop letting the neo-cons ruin what this party once stood for!

 I also agree with him not dropping out of the race just because he didn't get the republican seat, but I still think he should shoot for that at first.

----------


## Suzu

I say, *Ron Paul 2012*

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> The reality is we have a two-party system.  It may not be ideal, but like it or not that's what we have to work with.  And the Republican Party is where most of our core values stand so this movement must remain a Republican movement.  End of story.  Everything else is just a waste of time.


Alright, so is the Republican Party a.k.a. the GOP ready to nominate Ron Paul? This is the same party which refused him a speaking role at the convention labelled him a kook, marginalized his base, pulled the plug on his delegates, is berated by every GOP mouthpiece (Rush etc...) let alone the state level shenanigans which occured on vote counts. The GOP has flatly rejected Ron Paul and his supporters. They will not endorse or support him because doing so will be an admission that they (the GOP) made a huge mistake backing McCain. This they will NOT do. It would be a flat out admission that the entire platform they are running on is similar to the Democrats because Ron Paul's platform exposes the exact likeless in which the two party system runs upon. Both parties like big government but spend it on what they like. That threatens them and thier livlihood which they will not give up. Personnally, I'd like to see Ron Paul do a third party run, I've had it with the GOP & Dems.

----------


## FourTwenty666

> Alright, so is the Republican Party a.k.a. the GOP ready to nominate Ron Paul? This is the same party which refused him a speaking role at the convention labelled him a kook, marginalized his base, pulled the plug on his delegates, is berated by every GOP mouthpiece (Rush etc...) let alone the state level shenanigans which occured on vote counts. The GOP has flatly rejected Ron Paul and his supporters. They will not endorse or support him because doing so will be an admission that they (the GOP) made a huge mistake backing McCain. This they will NOT do. It would be a flat out admission that the entire platform they are running on is similar to the Democrats because Ron Paul's platform exposes the exact likeless in which the two party system runs upon. Both parties like big government but spend it on what they like. That threatens them and thier livlihood which they will not give up. Personnally, I'd like to see Ron Paul do a third party run, I've had it with the GOP & Dems.


Very true. But do you not think that by 2012 that the repubs won't be even a little willing to admit their mistakes and bring the party back to its roots with Dr. Paul? Can you imagine what that would do for our country and the republican party if they managed to push real republican ideals with Dr. Paul and brought the party back to what it stands for and what some still claim it stands for?

I mean I hear people on Fox News all the time talking about bringing the party back to its roots. Sean Hannity even said something on TV today about bringing the party back to its real conservative roots. I know what he says is worth pretty much about the same as what comes out of my anus, but, still its a start and if it can be done, and if the repubs decide to give Ron more coverage and start acting like they really wanna be real conservatives, then it would be a good thing.

You would think after losing to Obama so terribly and having such a terrible candidate who was pretty much mocked the whole campaign, it would be obvious they need to make these changes. The simple outcome of this election already proved how stupid they were and how wrong they are in their current views. It shows the public wasn't buying it.

----------


## PureCommonSense

He MUST run as a Republican again.  That is the only strategy worth considering in that regard.  Maybe then do a third party campaign if the GOP nominee is terrible.

Ron Paul is currently the only guy who can represent the ideas of Liberty in the same way we're used to.  Some new faces are emerging, but they do not have the same recognition yet.  I thought that Bob Barr might have been a new symbol in the last general election and garnered at least 5-10% of the vote, but unfortunately people did not unite decisively behind him.

----------


## fedup100

We need to get it sorted out right now before they take over his r3volution.

----------


## RickyJ

> Agreed.
> 
> Although Bruno I couldn't even keep up with RP in Iowa.  Him not working his ass off is a misconception and I'm not sure how it got started.   
> 
> I was tired following him around at all the different places in Iowa and I didn't have to stand for hours at a time giving speeches.


He is a hard worker, it was his campaign staff that seemed to drop the ball. He was responsible for them.

----------


## PureCommonSense

We need to go hard out in NH this time.  The reason I heard from a legitimate political strategist that he did not do well in NH in 2008 is that he did not spend enough time there, as the other candidates did.  Thats what you gotta do to win in New Hampshire!

----------


## idiom

He needs a lot more high profile surrogates this time. He needs endorsements. The Gop is getting pretty desperate this time around.

All in all we are better organised. It is time to start the three year campaign. We go in and use the 2010 elections to springboard directly into 2012. We puch Congressional replacements as "Ron Paul" Republicans, and have an excuse to start sticking his name everywhere right now.

Freedom Can Save Us. Ron Paul 2012!

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> Very true. But do you not think that by 2012 that the repubs won't be even a little willing to admit their mistakes and bring the party back to its roots with Dr. Paul? Can you imagine what that would do for our country and the republican party if they managed to push real republican ideals with Dr. Paul and brought the party back to what it stands for and what some still claim it stands for?
> 
> I mean I hear people on Fox News all the time talking about bringing the party back to its roots. Sean Hannity even said something on TV today about bringing the party back to its real conservative roots. I know what he says is worth pretty much about the same as what comes out of my anus, but, still its a start and if it can be done, and if the repubs decide to give Ron more coverage and start acting like they really wanna be real conservatives, then it would be a good thing.
> 
> You would think after losing to Obama so terribly and having such a terrible candidate who was pretty much mocked the whole campaign, it would be obvious they need to make these changes. The simple outcome of this election already proved how stupid they were and how wrong they are in their current views. It shows the public wasn't buying it.


I see your point. I hear them speak as well but frankly I'm not buying it. If they are indeed sincere about changing the GOP (assuming it's worth it) then the GOP needs to give the boot to it's leadership and that's just for starters. I honestly see very little "change" (ugh I used that word) as in the recent election of Steele as the RNC chair. Not to mention all the regular players are still there, Hannity, O'Riely, Rush, Coulter, Lara, et al. They want a new face but one which they can mold. To that end I think it would be a mistake for Ron Paul to stick with a party which has deviated so far from what it is suppose to represent not unlike our government, yes? If he bolted and went independent or third I think it would boost his stance by the fact that he will always stand on principle rather than politics. IF Ron Paul decided to run as a GOP candidate he also has to carry around the eight years of baggage left by George Bush which we all know single handedly nearly destroyed the GOP. Dr Paul would be enetering a campaign having to defend the GOP and the BS of the Bush years and try to get the freedom message across to millions of voters. A double wammy! I think it would be easier and probably serve just as well vote turnout wise if he ran Independent. If you mention third party people freak out but are more friendly to the Independent label for whatever reasons. Who knows after the BS from Obama most Americans are going to be ready for the Independent Party, or perhaps the Libertarians.

----------


## Beanie_N

The GOP leadership is the problem.  As a lifelong Republican, I had always believed the party was based on consrvative/libitarian principles but now I am seeing that with the current leadership, it does not.  Anyways, it is the leadership that is the problem, not the party itself.

I guarantee you that up to 90% of the conserative base will vote for Paul if he is doing well, and the leadership will be forced to change to fit the base.  If he is not nominated though, he should run third party and get like 10-15% of the vote.

The conservative base is hungry for a change in the party regardless of the leadership.  I honestly believe he has a good shot at winning the nomination if he does it right, and we need to start now.  We need a website soon, too.

We also need a cool logo.  Like a spade, or two muskets crossed.

----------


## jake

agreed. Paul or bust in 2012.

----------


## eok321



----------


## Badger Paul

Agreed. I know he'll be 76 by 2012 but no one else right now either can fill Paul's role nor keep us united like him. Otherwise we'll be split into different candidacies once again like last fall. If he's got one more left in him he should give it a shot. Maybe he doesn't beat Obama but at least he could change American politics.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Agreed.
> 
> Although Bruno I couldn't even keep up with RP in Iowa.  Him not working his ass off is a misconception and I'm not sure how it got started.   
> 
> I was tired following him around at all the different places in Iowa and I didn't have to stand for hours at a time giving speeches.


he visited the state of Iowa about 1/10 as often as the others.  The furthest East he got was Iowa City and he completely ignored the second largest market in Iowa.

He spent a ton of money in the last week...too late to gain any real buzz.

I posted a link over a year ago that dotted a map of all the campaign visits.  That link showed with no uncertainty that Ron Paul was the least active candidate by far.

----------


## rp08orbust

I agree that Ron Paul is still our best hope for 2012.  But I just wish Ron Paul could give a decisive answer to the question of whether he will run again, one way or the other, because if we are going to start over, we need to start now.  We need to be at the "Google Gary Johnson" stage (or Google whoever) _now_, not in the summer of 2011 when the three tiers of candidates will already be declared by the MSM.  Our candidate needs to already be regarded as a serious contender by then, and our work needs to be convincing voters that he is the best candidate to save our country, not struggling with name recognition.

And if our candidate is going to be Ron Paul, then we need to be working on winning over Iowans right now.  I agree with Doug Wead in http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/1...2012-step-one/ .  If Ron Paul is going to win the Republican nomination, it's going to take a game-changing upset, the winning of the Iowa Caucus.  And that will require winning the Ames Straw Poll (Pat Robertson won it in 1987, for crying out loud!).  And to do that, I think we must win the 2010 and 2011 CPAC straw polls for Ron Paul in order to generate the attention and news narrative that we need, which is that the Republican Party, in its desperation, is turning back to its roots.

Winning the CPAC straw polls seems extremely doable.  How hard can it be to get 500 of us there next year when we can fill auditoriums in Philadelpia or St Louis?  Please vote in this poll: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186253

----------


## nayjevin

> We need to go hard out in NH this time.  The reason I heard from a legitimate political strategist that he did not do well in NH in 2008 is that he did not spend enough time there, as the other candidates did.  Thats what you gotta do to win in New Hampshire!


I do not trust the vote results in New Hampshire.  Kook as I may be, paper ballots initiative is just as important as anything else we do, IMO

----------


## rp08orbust

> We need to go hard out in NH this time.  The reason I heard from a legitimate political strategist that he did not do well in NH in 2008 is that he did not spend enough time there, as the other candidates did.  Thats what you gotta do to win in New Hampshire!


While I don't think Ron Paul is too old to be president, he may be too old "to go hard out in NH" and elsewhere like younger candidates can.  Ron was starting to look exhausted by the end of December 2007 with what campaigning (allegedly not much) he did do, so I wouldn't expect him to intensify his efforts in 2011.

Which brings us back to the necessity of starting early:  Early if it's going to be another lesser-known candidate like Gary Johnson (I think even Mark Sanford is lesser-known than Ron Paul at this point), and early if it's going to be Ron Paul himself so that he can take a more gentle pace.  We will need to be the ones going hard out in IA, NH etc.

----------


## CareerTech1

Ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul

----------


## Nathan Hale

> While I don't think Ron Paul is too old to be president


The age issue isn't about whether the candidate is too old to successfully execute the functions of the job, it's about whether the people PERCEIVE HIM TO BE too old to execute the functions of the job.

Unfortunately, for "the people" it seems as though 70 is the upper limit for a Presidential candidate.  Paul and McCain both got clobbered last time around for their age, and that's when the challenge was "on inauguration day you'd be as old as any president who ever took office".  In 2012 the challenge will be "dr paul, you're 4 years older than any president ever to take office".  It's a tough hurdle to bring people over.

But you're right, introducing a new name, especially so perfect a candidate as Gary Johnson, is tough and takes time.  Which is why it's important that we get over the cult of personality and move to expand this into a real movement rather than just idol worship at the altar of Dr. Paul.  The Reform Party failed because they passed at the opportunity to become a real party and instead went to Ross Perot in 1996, let's not make the same mistake.

----------


## LibertasPraesidium

I agree, there is this feeling in the political realm that if people don't stand up to find a candidate one maybe chosen for us to lead the "movement" in our name. 

This is what I see Glenn becks program doing, It would be so nice to know that the media would actually be truthful, if people are to position them selves as the bearer of the flag they need to really deserve it.  I find it hard to believe that Beck would actually have a "wake up" on air.  

Too good to be true maybe.  There is Gary Johnson and Ill look into that.  We can get things rolling so as soon as we have a person to push we can. full out.

----------


## Imperial

I don't think Ron Paul is the best candidate because when he wins the nomination he won't beat Obama.

Why? It is simple: The newsletters. It doesn't matter if they are not in fact valid or not; many voters will not be able to get over them. This is especially true against a black candidate like Obama.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> I don't think Ron Paul is the best candidate because when he wins the nomination he won't beat Obama.
> 
> Why? It is simple: The newsletters. It doesn't matter if they are not in fact valid or not; many voters will not be able to get over them. This is especially true against a black candidate like Obama.


And let's not forget that Obama could talk a ring around Ron Paul.  Paul has awesome theory, and he's great about not always talking from a script, but when he talks off the cuff (i.e. debates), he's not the most articulate.  He misses many slam dunks and offers to his opponents many weak spots.  We saw it in the 2007 debate season and I even see it today when I watch Paul on all the cable news shows.

----------


## TheTyke

> And let's not forget that Obama could talk a ring around Ron Paul.  Paul has awesome theory, and he's great about not always talking from a script, but when he talks off the cuff (i.e. debates), he's not the most articulate.  He misses many slam dunks and offers to his opponents many weak spots.  We saw it in the 2007 debate season and I even see it today when I watch Paul on all the cable news shows.


Actually, I would disagree with this. Obama, for all his polish, relies heavily on teleprompters. He would be at a disadvantage vs. Paul in an unscripted debated. That said, they're partially scripted from what I understand. Call me an idealist, but I think an Obama vs. Paul debate would be amazing - smooth-talk-rhetoric vs. simple and undeniable truth.

Don't forget, the public barely had a chance to hear Paul's message in 2008. If it actually came down to a showdown of nominees, it would be that much harder to keep that common sense from being heard.

Edit: And quite frankly, I agree with the poster of this thread. I don't see how we can start over either, much less with someone that we ourselves have trouble trusting, like Sanford.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Actually, I would disagree with this. Obama, for all his polish, relies heavily on teleprompters. He would be at a disadvantage vs. Paul in an unscripted debated. That said, they're partially scripted from what I understand. Call me an idealist, but I think an Obama vs. Paul debate would be amazing - smooth-talk-rhetoric vs. simple and undeniable truth.


Smooth-talk rhetoric beats truth, unfortunately.  Because while smooth-talk rhetoric comes off as smooth, the truth takes a lot of explanation.  In the case of the truths that Ron Paul communicates, it takes a LOT of explanation.




> Don't forget, the public barely had a chance to hear Paul's message in 2008. If it actually came down to a showdown of nominees, it would be that much harder to keep that common sense from being heard.


Oh, it certainly would.  And I acknowledge the possibility of it coming out, but speaking specifically of the two men doing the talking, Obama talks a ring around Ron Paul.  Now, if Gary Johnson or Mark Sanford was doing the talking, it might be a different story.




> Edit: And quite frankly, I agree with the poster of this thread. I don't see how we can start over either, much less with someone that we ourselves have trouble trusting, like Sanford.


So $#@! Sanford and go with Gary Johnson or whomever else emerges as a liberty movement contender.  It's not about starting over.  Any serious movement HAS to get past the cult of personality or it's over.  I tell you this as FACT - if we base this movement on Ron Paul, as he himself has warned us numerous times not to, we will fail.  This movement needs to be larger than the one man.  The Reform Party is perfect example of this.  They had their opportunity in 1996 to evolve into a true political party by nominating a different candidate, but Perot played his cards, they turned into a cult of personality, and the whole thing collapsed.  This is not about Ron Paul.  This is about the cause of liberty and who best stands a chance of putting us in a better position to have liberty.

----------


## torchbearer

> I agree that Ron Paul is still our best hope for 2012.  But I just wish Ron Paul could give a decisive answer to the question of whether he will run again, one way or the other, because if we are going to start over, we need to start now.  We need to be at the "Google Gary Johnson" stage (or Google whoever) _now_, not in the summer of 2011 when the three tiers of candidates will already be declared by the MSM.  Our candidate needs to already be regarded as a serious contender by then, and our work needs to be convincing voters that he is the best candidate to save our country, not struggling with name recognition.
> 
> And if our candidate is going to be Ron Paul, then we need to be working on winning over Iowans right now.  I agree with Doug Wead in http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/1...2012-step-one/ .  If Ron Paul is going to win the Republican nomination, it's going to take a game-changing upset, the winning of the Iowa Caucus.  And that will require winning the Ames Straw Poll (Pat Robertson won it in 1987, for crying out loud!).  And to do that, I think we must win the 2010 and 2011 CPAC straw polls for Ron Paul in order to generate the attention and news narrative that we need, which is that the Republican Party, in its desperation, is turning back to its roots.
> 
> Winning the CPAC straw polls seems extremely doable.  How hard can it be to get 500 of us there next year when we can fill auditoriums in Philadelpia or St Louis?  Please vote in this poll: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186253




If he announced tonight that he was going to run... he wouldn't have another televised appearance.

----------


## nate895

> The age issue isn't about whether the candidate is too old to successfully execute the functions of the job, it's about whether the people PERCEIVE HIM TO BE too old to execute the functions of the job.
> 
> Unfortunately, for "the people" it seems as though 70 is the upper limit for a Presidential candidate.  Paul and McCain both got clobbered last time around for their age, and that's when the challenge was "on inauguration day you'd be as old as any president who ever took office".  In 2012 the challenge will be "dr paul, you're 4 years older than any president ever to take office".  It's a tough hurdle to bring people over.
> 
> But you're right, introducing a new name, especially so perfect a candidate as Gary Johnson, is tough and takes time.  Which is why it's important that we get over the cult of personality and move to expand this into a real movement rather than just idol worship at the altar of Dr. Paul.  The Reform Party failed because they passed at the opportunity to become a real party and instead went to Ross Perot in 1996, let's not make the same mistake.


Gary Johnson believes in permits, not liberty. He is far from perfect.

You are right about the age issue, it is about public perception. If he hits the campaign trail hard and appears young, the age issue won't come up. McCain's problem was health and age. There was an inordinate likelihood that he could get sick while President and possibly die. Ron Paul is older than McCain and I barely ever heard his age mentioned. If anything it will be a benefit in the primaries because he will be the wise old man, and as long as Obama's policies don't do so hot, he can win in the general. It might be a good idea for him to make a one-term pledge or something. So long as he picks a good heir for VP, I can't see a problem in that.

----------


## rp08orbust

> It might be a good idea for him to make a one-term pledge or something. So long as he picks a good heir for VP, I can't see a problem in that.


Has picking one's VP before winning the nomination ever been done before?  It might be a good idea.  If he explicitly referred to his running mate as his heir after one term, that could neutralize the age issue in the nominating contest.

The problem is that the strategy of partisan politics requires you to nominate someone who will be an incumbent for the same office 4 years later.

----------


## amonasro

> If he announced tonight that he was going to run... he wouldn't have another televised appearance.


This is a good point. I wonder how we get around that? I mean, if he's gonna do it, he has to do it soon. But when he announces, wave goodbye to MSM coverage. Timing is critical.

----------


## rp08orbust

> This is a good point. I wonder how we get around that? I mean, if he's gonna do it, he has to do it soon. But when he announces, wave goodbye to MSM coverage. Timing is critical.


Anyone know when we can expect to find out whether Andrew Napolitano gets his own Fox News show?  If Ron Paul can get a solid ideological ally on Fox News (not just a few secret admirers like Neil Cavuto) and the Constitution starts making money for Rupert Murdoch, next time could be different, at least as far as Fox News is concerned.

----------


## mstrmac1

he is going to run .... I read "the secret" its laws of attraction. I already can see his announcement in front of the Federal Reserve after HR 1207 passes. 

Its True!

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Gary Johnson believes in permits, not liberty. He is far from perfect.


Define "perfect".  I'd bet that many of us have different ideas of what constitutes "perfect" in politics.




> You are right about the age issue, it is about public perception. If he hits the campaign trail hard and appears young, the age issue won't come up. McCain's problem was health and age.


We've already seen that this isn't true.  Paul was confronted during news interviews and (if I'm not mistaken) during a debate (where he was co-criticized with McCain for his age).  The numbers are what drive the criticism.  Obviously Paul is energetic and youthful at heart, but the numbers are what the media covers.  That's why they spoke during the 2007 primary in terms like "as old as any president to ever take the inaugural address" when referring to McCain and Paul.  This time around for Paul it will be even worse, as he'll be four years older than any president to ever take the inaugural address.

----------


## anaconda

> Agree, but this time he needs to build support then switch to 3rd party when the time is right, imo.  I know I will get hammered for that comment, and it may put his congressional seat in jeopardy, but a 3rd party can win.  
> 
> Obama gets 33%
> GOP nominee gets 33% (same cast of characters that we saw last time) 
> Ron gets 34% 
> 
> And full force in Iowa with many personal stops.  Do some infommercials like Perot.



I think this is the right approach. We also need some slick Madison Avenue public relations firm to handle RP. Not the people from the official campaign in 2007-08. Paul might do more damage as a VP candidate and simultaneously do an end-run around the age issue. Maybe with Ventura or (no joke) Palin. Palin could even nab the Libertarian nomination and, with Ron Paul, easily prevent the GOP from winning. This will be obvious early on, and will result in mass defection from the Republican Party, i.e. those that previously voted party line because they wanted to vote for someone "who could win." When they realize that NO GOP nominee can win, it will induce a slingshot effect. If she parrots the Ron Paul Revolution platform she will draw many disaffected Obama voters. Palin/Paul Libertarian ticket 39%. Democrat ticket 34%. Republican ticket 27%. Ventura/Paul has potential, but may be seen as more of a novelty. Palin will have pull witht he current Republican base. I think there is a possibility that she is not owned, and may seize on the opportunity.

Unfortunately, this still puts the election into the House of Representatives. This might be tricky with a Democrat majority.

----------


## kathy88

> If he announced tonight that he was going to run... he wouldn't have another televised appearance.




I don't believe that. He's gained too much momentum. People that laughed at me a year ago are apologizing.

----------


## RickyJ

> Agreed.
> 
> Although Bruno I couldn't even keep up with RP in Iowa.  Him not working his ass off is a misconception and I'm not sure how it got started.   
> 
> I was tired following him around at all the different places in Iowa and I didn't have to stand for hours at a time giving speeches.


Ron Paul rides his bike everyday. He is in better shape than most 20 year olds. The guy could easily live over 100 and still be active.

----------


## mstrmac1

I Know he is running ... Trust me!

----------


## rp08orbust

> I Know he is running ... Trust me!


Mmkay.

----------


## MyLibertyStuff

Ron Paul 2012

----------


## mstrmac1

Let It Be!

----------


## Tom Holton

Amen! We must hope hes still "around" in 2012

I also hoped we could unite around Barr, but it didn't happen. 

We must get the message out to people new to Ron Paul as well so we can have twice the numbers as we started with in 08!

----------


## ctiger2

Ron Paul MUST run for 2012.

----------


## kathy88

> 3rd party should happen after he is in the White House.



HOW COOL WOULD THAT BE. Win as a pub and then be like.... ummm.... I'm switching my party affiliation kids.... LMAO.

----------


## TortoiseDream

This has to happen. A Paul vs. Obama debate would be laughable, popcorn worthy.

----------


## scandinaviany3

> I see that some here are considering starting over with a different candidate for 2012. To me, it put us right back to the "google ron paul" days.
> 
> Remember how hard it was to get Ron Pauls name out?
> Remember the vetting that had to be done to get past the lies about him and the BS?
> Remember all the videos and news paper adds and constant arguing we did to defend him and educate people?
> 
> Why go through all that again for someone new????????????????????????????? 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed

----------


## Flash

Ron Paul + Gary Johnson is the obvious solution to me. Have them both running. When the time comes, either one will drop out and support each other.

----------


## limequat

No one can take up the torch at the moment:

Bob Barr?  He's shown his true colors.
Sanford?  Hahaha
Johnson?  He too, cheated on his wife.  

No one else has the integrity and experience.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Bob Barr?  He's shown his true colors.


Which are?  During the libertarian race, he always held a nice, libertarian, moderate platform.  Has he changed since then?




> Johnson?  He too, cheated on his wife.


Could you please verify that Johnson cheated on his wife?  The only thing I find is a news article that never actually says he cheated, it just said that they had separated and he took up with a new girlfriend.  That's a far cry from cheating.  So if you have a better link, could you please post it here?

----------


## Andrew-Austin

> Which are? During the libertarian race, he always held a nice, libertarian, moderate platform. Has he changed since then?


People started accusing him of being satan after he ditched Ron Paul's party for the bipartisan pimpage of third parties.

----------


## Imperial

I would really like to see Gary Johnson as a VP at this point.

I like DeMint for president provided he took the right VP, like Johnson or Paul.

I'd like to see Paul run for president again, but I don't think he would win.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

oh and @ this entire thread: because putting all your eggs in one basket is always a good idea, and entrusting the future in the hands of one man always tends to work out well.

----------


## Flash

> Which are? During the libertarian race, he always held a nice, libertarian, moderate platform. Has he changed since then?


He was caught licking whipcream off of women, denying 'racists' their right to support the bob barr campaign[/URL] (Ron Paul never dictated his supports political views & even had WNs donate to him without him returning it), not showing up to Ron Paul's conference with Nader & Baldwin. Never to mind the stunts he pulled in office.

Sounds like the perfect guy! Never to mind there was a creepy cult-following here on RPF around this deformed rev. wright look-a-like, they believe Barr could absolutely do no wrong.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> He was caught licking whipcream off of women


For charity.




> denying 'racists' their right to support the bob barr campaign[/URL] (Ron Paul never dictated his supports political views & even had WNs donate to him without him returning it)


A difference of opinion on an issue where one could argue for either position and be in the moral right.




> not showing up to Ron Paul's conference with Nader & Baldwin


He had other things to do.




> Never to mind the stunts he pulled in office


People change.




> Sounds like the perfect guy! Never to mind there was a creepy cult-following here on RPF around this they believe Barr could absolutely do no wrong.


Seen the same thing for Ron Paul.  Shall we throw him under a bus as well?

----------


## Matthew Zak

This time he shouldn't rule out running as a 3rd party, should he fail to get the GOP nomination. And during his campaign I'd like to see him say, "Well, I am a libertarian republican, that's no secret. The country needs to hear this message. So I will take whatever road necessary to get on stage and deliver this message, whether it's as a republican, democrat, libertarian, what have you."

----------


## Dorfsmith

Unless somebody I can support steps up soon I will be putting a Ron Paul 2012 bumper sticker on my car.

----------


## AbolishTheGovt

If Ron Paul decides to run again, I will support him wholeheartedly, but there is a VERY good chance--especially considering his age and his wife's poor health--that he will not run again. Given that great possibility, we need to be prepared with another candidate waiting in the wings, and we need to make sure that that backup candidate has the name recognition and the electability and the support to win. 

We also need to keep in mind that running another, younger presidential candidate in 2012 does not mean abandoning Ron Paul altogether--Ron Paul, with his newfound fame and nationwide respect, will obviously have to play a large part in promoting whichever candidate we support in 2012 (perhaps even as Vice Presidential candidate).

I love Ron Paul, and he will always get my vote before anyone else, but it would be irresponsible to just sit back and not promote any other potential candidates and hope for the maybe-10-20% chance that Ron Paul will actually run again.

Personally, I think Gary Johnson would be a fantastic choice (and the whispers going around are, Ron Paul thinks so too).

----------


## Sandra

If Ron Paul ran again, support would be tremendous.

----------


## teamrican1

> If Ron Paul ran again, support would be tremendous.


  And if Gary Johnson went on a stage an announced his candidacy with Ron Paul by his side, the support would be just as tremendous for him.  Some of you in this thread are displaying a mindset which is disturbingly close to a cult of personality, which is exactly what Ron Paul _didn't_ want to create.  Ron Paul is the best elected politician in America, but let's face it- he isn't the greatest candidate in the world.  He's no spring chicken anymore.  He often garbles or confuses his statements in interviews.  We understand him because we know the message and know what he's trying to say, but others don't.  He isn't the best voice of the movement for the uninitiated.  And though he's and his staff seem to have campaigning in his rural Texas district down pat, their competence at the national level is dubious at best.  I'd rather have a fresh, creative, competent team behind a new candidate than watch Jesse Benton give us more "He's catching on, I'm tellin' ya" spots.

----------


## Nathan Hale

Agreed.  The cult of personality killed the Reform Party, and it's going to kill this movement.  Ron Paul himself made it a point to let everyone know that this was not about him, but about the message.  He knows that a movement gains credibility when it brings a new, quality candidate to the table and loses credibility when it focuses on a single individual.  We would be in a three party system today if Ross Perot hadn't fought off Dick Lamm (a former governor of Colorado) to get the Reform Party nomination in 1996.

----------


## robertwerden

For the supporters of Ron, if someone else was endorsed to take his place and he was qualified im sure allot of us would support him. However the process of getting the new name out would be the problem, and rank and file republicans would need to be convinced.

Having Ron run again is the only way to avoid the getting to know you part that we spent nearly a year doing.

Like I said starting over is not an option

----------


## torchbearer

what killed the reform party was a lack of principles.
no one could tell you what the $#@! they were for... it changed with whoever was leading it.

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> He should run in the GOP first and build support.  If he doesn't get the nomination - it could happen if we plan ahead - and the GOP is another old-fashioned pseudo-conservative then he should run 3rd.  And himself this time...no "open 3rd party endorsements" that was lame.  Except for a few notable exceptions 3rd parties in America are a buncha losers.


The Republican Party was the third party when Lincoln won.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> what killed the reform party was a lack of principles.
> no one could tell you what the $#@! they were for... it changed with whoever was leading it.


I disagree.  They had a platform and everything.  Variety within the party was present, but that is necessary in ANY party with a large enough base to have an effect in big races.  What killed the Reform Party was that it was portrayed in the media simply as a vehicle for Ross Perot, rather than as a genuine vehicle for change, and that happened solely because Perot insisted on being the nominee in 96 rather than allowing the party to develop into a larger entity.

----------


## justinc.1089

I agree that it would be bad if this stays solely with Ron Paul, but if Ron Paul ran again he would have a tremendously powerful campaign this time. I wouldn't support a third run even if it was possible if he was younger, because if he didn't win the second time it would be unlikely he would win the third time, and we would be stuck on Ron Paul. 

But I think he should run again, and then we change to someone else.

However, I still think the best idea is to have Paul, Sanford, and Johnson ALL three running.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> I agree that it would be bad if this stays solely with Ron Paul, but if Ron Paul ran again he would have a tremendously powerful campaign this time. I wouldn't support a third run even if it was possible if he was younger, because if he didn't win the second time it would be unlikely he would win the third time, and we would be stuck on Ron Paul. 
> 
> But I think he should run again, and then we change to someone else.
> 
> However, I still think the best idea is to have Paul, Sanford, and Johnson ALL three running.


You're aware that Sanford is disgraced and under investigation, right?

----------


## justinc.1089

> You're aware that Sanford is disgraced and under investigation, right?


Yeah of course, although not really investigation so much. Basically they checked to see if he used tax money for going to argentina, which he probably did because he said its a common practice in sc among governors that has never been enforced, but SC's SLED said he did nothing criminal. Of course Sanford appointed the guy in charge so he's probably returning the favor, but Sanford re-payed the money to the state anyway, which wasn't a tremendous amount as far as I know, like $500 I think. The way I see it, and everyone around here I talk to, is that its a personal issue between him and his wife, and he used tax money to pay for an expense on a personal trip for a plane ticket or something that has been done by other governors in SC for forever, and never stopped by anyone. I'm doubtful he would have done that though if he wasn't trying to keep his affair secret from his wife.

I mean honestly its not that big of a deal, TONS of people have affairs and end up divorced too. Giuliani has had like 57 wives and still ran and no one cared too much about that.

The money issue is a small issue, but at the same time a real one too.

----------


## dr. hfn

Ron paul 2012!

we have a base, we have an infastructure, we have name recognition, we have dedication, we have experience, we have been proven right!

Get Jesse Ventura, Gary Johnson, Rand, Schiff, Tom Woods, etc...to campaign for Ron.

----------


## Matthew Zak

You guys, get real. He'll be 76 then, which means at the end of the first term he'd be 80. At the age of 72 the man barely had anything left down the stretch, as good of health as he was in. Besides, if we're still hanging our hopes on ONE guy 3 years from now that will mean our movement didn't 'move' very much, or very many. 

I don't just hope, I expect that we will have recruited or opened the minds of several more inspiring people to stand at a podiums of various levels in every state to give them hell. Ron Paul has already done more than we should expect. If this country is going to be saved, it's on us now.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Yeah of course, although not really investigation so much. Basically they checked to see if he used tax money for going to argentina, which he probably did because he said its a common practice in sc among governors that has never been enforced, but SC's SLED said he did nothing criminal.


Apparently not, since it's common practice in SC to abuse taxpayer money.




> Of course Sanford appointed the guy in charge so he's probably returning the favor, but Sanford re-payed the money to the state anyway, which wasn't a tremendous amount as far as I know, like $500 I think.


For multiple flights to Argentina?  Book me on that airline.




> The way I see it, and everyone around here I talk to, is that its a personal issue between him and his wife, and he used tax money to pay for an expense on a personal trip for a plane ticket or something that has been done by other governors in SC for forever, and never stopped by anyone. I'm doubtful he would have done that though if he wasn't trying to keep his affair secret from his wife.
> 
> I mean honestly its not that big of a deal, TONS of people have affairs and end up divorced too. Giuliani has had like 57 wives and still ran and no one cared too much about that.


You mean Giuliani the also ran who hyped big but delivered nothing?  Perhaps that was his achilles heel.  Regardless, Sanford is too much of a liability to even consider nowadays.  His scandal was so public and so recent that 2012 is simply out of the realm of possibility,

----------


## teamrican1

> You mean Giuliani the also ran who hyped big but delivered nothing?  Perhaps that was his achilles heel.  Regardless, Sanford is too much of a liability to even consider nowadays.  His scandal was so public and so recent that 2012 is simply out of the realm of possibility,


Nonsense.  Everybody knows that what did Giuliani in was Ron Paul schooling him in the debate!  Ok, maybe it had something to do with Rudy's support for abortion, taxes, and endorsement of Mario Cuomo.  But the point it Giuliani's scandalous personal life (which is 100X worse than anything Sanford ever did) wasn't an impediment to his running.  Newt is getting hype despite the fact that he left his wife while she was in the hospital with cancer.  Two years is an eternity in politics.  If Sanford wants to run, I'm sure he'll be able.  Big question with him is probably personal.  This wasn't some silly affair with a young piece of tail.  He genuinely loves this Latin woman in a serious, adult way, and he might be so occupied sorting out those difficult questions that he won't have time to run.  Deciding who you want to spend the rest of your life with is a lot more important than some silly political office.

----------


## specsaregood

> Nonsense.  Everybody knows that what did Giuliani in was Ron Paul schooling him in the debate!  Ok, maybe it had something to do with Rudy's support for abortion, taxes, and endorsement of Mario Cuomo.


It is quite funny about Rudy.  I was fishing some really old blogs Feb. 2007 looking for sites to inform the admins about Rands moneybomb and came across a few with titles such as, "Republican Race is Rudy's to lose".... many forget that for so long he was the presumptive nominee.....

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Nonsense.  Everybody knows that what did Giuliani in was Ron Paul schooling him in the debate!  Ok, maybe it had something to do with Rudy's support for abortion, taxes, and endorsement of Mario Cuomo.  But the point it Giuliani's scandalous personal life (which is 100X worse than anything Sanford ever did) wasn't an impediment to his running.


If I recall there were quite a few voters turned off by his shenanigans.  Please, some voters can't even get over that Fred Thompson's wife is much younger than he is.  And I disagree that Giuliani's sordid sex life is 100X worse than Sanford's.




> Newt is getting hype despite the fact that he left his wife while she was in the hospital with cancer.


Newt also has quite a few other ethics issues that will prevent him from winning a presidential race.  It's easy to get early buzz  with a checkered past, but once the campaigns start digging, Newt's an easy man to smear all over the map.




> Two years is an eternity in politics.


I disagree.  Some things are easily forgotten, other things linger forever.  Perhaps there's a chance this will end up forgotten, but more likely this will be used against him.




> If Sanford wants to run, I'm sure he'll be able.  Big question with him is probably personal.  This wasn't some silly affair with a young piece of tail.  He genuinely loves this Latin woman in a serious, adult way, and he might be so occupied sorting out those difficult questions that he won't have time to run.  Deciding who you want to spend the rest of your life with is a lot more important than some silly political office.


Yeah, he's just a good guy at heart.

----------


## garyallen59

> I see that some here are considering starting over with a different candidate for 2012. To me, it put us right back to the "google ron paul" days.
> 
> Remember how hard it was to get Ron Pauls name out?
> Remember the vetting that had to be done to get past the lies about him and the BS?
> Remember all the videos and news paper adds and constant arguing we did to defend him and educate people?
> 
> Why go through all that again for someone new????????????????????????????? 
> 
> 
> ...


i agree

----------


## Joseph

I totally agree with this. That is why we need to inspire him to run again in 2012 just as he inspired us to get involved back in 2008. Please mail him a letter letting him know how he has inspired you and encourage him to run in 2012. We need to convince him to run. We can not start from scratch when we still have all this left over momentum from the 2008 election season. Plus all the support we have gained since then. Please encourage Ron Paul to run.

----------


## TheHumblePhysicist

Imagine that Ron Paul died tomorrow. I am sorry, but it has to be said! Forgive me.

The entire movement would evaporate. He is the keystone that holds us all together. Without him on our banner, all of our supporters would go their separate ways, and the system would remain. 

I say we bring in new people. Let a new generation of freedom lovers ride the wave of liberty into office. I will be glad if Ron Paul runs for president, but the OP seems to suggest that there will never be another as well known and respected as Ron Paul is, and we should stake all our hopes on him. Even going so far as to pressure him to run! Say it isn't so!

Ron deserves a rest.

----------


## TheHumblePhysicist

Oh, and I am new to this site. I know you can get banned for saying discouraging things, (something I don't agree with at all).

I don't want to get banned, but I also want to communicate my viewpoint. Would you say my previous post qualifies as "discouraging"? If so I will remove it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I think a large part of the issue is that this "movement" is made up of different factions.  Ron Paul is unique in that he brings us all together and it allows us to put our differences aside.  It is true that he will be very hard to replace; he is one of a kind.  Personally, I'm hoping that Rand is willing to make a try of it in 2016.

Note:  I would have supported Sanborn, but now he is political toast.  There is no way that he would win the Republican nomination.  The media would destroy him.

----------


## LibertyMage

> Imagine that Ron Paul died tomorrow. I am sorry, but it has to be said! Forgive me.
> 
> The entire movement would evaporate. He is the keystone that holds us all together. Without him on our banner, all of our supporters would go their separate ways, and the system would remain. 
> 
> I say we bring in new people. Let a new generation of freedom lovers ride the wave of liberty into office. I will be glad if Ron Paul runs for president, but the OP seems to suggest that there will never be another as well known and respected as Ron Paul is, and we should stake all our hopes on him. Even going so far as to pressure him to run! Say it isn't so!
> 
> Ron deserves a rest.


If you believe this than you don't understand the movement.  There are a lot of people out there building teams that are going to last decades.  If you aren't doing that then what are you doing?

----------


## Imperial

I don't think Dr. Paul can actually win the nomination, but I want him to run nonetheless.

Let us be realistic. While you hear more about libertarianism than you probably have since the early 1980s, our movement is nascent. The growing 

Probably more significantly, in American politics if you say the word "libertarian", the first person you think of is Ron Paul.

It isn't that Gary Johnson, Peter Schiff, or Rand Paul would not be better or worse nominees. It is that Ron Paul has become a name-brand for an idea. It is silly to change the wrapping now when we are on the verge of penetrating the consumer culture.

In 2016 we can have the debate over Rand Paul versus Gary Johnson for President. Right now there are less than 10 people solidly on our side in the US House; in the Senate, we have Rand Paul and Mike Lee and sometimes Jim DeMint.

We need Ron Paul to keep an idea in the public's mind. We need Ron Paul to shock the world in Iowa, to keep libertarianism in the public discussion through Super Tuesday, and we need people courting Ron Paul's endorsement. We need to make it where people say, after Paul almost wins or wins Iowa, that his runs and ideas are no longer quixotic, but mainstream.

If Ron Paul has a strong run in 2012, no matter what happens next the GOP will never be the same. We need to make it so that we are a constituency of the party to be courted; until we turn more heads our way, we will not have the mass strength to change this country.

----------


## robertwerden

Look, Obama was clearly not qualified, and neither was Mccain. Most presidents probably should not have been elected, but one thing they all had in common was they managed to rally the voters to liking them. 

The key here is to play to the voters who either want something for free or are so $#@!ing scared of terrorists they will vote for the guy who will stop them.

So in the liberal areas of the country you run commercials saying Ron Paul will buy everyone a mercedes benz and in the redneck areas of the country you say ron has matrix like reflexes and can kill terrorists like a ninja.

The bottom line is you have your core supporters (us) and then you lie to the rest of the country and get $#@!ing elected. Thats all that matters when election day comes.

So instead of going out and screaming Ron Paul will end the Fed. You go up to a potential voter and ask them what they want in a president, and no matter what they say, you tell them Ron Paul will do it. I don't care if you have to tell them something as stupid as Ron Paul will pay off their mortgage, just get them to vote for him.

----------

