Are you opposed to Ron Paul running in 2012?

[Peace&Freedom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nathan Hale]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Peace&Freedom]

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

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

 

[itshappening]

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

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

 

[RickyJ]

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

 

[Truth Warrior]

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

 

[pcosmar]

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

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

Let us play it by ear as developments emerge.

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

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

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

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

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

 

[Nathan Hale]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nathan Hale]

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

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

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

 

[Peace&Freedom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[eleganz]

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

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

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

 

[Nathan Hale]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[klamath]

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

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

 

[Andrew-Austin]

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

He should probably just run for Senate.

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

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

 

[nate895]

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

He should probably just run for Senate.

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

 

[Peace&Freedom]

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

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

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

 

[Nathan Hale]

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

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

for which the MSM provides ongoing cover.

Unsubstantiated.

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

Name the sources.

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

Name one outright admission that I have failed to concede.

obviously conversation beyond this is hopeless.

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

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

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

 

[AbolishTheGovt]

If he runs, I'll support him.

If not, I'll support Gary Johnson.

 

[JohnJay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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