Does Ron Paul want to win, or is this another "campaign of ideas?"

[Restore-America-NOW]

It can be argued that in 2008, and definitely in 1988, Ron was only running to spread the message of liberty and not actually try to become the President. Do you believe he's doing the same in 2012?

Do you think he will win?

 

[asurfaholic]

he has said he is "in it to win it." Does it get clearer than that?

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

It has to be BOTH. If he didn't educate people about Constitution & people's right to life, liberty & property then we'll be back to same old, same old socialism & tyranny, & if he educates people about the Constitution & liberty in simple & easy to understand language then people will automatically vote for him because he'll be the overwhelmingly correct choice. So I don't think it has to be one or the other, it can be BOTH at the same time.

 

[pauladin]

he says he's in it to win it. does ron paul lie?

 

[sailingaway]

He's in it to win.

Will he?

How many are staying out of the crucial pre-straw poll phase until he 'proves himself' to their satisfaction?

I'd hate that to be the margin of difference.

 

[reduen]

Only Ron Paul himself knows the answer to this question and he has stated on more than one occasion that he is in it to win. I personally believe the man…

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Glad to see 100% of people trust Ron Paul when he says "I am in it to win it." There's really no two ways about it.

 

[Bama Boy]

He answered this when he introduced the marijuana legislation w/ Barney Frank last week.

Also, when he mentioned heroin at the debate.

 

[brandon]

He is in it to win the war of ideas.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

He answered this when he introduced the marijuana legislation w/ Barney Frank last week.

Also, when he mentioned heroin at the debate.

No, he answered it when he said "I want to win." Why don't you trust him on that? Also, he did NOT "mention" heroin at the debate. The moderator did by asking him that question.

 

[asurfaholic]

He is in it to win the war of ideas.

and the 2012 election...

 

[sailingaway]

He answered this when he introduced the marijuana legislation w/ Barney Frank last week.

Also, when he mentioned heroin at the debate.

He did not 'mention heroin at the debate'. He was specifically asked about heroin and prostitution and when he tried to answer it in terms of reserved rights by the 1st, ninth and tenth amendments for religion etc., Wallace asked a follow up question specifying heroin.

And the DEA just came out with an enforcement memo saying they are going to crack down on medical marijuana providers and the farmers growing for those programs. Frank proposed this bill in response to that and asked Ron to join to increase its chance of passage. Ron isn't going to pretend it isn't an important issue when the need for action is specifically triggered, just because he is running for office.

That isn't called running an educational campaign, that is called having principles. Nowhere has he 'campaigned' on this.

 

[Bama Boy]

He was "in it to win" last time too I think.

Oh I forgot about the OBL criticism and lack of debate prep.

Many of you are blinded by your admiration of his principle. Unfortunately MOST voters are not influenced by principle, but more by appearance, tone, "leadership", and confidence.

 

[asurfaholic]

He was "in it to win" last time too I think.

Oh I forgot about the OBL criticism and lack of debate prep.

Many of you are blinded by your admiration of his principle. Unfortunately MOST voters are not influenced by principle, but more by appearance, tone, "leadership", and confidence.

Maybe true to some level, but there is a growing number of people who realize there is more to political leadership than those traits you just mentioned. Ron Paul is the only person who doesn't flip flop, or have double standards. He also doesn't necessarily fail in all the above either.

 

[sailingaway]

He was "in it to win" last time too I think.

Oh I forgot about the OBL criticism and lack of debate prep.

Many of you are blinded by your admiration of his principle. Unfortunately MOST voters are not influenced by principle, but more by appearance, tone, "leadership", and confidence.

I think he is in it to win. That he isn't doing what specific people want him to do doesn't mean that in his judgment this isn't being in it to win, he may just disagree.

 

[mport1]

I think he is in it again for the ideas which I totally support. Winning the election is pretty meaningless for the long term if people do not come to accept the ideas of liberty. If he had to compromise his principles to win, I'd be totally against it and he would lose my support.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

I think he would like to win, but isn't going to kill himself to get the victory. I do believe he has mostly surrounded himself with those who want him to win.

Do I honestly think he will win? No. I predict Obama will be reelected to a second term, which will leave it wide open for Rand in 2016.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

He was "in it to win" last time too I think.

Oh I forgot about the OBL criticism and lack of debate prep.

Many of you are blinded by your admiration of his principle. Unfortunately MOST voters are not influenced by principle, but more by appearance, tone, "leadership", and confidence.

Whatever. What you just said has no bearing on whether Ron Paul is serious about winning this. He can hold beliefs about campaigning that are different than yours and still be gunning for the win. It is possible, you know. If he was in it last time to win, then GOOD. He should always be in it to win, and I believe he is, but he believes he can do it in a slightly different manner than what you would prefer. You are too quick to jump to conclusions.

Also, you haven't answered my question. Why do you not trust Ron when he says that he is "in it to win."

 

[LibertyEagle]

He was "in it to win" last time too I think.

Oh I forgot about the OBL criticism and lack of debate prep.

Many of you are blinded by your admiration of his principle. Unfortunately MOST voters are not influenced by principle, but more by appearance, tone, "leadership", and confidence.

He was not in it to win last time. He hired staff to run an educational campaign and by the time he realized how much support there really was, it was too late to switch gears.

It is a whole new ballgame this time around. He is in it to win the presidency. Think about the things this time around that are already so different than last time. He has hired Doug Wead. He has the A Number 1 location at the Iowa Straw Poll. They have reached out for help in calling voters. Dr. Paul finally used his Christianity and his knowledge of the Bible to really talk to Christians in terms they understand about big government at the Faith and Freedom conference. And these things are just the tip of the iceberg.

Yes, he's in it to win. I guess the big question now is, are you going to sit back, or are you going to help?

 

[ChrisDixon]

he has said he is "in it to win it." Does it get clearer than that?

There will be a certain group of people that, come the inauguration of President Paul, who will still swear he doesn't want to win.

So in short, with some people, it doesn't matter the level of clarity.

But Paul is in this to win and has been handling everything far better than the previous election cycle. This isn't about education (although that is an intentional effect of the campaign), this is about winning.