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

[brushfire]

Ron Paul is the epitome of perseverance. He's been "winning" for 30 years. He puts his best effort into life, and that's all he can do... Since his first victory in office, his wife said that you have to be careful when you run for elections. You just might win.

I look at my life, which I'm quite happy with, and I think about how busy it is. I have no freak'n idea how Ron Paul leads such a productive life - let alone at his age. Still, I dont think he'd put the effort into something if he didnt think there would be reward... I'm fairly certain that reward is the nomination, this time around, and the ability to make a big(er) difference as POTUS.

 

[Paul4Prez]

The more important question is: Are WE running to win?

 

[Johncjackson]

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

Also, when he mentioned heroin at the debate.

He didn't bring up heroin. That's been covered.

If you support the War on Drugs, you are by definition pro-War, anti-life, and pro-murder and violence. There's no way around that.

Because of that ^ it has to be a campaign for IDEAS as well as to win. Because in order to win and move in a pro-liberty direction, the ideas are important. Taking anti-liberty stances to appease scumbags and murderers is not the way to go, IMHO. He's the liberty candidate. He's not going to win trying be Mitt Romney.

 

[Airborn]

I would say both, while Ron wants to spread liberty for the future and future candidates, He's also way more committed to actually win this election unlike last time. But without the educational campaign last time, we wouldn't be where we are. So even if Ron doesn't win this election cycle, he is setting it up for future Liberty campaigns to have a good shot at winning.

 

[libertybrewcity]

you callin our guy a liar????

 

[asurfaholic]

I don't understand why it can't be both. I don't believe he ran for president with no intention of winning last time around, and I certainly he didn't decide to run again, just to educate people. I think he wants to change the status quo, and is hoping to secure a spot in the White House, all the same time he is hoping to bring about change and revolution to the people. The OP is venting negative questions - try thinking positive. This is huge, the more positive you are, the more positive results you will see achieved. Ron is running for president, he will only win if we let him.

 

[dude58677]

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

I thought Randy Jackson said that?

 

[Eric21ND]

Ron Paul has been trudging the freedom football up the field for years, there's no reason we can't continue to do that while simultaneously going for the End Zone with an election Hail Mary pass.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

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?

1. The large majority of the American populace isn't libertarian
2. Ron Paul can be called very libertarian philosophically (even if he does not use that term to describe himself)
3. To win the presidency he has to influence/convert most voters more to his way of thinking
4. Therefor to win, his "campaign" (using the broadest sense of that word) has to be pretty educational in nature, especially so relative to the campaigns of other candidates.

Logically I have proven that it is vital for the campaign/grassroots to have an educational agenda in order to win, that it has to be a campaign of ideas.

 

[Feelgood]

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

He said that for his 2008 run as well, which was why he was the last to drop out.

Does it get any clearer then that?

From what I am seeing so far, this is starting to look like 2008 all over again. Once Ron dropped out in 2008, the media clammered to him, he was their media angel. Now, before he announced, that remained. Now that he has thrown his hat in, once again he is being treated like the crazy uncle, and they are being just as dismissive. There has been some improvement, Mike Wallace said he takes Ron much more seriously this time. Even Glenn Beck doesnt think Ron is as kooky as he used to. I dont see it being any different then before though, and honestly dont think the establishment will let Ron anywhere near the nomination. Even if Ron secures all the delegates needed for a landslide nomination, they will find some reason to give it to the number two.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't understand why it can't be both. I don't believe he ran for president with no intention of winning last time around, and I certainly he didn't decide to run again, just to educate people. I think he wants to change the status quo, and is hoping to secure a spot in the White House, all the same time he is hoping to bring about change and revolution to the people. The OP is venting negative questions - try thinking positive. This is huge, the more positive you are, the more positive results you will see achieved. Ron is running for president, he will only win if we let him.

It's a false dichotomy, yes, but this is mainly for those who think he's NOT trying to win, so they think the two are separate in some way.

 

[pacelli]

I think Ron realizes, just like all of us, that this will be his last presidential campaign-- whether he wins the nomination or not. A couple of years ago the man just bought and built his dream house. He wants to win, but if he doesn't, he's going to retire. The reigns will be passed to Rand EITHER WAY.

I still can't get a coherent response about the voting machine fraud situation. In 2008 Ron closed down the campaign and there were still rumors about a brokered convention. Honestly, how will we know if Ron actually wins if the results are already predetermined? How do you think the establishment gives someone the axe? They don't need to kill anyone now. The voting machine story turned into a nice documentary and then went cold. How did Ron close down the last campaign?? Something like, "Although victory is not possible in the conventional political sense..."

Are we listening? More importantly what the hell can we do about it?

I will still campaign my ass off for the man. But if you want Ron to win, you need to figure out how to handle the voting machine situation. The company's name is NO LONGER DIEBOLD. Diebold changed their name to "Premiere Election Solutions". And P.E.S. was acquired by "Election Systems & Software" (ES&S).

ES&S supported more than 1,985 jurisdictions’ elections on November 2nd across the nation. Over 500 support personnel from ES&S traveled across the United States to be with customers on‐site during their election. Having knowledgeable staff from ES&S readily available allows customers to focus on other important tasks in their election, and having a thoroughly trained resource on‐site is always valuable on Election Day.

http://www.essvote.com/HTML/docs/PR/GenElect_Nov2010b.pdf

 

[TheTyke]

The more important question is: Are WE running to win?

Bravo. This is exactly it... the future's in our hands. Are we going to do what it takes?

This time bunches of elected officials are endorsing Ron - we had virtually none last time. Do you really think they'd sticks their necks out politically if this campaign wasn't serious? He's hired Doug Wead, a pollster (why would he care if winning didn't matter) and is visiting IA and NH constantly. If he was just "spreading a message" he'd be visiting all over... but no, he is taking the strategic steps necessary to win.

The voter fraud thing is overdone. Rand won against the freaking Establishment SECRETARY OF STATE. Yes they cheat, yes odds are slanted against us, BUT there are ways to counter it, and this is actually part of an effective campaign (which we didn't have in 08.) But it takes money, planning, and volunteers. Sometimes this just seems an excuse for failure or not trying hard enough. Again, it's in OUR HANDS.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I think Ron realizes, just like all of us, that this will be his last presidential campaign-- whether he wins the nomination or not. A couple of years ago the man just bought and built his dream house. He wants to win, but if he doesn't, he's going to retire. The reigns will be passed to Rand EITHER WAY.

I still can't get a coherent response about the voting machine fraud situation. In 2008 Ron closed down the campaign and there were still rumors about a brokered convention. Honestly, how will we know if Ron actually wins if the results are already predetermined? How do you think the establishment gives someone the axe? They don't need to kill anyone now. The voting machine story turned into a nice documentary and then went cold. How did Ron close down the last campaign?? Something like, "Although victory is not possible in the conventional political sense..."

Are we listening? More importantly what the hell can we do about it?

I will still campaign my ass off for the man. But if you want Ron to win, you need to figure out how to handle the voting machine situation. The company's name is NO LONGER DIEBOLD. Diebold changed their name to "Premiere Election Solutions". And P.E.S. was acquired by "Election Systems & Software" (ES&S).



http://www.essvote.com/HTML/docs/PR/GenElect_Nov2010b.pdf

You can't hide an overwhelming victory. That needs to be our goal, as unrealistic as it is.

 

[KurtA]

This is the same sort of scurrilous lie advanced by the Christian Science Monitor a few days ago. see http://Boycotts4Paul.com/boycott2.html for "before" and "after" text of their dishonesty.