The Mouse that roared: Why Ron Paul won the election
Well now, Republicans say, we have a nominee. That may very well be but there was only one clear winner in the confusing GOP nominating contest and it was not John McCain. The winner was Ron Paul. And the effects of his win will be felt for years to come.
Ron Paul made a classic political mistake. He told the truth. In debate after debate he pointed at his party, his president, his fellow contenders for the GOP nomination, shouting aloud like the little boy in the proverbial story, “they have no clothes” and lo and behold, we looked and they didn’t. They were all naked.
He showed that the conservative movement has lost its way, its moral authority and its logic. He showed us that we have become a red team versus blue team. That since we have decided that this is a political war and all normal rules are suspended, conservatives can do liberal things to win it. Conservatives can run up big deficits if it helps their side win. They can dole out needless pork if it elects another “conservative” to congress. They can go to war if it makes their president look like a leader and secures him another term.
But in the process, Ron Paul showed us, that we have lost our way. We are no longer conservatives. We are fighting for power not for principles. We have become corrupted by the process and the only way back is to retrace our steps and find all the things we discarded along the way.
Barry Goldwater lighted a similar fire with his Conscience of a Conservative. Its truth and arguments were so obvious and so honest that one laughed aloud while reading it. But Goldwater, himself, was doomed to political defeat. And Ron Paul had no chance to win this election either. One could see that when he first opened his mouth.
And yet, the words and arguments of Ron Paul are still resonating. They still hang over this election. They are haunting and troubling. They are producing blogs and papers and books and like Goldwater’s revolution they will one day very likely produce their own Ronald Reagan. And when those heady days happen a small but hearty band of pioneers, who first had the nerve to join him and start shouting from the street, “They aren’t wearing any clothes,” will be able to say that they could see what the country missed. They were there when history was made.
John McCain and his poorly chosen words, of staying in Iraq a hundred years, have almost guaranteed that he will be the answer to the trivia question, who was the Republican candidate who lost to the ticket that claimed the first woman and black for the presidency? Another question may very well be, “What other candidate ran that year and launched the movement that has dominated national politics for the last generation?”
And the answer will be Ron Paul.
By: Doug Wead
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/the-mouse-that-roared-why-ron-paul-won-the-election/
Ron Paul for President in 2012
Now, more than ever. Here’s why.
When Ron Paul accepted the idea that, intended by our forefathers or not, we were a nation locked into a two party system and one had better accept that idea or be hopelessly marginalized, he guaranteed that his neo-libertarian ideas would be heard on a national stage. In 2008 he shunned the idea of doing the third party thing, entered the Republican Party presidential race and won a whole new generation of devotees.
Oh, there were purist critics to be sure, old friends of his on the paranoid right. How can you submit to the two party system? They were outraged at this compromise, this constitutional carnality. But before they could grieve too long over the loss of Brother Paul, he skyrocketed to incredible, cult like, popularity and things they had been saying and advocating for years were suddenly racing along the wireless highways of Al Gore’s marvelous invention.
By the way, many of those critics were there in Minneapolis, at his Campaign for Liberty convention, (Ron Paul has a big heart,) selling their books, and admitting to Ron Paul groupies at their tables that, “Yes, he is quite a guy.” And inwardly rolling their eyes and muttering under their breathes to their wives, “I could have done this years ago but I have way too much integrity.”
And their obedient wives were thinking, “Yeah, that’s why we only earned $30,000 last year off your dwindling mailing list of idiots. Thank God, for Ron Paul. Now, at least, we are selling some of your 1960’s ‘classics.’ We may actually be able to get all those boxes out of our garage and park the car in there.”
The fact is, by running for the GOP nomination in 2008, Ron Paul compromised nothing. Unless you think Jesus compromised when he said, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.”
Sure, he has to be sensitive to sacrificing principle to win when that is the very reason people support him and the very reason they are angry at Democrats and Republicans. But the fact is that Ron Paul has lifted the whole, aging, stifling, outdated Neanderthal right wing out of the ditch and up onto dry ground and hitched it to a populist, neo-libertine wagon train. And he has done all of this single handedly, on his broad generous, courageous shoulders. And he has done it without breaking the China.
Oh, there is much, much more. He has woven a slender thread through the crimson cloth of Evangelical Christians and the pink cloth of Gay America, making one garment out of a people who have decided that they never really wanted or needed power, just the guarantee that government would stay out of their lives and not intrude. Who would have thought that this was politically possible?
He has gathered the hurt and wounded families of America who have suffered the extremes of our glorious “War on Crime,” which has become almost Soviet in its unintended consequences.
It is an amazingly diverse and complicated political fabric, with great demographic possibilities.
Still, the question remains, what did it all accomplish? Were the national debates the high watermark? What happened to our new Paulista congressmen and school board members and the remaking of the GOP?
The political reality is this, just as Ron Paul accepted the fact that he had to run in a two party system, he now must accept the fact that he cannot oversee the remaking of the GOP as a coach on the sidelines. Surely the lesson of 2008 made that clear. He has to get in the game. He has to play quarterback. He has to run for president. Again.
The fact is that a successful run for president is the only way to reform the GOP and the only way to take control of the party and the only way to get new congressmen elected. People will only get off the ground if they are shooting at the moon. They need the inspiration of a big dream.
Well, you say, the conditions were right in 2008. We had an unpopular war in Iraq and an unpopular president. And Ron Paul’s moment was great theatre. In one of my earlier blogs I compared it to the little boy who cried, “The Emperor has no clothes.” Ron Paul’s arguments were breathtaking. He was reading the collective minds of millions and saying publicly what they were barely able to admit to themselves, let alone to a spouse or a friend. It came as relief to find that these instinctive feelings, these unconscious worries, rested on a bedrock of principle that someone had been tending and fussing over for years. And when the debates ended, 32 million, grateful, dollars came pouring into the Ron Paul Campaign.
But to relegate the Ron Paul phenomenon to a lucky confluence of events, to say it cannot happen again, is to say it was only a parlor trick and never was an argument based on principles. It is to deny ourselves.
Indeed, the one big, frightening collective thought that has come to the Paulista nation in recent months is the reality of all that he and others have been warning us about. All those things they have been saying about the Federal Reserve and the house of cards of this global world economy are now upon us. If Ron Paul cannot get a political head of steam going in this environment then who can? And if not now, when the daily news confirms their prescience, then when would they ever be able to do it?
We who believe in the original American idea, or even some remote version of it, or ever believe in a free markeplace, must rally now, or forever resign from public life. What will we tell our grandchildren? We didn’t try because we didn’t think we could win? Shouldn’t the American people be given that choice? Shouldn’t the media be forced to confront it as well? Remember, our currently serving lame duck president is a “conservative Republican.” And he willingly “socialized” the American banking system to buy a few good days on the stock market for the Republican nominee.
After being warned about all of this for years, it is still chilling to see it all disappear so quickly, like bath water down the drain. The fact is that Ron Paul must run for president again. He must.
Note: Is he too old? Hell yes, but I will talk to that on Wednesday. And how could he possibly win? I will address that on Thursday or maybe next week. I just got home from an around the world speaking tour, gotta get a nap in before trying to save America.
By: Doug Wead
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/ron-paul-for-president-in-2012/
Is Ron Paul too old to run for president?
He will be 77 in the year 2012.
Consider; Charles de Gaulle was president of France at the age of 79. Some say he was the greatest modern leader in French history.
Ditto for Konrad Adenauer, declared by many to be the greatest chancellor of the German Republic in its modern history. Compare him to Helmut Kohl, for example, who presided over the reunification of Germany and was in the process of a Shakespearian moment, with greatness thrust on him, only to self implode in the midst of a tawdry, greedy scandal. Adenauer served Germany with wisdom and class until the age of 87.
Remember, the last “old” president America had was Ronald Reagan, who left office at 78.
Nor is old age the end of creativity. Michelangelo began his monumental work as architect of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome at age 71. By age 89, the year of his death, he was still at it.
This is a concept of biblical power. Moses first saw the vision of freeing the Israeli slaves at age 80. He finally brought them to the Jordan River at the age of 120.
Well, but you say, shouldn’t Ron Paul be able to enjoy his retirement? Doesn’t his wife, who has been ill, deserve to have some time with him, all to herself? And his children? And grandchildren?
That depends on whether they want to have him dead or alive. If he retires, his lifespan will shrink accordingly. If he has a vision, if he seeks the presidency, he will probably live longer. And what a romance, what an adventure, it would be, both as a couple and as a family.
Age is not the problem. Getting the issues right and having the courage to take a stand is the problem. And Ron Paul has proven to be up to both.
Coming Up: How he could pull it off.
By: Doug Wead
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/is-ron-paul-too-old-to-run-for-president/
How Ron Paul Wins in 2012: Step One
As far fetched as it sounds, Ron Paul can actually win the Republican nomination in 2012 and change history. Step One: Win the Iowa Straw Poll in 2011.
Well, this is a multi-post memorandum and some of what I have to say I won’t be saying publicly at all – because it is proprietary. So what I will say, is what is obvious, and what the experts in opposition research for any of Ron Paul’s opponents already know and have already considered and already told their principals, okay? No secrets here. But, believe me, this will be educational. So here we go…
For Ron Paul, it all comes down to the Iowa Straw Poll, what used to be called “The Cavalcade,” a political popularity contest, which will be held next in Ames, Iowa the summer of 2011, before the primary season begins in 2012. This event is used as a Republican fundraiser for the Iowa State GOP.
Ron Paul should not be distracted by the other straw polls, raise several million dollars and throw it all into the pot to win this contest. Every volunteer, every employee, every relative, every dollar should be focused on a win at the Cavalcade. It all should roll on the dice in Ames.
Why?
You may point out that G. H. W. Bush won the Poll in 1980 but Reagan won the nomination and the presidency. Pat Robertson won the Poll in 1988 but G. H. W. Bush won the nomination and the presidency. Mitt Romney won the Poll in 2008 but John McCain won the GOP nomination.
But this time, with this candidate, the circumstances are different.
1.) Ron Paul needs to win something meaningful if he is to awaken that vast pool of latent supporters who agree with his positions but doubt the efficacy of his candidacy.
2.) Because this win, as opposed to other straw polls and early contests, will transport his message and his candidacy into national prominence.
3.) Because it is far easier and less expensive to win the Iowa Straw Poll that it is to win any of the Caucuses and Primaries that follow. They only get tougher after this one. But winning it will trigger the flow of money and allow him to compete in the others. Losing, or coming in fifth, will end any real chances for his candidacy.
4.) Because the Straw Poll is such a small universe that the spending of money beyond a certain threshold will be redundant and ineffective. And Ron Paul can meet that threshold, which neutralizes the money factor entirely.
5.) Because winning this event is not only about money, it is about organization. No matter how much money you have you still have to have real live people with Iowa driver’s licenses. Ron Paul’s followers are true believers, activists, who are much more likely to work in Iowa earlier than the followers of Palin, Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich or others, who are essentially just in it for the horse race. Why not put this Ron Paul advantage to work?
Sure, there are no delegates from the Straw Poll, but the lift is enormous and there is the possibility, with this lift, to win it all. It is an old formula made famous by Jimmy Carter, who used the Democratic Jackson Day straw vote in the summer of 1975 as his launching pad for his surprise dark horse victory in 1976. And it is a perfect fit for Ron Paul and his followers.
Like past winners of the Iowa Straw Poll he will likely appear on the cover of TIME and NEWSWEEK, which in itself will pay back a couple of the million dollars spent on the event, and for the next few months he will be considered the front runner for the coming Iowa Caucus in January, if not the front runner for the nomination itself.
The beauty of winning the Poll is the long time between it and the next big event. The Poll is in the late summer of 2011. The Iowa caucus comes in January, 2012, followed within a week by New Hampshire and thereafter by one primary after another. Say for example that Sarah Palin makes a comeback from the Poll and wins the Iowa Caucus in January; she has only a few days to enjoy her lead for fundraising purposes. If Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich beat her in New Hampshire they only enjoy their frontrunner status for a few days before Mike Huckabee or Bobbie Jindal ambushes them in South Carolina.
But remember, there are no delegates from the Poll. So the idea is to win it and use the victory and status to raise a ton of money, which translates into winning the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary back to back in January.
Can it be done? That is, can Ron Paul translate a win in a straw vote in Iowa into something more? Well, that will depend on the money raised afterward. But remember, if he wins, for almost half a year he will be able to raise money while the other candidates will have to explain their loss.
“Yes, he won the Iowa Straw Poll,” Mike Huckabee will say, “but that is because he has a small cadre of devoted followers but he cannot go all the way.” Chuckle, chuckle, “Remember Mitt Romney won the Cavalcade last time and I won the Iowa Caucus and we both got beat by John McCain.”
Sarah Palin will say, “Yes, he won the Poll in Iowa but he is fifth in the national polls and I am leading. He can win a small contest but he can’t win a big one.”
They will all have their rationale for losing but it sure would be nice to be the winner, this time, the one who doesn’t need all those excuses.
There is more. If Ron Paul wins this Poll he will become the darling of the national media during these crucial five months of campaigning and fundraising. Yes, you heard me. The media will be amused by the Ron Paul surge, just as they enjoyed the Pat Buchanan insurgency against a GOP incumbent in the White House in 1992. Why? Because, like Buchanan, they will see Ron Paul as unwinnable in a general election. They will believe that Ron Paul is a safe nominee to face their beloved Barack Obama, who by then will be the second coming of FDR in American newsrooms. Ron Paul’s victory in the Iowa Straw Poll will be trumpeted to the highest heavens and he will be given every advantage. At least during the nominating process. But it will all depend on winning in Ames.
But don’t all the other candidates know that too? Can’t they do the same? Yes and no. They have different assets, priorities and needs. For example, Rudolph Giuliani skipped Iowa altogether because it is an Evangelical state and he would have been quizzed about his personal life. Mitt Romney poured in a ton of money and was in the lead but saw that lead evaporate as Evangelicals slipped away from him, probably because he was Mormon, to support Mike Huckabee, one of their own.
If you review the list of five reasons above you will see that neither Palin nor Huckabee nor Romney nor anyone else would benefit as much as Ron Paul from a Straw Poll win. Ron Paul is the leader of a movement, he offers a different option altogether, whereas Palin and Huckabee and others will simply be in a personality contest. If they win in Ames, it is only one of many more contests to follow. If Ron Paul wins in Ames, he awakens a whole political movement.
Then there is the mighty mistress of American politics…. expectations. Ron Paul would be a sensation, the talk of the country, because his emergence would be a surprise to the mainstream. For example, Palin and Huckabee would not benefit as much from a NEWSWEEK of TIME cover story because they have already had them and they probably will have had them again before the Cavalcade. Heck, Ron Paul garnered some headlines in 2007 when he came in fifth in that contest. A win would be big news.
And what about that all important Iowa Evangelical vote? This time, Huckabee and Palin, both Evangelicals, might have to split that vote, along with a resurrected Newt Gingrich and even a popular, born again Christian, Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana, who may not even enter the Straw Poll because his re-election as governor is in the fall of 2011.
Anyway, Ron Paul will get a big chunk of those Evangelical voters because I am going to help him, if he wants it. He is Christian, pro-life, married to the same wife forever and he wants the government out of our lives, believe me, it will work. And I know how to win that vote big.
For a history of the born again vote see: http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/...e-evangelical-vote-in-presidential-elections/
So how does Ron Paul harness his army and raise the money to win the Iowa Cavalcade? And if he won, where would he go from there? That discussion is coming in future posts. All I know is this… if Ron Paul can raise $32 million and get 15,000 people to buy tickets to his convention in Minneapolis after the nomination was already decided, then he has a very real chance of winning in the small universe of Ames, Iowa in 2011 and that win, my friends, would catapult him and his movement into the stratosphere.
(If you want to follow this rather complicated series on how Ron Paul can actually win, go all the way, do it, be elected and change the world…. Sign up to follow Doug Wead on twitter. http://twitter.com/dougwead1234 )
The next step? http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/ron-paul-and-karl-rove-dont-mix/
By: Doug Wead
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/how-ron-paul-wins-in-2012-step-one/
Ron Paul and Karl Rove don’t mix.
Okay, this is about hiring the right people at the right time and how that is critical for Ron Paul. But there is no way you will even comprehend what we are talking about unless you get caught up. So, if you haven’t read the following posts, start with the first one. If you are a veteran of this chain, skip the links below and dig right in.
Previous posts in this chain:
1.) Why he should run for president?
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/ron-paul-for-president-in-2012/
2.) But isn’t he too old?
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/is-ron-paul-too-old-to-run-for-president/
3.) How Ron Paul Wins: The Iowa Straw Poll.
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/how-ron-paul-wins-in-2012-step-one/
And now….. for your reading pleasure
4.) Immediately hire an inexpensive political advisor.
To win, Ron Paul has to hire the right people. There are only 24 hours in a day and he cannot do it all. Others have to think things through for him and present him with options. And, of course, he cannot run his own campaign. He will be too busy. He needs help.
Well, you say, shouldn’t he hire his political advisor before he commits to wining the Iowa Straw Poll? Isn’t hiring the first step? Answer? Nope.
In the first place, he has to decide about the Iowa Straw Poll right away because it affects the decision on whom he hires. He will want someone who agrees with the plan and who can bring something to the table to help make it work. Finally, if the person he hires doesn’t see the Iowa Straw Poll as a no brainer, he shouldn’t hire him or her anyway. So that is why I list the hiring of the political advisor after the ISP (Iowa Straw Poll) commitment.
Keep in mind, there are several kinds of hires Ron Paul may have to eventually make. There is the big shot political pro who has run numerous presidential campaigns and will cost a fortune and will have a brother in law or girlfriend who will have to be allowed to get rich off of commissions selling the television advertising and there is the less expensive, worker bee, who will stay in the trenches and get things done. The later is almost always a woman. They are the only people who work in political campaigns. And, shame oh shame, they are less expensive.
You say, well doesn’t Ron Paul need to get the very best? A real professional? Not now. That’s like walking into PricewaterhouseCoopers and asking them to do your taxes. And they say, “Okay, well put together a list of all your donations for the year and medical expenses and make sure you have receipts and cancelled checks for them, and travel for business, with the boarding passes if you can….”
And you say, “Whooooa. Wait a minute, hold on. That’s why I am hiring you. YOU… do my taxes. I will pay you to do all that.”
The point is, you really don’t want to be paying $600 an hour for someone to be ransacking your house looking for cancelled checks. “Do you keep them in this drawer maybe?”
As odious as it may be, there are some things you have to do yourself and you can do it in thirty minutes instead of three weeks. And if you can’t, you hire someone at $15 an hour to do it in three weeks, not the fellow from PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Ron Paul needs someone like Sydney Hay, who just lost her congressional run in Arizona, but who has experience running presidential campaigns. At this stage of the game she is more important than the big shot political advisor with the national name. Why? Because she knows more. She ran Alan Keyes presidential campaign which had to operate on a shoestring, which means she did the FEC filings herself at a kitchen table over days and nights of sleepless work. She got him registered in every state, in spite of the complex, arcane state party rules designed to keep pretenders off the ballot. And like any pol, she brings something to the table, in this case the whole Right to Life movement in Iowa.
Big shots don’t know how to file FEC financial reports. Karl Rove wouldn’t know. James Carville wouldn’t know. Charlie Black wouldn’t know. They outsource that sort of thing to specialists. They just know how to bluster, “You better be doing this right. That’s all I’ve got to say. Harrumph.”
So with Sydney, or someone like her, and by the way, I haven’t talked to Sydney about this, you get someone who is a generalist, a rare breed, someone who knows a little about all of it and a lot about some of it. This is critical. Because everyone else on staff are specialists. One is pulling you to this constituency and a second is pulling you to another. One worker says you have to do a fundraiser tonight, another says you have to have a private dinner with the State Chairman. Yet another says you have debate practice. Only the candidate and the generalist know enough to make the call.
Right now, he needs an economical, reasonably priced political advisor with experience in Iowa and the whole national scene, so he or she can prioritize with the congressman. It is a good hire until you break into the national spotlight and hire your prima donna, famous, celebrity advisor, who gives you credibility, makes a lot of noise as a surrogate on television, raises you some money, makes a few good calls and some bad ones and drains your pocket book. You want him, yeah okay, or her. You just don’t want him or her now. He is not only not worth it, he can do more harm than good at this stage. First get your act together, find your receipts and then go to PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Well, you say, but Sydney Hay ran the Alan Keyes campaign and he lost.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
I hate to tell you this but they have all lost. Anyone you hire with experience has lost. The only political advisors who have won are Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod, both headed for the White House, Karl Rove who is under contract with FOX and a major publisher, Ed Rollins who won Reagan’s re-election (Ho hum,) and lost Huckabee’s bid in South Carolina, James Carville and Paul Begala who are Democrats. And even these geniuses have all lost, it’s just that they once won a big one, which makes them all high priced.
The big shot whom Ron Paul eventually hires will also be a loser. That’s not so bad. The all lose before winning. They don’t lose on purpose. They try. And eventually some of them win.
But sometimes, those early, less expensive hires, bond with the candidate, learn while they are on the job and become national names. All of the biggies started small at one time.
Finally, you don’t want someone who is only Iowa. You need someone who has done it national. And there aren’t very many.
I once quizzed Jimmy Carter about his race to the White House and what he had that no one else did. He mentioned Iowa, of course, how he came to the state with a 2% name recognition. And then he said that the difference between him and the other campaigns is that he had a national plan. He had several alternate scenarios of how he could win it all, while the others were taking it one state at a time.
So I am not suggesting that Ron Paul not have the national plan. I am just saying that if he finishes fifth in the Iowa Straw Poll in the summer of 2011, he is out, no matter how good his national plan may be on paper. But if he wins….. or even threatens, look out. All hell will break lose. And he better have a plan ready to go all the way.
So he needs both. He needs a national plan tucked away somewhere, drawn up by a generalist and he needs to focus on the next football game as if nothing else matters. And the next football game, the big one, the only game, is the Iowa Straw Poll in August of 2011.
By: Doug Wead
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/ron-paul-and-karl-rove-dont-mix/
Well now, Republicans say, we have a nominee. That may very well be but there was only one clear winner in the confusing GOP nominating contest and it was not John McCain. The winner was Ron Paul. And the effects of his win will be felt for years to come.
Ron Paul made a classic political mistake. He told the truth. In debate after debate he pointed at his party, his president, his fellow contenders for the GOP nomination, shouting aloud like the little boy in the proverbial story, “they have no clothes” and lo and behold, we looked and they didn’t. They were all naked.
He showed that the conservative movement has lost its way, its moral authority and its logic. He showed us that we have become a red team versus blue team. That since we have decided that this is a political war and all normal rules are suspended, conservatives can do liberal things to win it. Conservatives can run up big deficits if it helps their side win. They can dole out needless pork if it elects another “conservative” to congress. They can go to war if it makes their president look like a leader and secures him another term.
But in the process, Ron Paul showed us, that we have lost our way. We are no longer conservatives. We are fighting for power not for principles. We have become corrupted by the process and the only way back is to retrace our steps and find all the things we discarded along the way.
Barry Goldwater lighted a similar fire with his Conscience of a Conservative. Its truth and arguments were so obvious and so honest that one laughed aloud while reading it. But Goldwater, himself, was doomed to political defeat. And Ron Paul had no chance to win this election either. One could see that when he first opened his mouth.
And yet, the words and arguments of Ron Paul are still resonating. They still hang over this election. They are haunting and troubling. They are producing blogs and papers and books and like Goldwater’s revolution they will one day very likely produce their own Ronald Reagan. And when those heady days happen a small but hearty band of pioneers, who first had the nerve to join him and start shouting from the street, “They aren’t wearing any clothes,” will be able to say that they could see what the country missed. They were there when history was made.
John McCain and his poorly chosen words, of staying in Iraq a hundred years, have almost guaranteed that he will be the answer to the trivia question, who was the Republican candidate who lost to the ticket that claimed the first woman and black for the presidency? Another question may very well be, “What other candidate ran that year and launched the movement that has dominated national politics for the last generation?”
And the answer will be Ron Paul.
By: Doug Wead
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/the-mouse-that-roared-why-ron-paul-won-the-election/
Ron Paul for President in 2012
Now, more than ever. Here’s why.
When Ron Paul accepted the idea that, intended by our forefathers or not, we were a nation locked into a two party system and one had better accept that idea or be hopelessly marginalized, he guaranteed that his neo-libertarian ideas would be heard on a national stage. In 2008 he shunned the idea of doing the third party thing, entered the Republican Party presidential race and won a whole new generation of devotees.
Oh, there were purist critics to be sure, old friends of his on the paranoid right. How can you submit to the two party system? They were outraged at this compromise, this constitutional carnality. But before they could grieve too long over the loss of Brother Paul, he skyrocketed to incredible, cult like, popularity and things they had been saying and advocating for years were suddenly racing along the wireless highways of Al Gore’s marvelous invention.
By the way, many of those critics were there in Minneapolis, at his Campaign for Liberty convention, (Ron Paul has a big heart,) selling their books, and admitting to Ron Paul groupies at their tables that, “Yes, he is quite a guy.” And inwardly rolling their eyes and muttering under their breathes to their wives, “I could have done this years ago but I have way too much integrity.”
And their obedient wives were thinking, “Yeah, that’s why we only earned $30,000 last year off your dwindling mailing list of idiots. Thank God, for Ron Paul. Now, at least, we are selling some of your 1960’s ‘classics.’ We may actually be able to get all those boxes out of our garage and park the car in there.”
The fact is, by running for the GOP nomination in 2008, Ron Paul compromised nothing. Unless you think Jesus compromised when he said, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.”
Sure, he has to be sensitive to sacrificing principle to win when that is the very reason people support him and the very reason they are angry at Democrats and Republicans. But the fact is that Ron Paul has lifted the whole, aging, stifling, outdated Neanderthal right wing out of the ditch and up onto dry ground and hitched it to a populist, neo-libertine wagon train. And he has done all of this single handedly, on his broad generous, courageous shoulders. And he has done it without breaking the China.
Oh, there is much, much more. He has woven a slender thread through the crimson cloth of Evangelical Christians and the pink cloth of Gay America, making one garment out of a people who have decided that they never really wanted or needed power, just the guarantee that government would stay out of their lives and not intrude. Who would have thought that this was politically possible?
He has gathered the hurt and wounded families of America who have suffered the extremes of our glorious “War on Crime,” which has become almost Soviet in its unintended consequences.
It is an amazingly diverse and complicated political fabric, with great demographic possibilities.
Still, the question remains, what did it all accomplish? Were the national debates the high watermark? What happened to our new Paulista congressmen and school board members and the remaking of the GOP?
The political reality is this, just as Ron Paul accepted the fact that he had to run in a two party system, he now must accept the fact that he cannot oversee the remaking of the GOP as a coach on the sidelines. Surely the lesson of 2008 made that clear. He has to get in the game. He has to play quarterback. He has to run for president. Again.
The fact is that a successful run for president is the only way to reform the GOP and the only way to take control of the party and the only way to get new congressmen elected. People will only get off the ground if they are shooting at the moon. They need the inspiration of a big dream.
Well, you say, the conditions were right in 2008. We had an unpopular war in Iraq and an unpopular president. And Ron Paul’s moment was great theatre. In one of my earlier blogs I compared it to the little boy who cried, “The Emperor has no clothes.” Ron Paul’s arguments were breathtaking. He was reading the collective minds of millions and saying publicly what they were barely able to admit to themselves, let alone to a spouse or a friend. It came as relief to find that these instinctive feelings, these unconscious worries, rested on a bedrock of principle that someone had been tending and fussing over for years. And when the debates ended, 32 million, grateful, dollars came pouring into the Ron Paul Campaign.
But to relegate the Ron Paul phenomenon to a lucky confluence of events, to say it cannot happen again, is to say it was only a parlor trick and never was an argument based on principles. It is to deny ourselves.
Indeed, the one big, frightening collective thought that has come to the Paulista nation in recent months is the reality of all that he and others have been warning us about. All those things they have been saying about the Federal Reserve and the house of cards of this global world economy are now upon us. If Ron Paul cannot get a political head of steam going in this environment then who can? And if not now, when the daily news confirms their prescience, then when would they ever be able to do it?
We who believe in the original American idea, or even some remote version of it, or ever believe in a free markeplace, must rally now, or forever resign from public life. What will we tell our grandchildren? We didn’t try because we didn’t think we could win? Shouldn’t the American people be given that choice? Shouldn’t the media be forced to confront it as well? Remember, our currently serving lame duck president is a “conservative Republican.” And he willingly “socialized” the American banking system to buy a few good days on the stock market for the Republican nominee.
After being warned about all of this for years, it is still chilling to see it all disappear so quickly, like bath water down the drain. The fact is that Ron Paul must run for president again. He must.
Note: Is he too old? Hell yes, but I will talk to that on Wednesday. And how could he possibly win? I will address that on Thursday or maybe next week. I just got home from an around the world speaking tour, gotta get a nap in before trying to save America.
By: Doug Wead
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/ron-paul-for-president-in-2012/
Is Ron Paul too old to run for president?
He will be 77 in the year 2012.
Consider; Charles de Gaulle was president of France at the age of 79. Some say he was the greatest modern leader in French history.
Ditto for Konrad Adenauer, declared by many to be the greatest chancellor of the German Republic in its modern history. Compare him to Helmut Kohl, for example, who presided over the reunification of Germany and was in the process of a Shakespearian moment, with greatness thrust on him, only to self implode in the midst of a tawdry, greedy scandal. Adenauer served Germany with wisdom and class until the age of 87.
Remember, the last “old” president America had was Ronald Reagan, who left office at 78.
Nor is old age the end of creativity. Michelangelo began his monumental work as architect of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome at age 71. By age 89, the year of his death, he was still at it.
This is a concept of biblical power. Moses first saw the vision of freeing the Israeli slaves at age 80. He finally brought them to the Jordan River at the age of 120.
Well, but you say, shouldn’t Ron Paul be able to enjoy his retirement? Doesn’t his wife, who has been ill, deserve to have some time with him, all to herself? And his children? And grandchildren?
That depends on whether they want to have him dead or alive. If he retires, his lifespan will shrink accordingly. If he has a vision, if he seeks the presidency, he will probably live longer. And what a romance, what an adventure, it would be, both as a couple and as a family.
Age is not the problem. Getting the issues right and having the courage to take a stand is the problem. And Ron Paul has proven to be up to both.
Coming Up: How he could pull it off.
By: Doug Wead
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/is-ron-paul-too-old-to-run-for-president/
How Ron Paul Wins in 2012: Step One
As far fetched as it sounds, Ron Paul can actually win the Republican nomination in 2012 and change history. Step One: Win the Iowa Straw Poll in 2011.
Well, this is a multi-post memorandum and some of what I have to say I won’t be saying publicly at all – because it is proprietary. So what I will say, is what is obvious, and what the experts in opposition research for any of Ron Paul’s opponents already know and have already considered and already told their principals, okay? No secrets here. But, believe me, this will be educational. So here we go…
For Ron Paul, it all comes down to the Iowa Straw Poll, what used to be called “The Cavalcade,” a political popularity contest, which will be held next in Ames, Iowa the summer of 2011, before the primary season begins in 2012. This event is used as a Republican fundraiser for the Iowa State GOP.
Ron Paul should not be distracted by the other straw polls, raise several million dollars and throw it all into the pot to win this contest. Every volunteer, every employee, every relative, every dollar should be focused on a win at the Cavalcade. It all should roll on the dice in Ames.
Why?
You may point out that G. H. W. Bush won the Poll in 1980 but Reagan won the nomination and the presidency. Pat Robertson won the Poll in 1988 but G. H. W. Bush won the nomination and the presidency. Mitt Romney won the Poll in 2008 but John McCain won the GOP nomination.
But this time, with this candidate, the circumstances are different.
1.) Ron Paul needs to win something meaningful if he is to awaken that vast pool of latent supporters who agree with his positions but doubt the efficacy of his candidacy.
2.) Because this win, as opposed to other straw polls and early contests, will transport his message and his candidacy into national prominence.
3.) Because it is far easier and less expensive to win the Iowa Straw Poll that it is to win any of the Caucuses and Primaries that follow. They only get tougher after this one. But winning it will trigger the flow of money and allow him to compete in the others. Losing, or coming in fifth, will end any real chances for his candidacy.
4.) Because the Straw Poll is such a small universe that the spending of money beyond a certain threshold will be redundant and ineffective. And Ron Paul can meet that threshold, which neutralizes the money factor entirely.
5.) Because winning this event is not only about money, it is about organization. No matter how much money you have you still have to have real live people with Iowa driver’s licenses. Ron Paul’s followers are true believers, activists, who are much more likely to work in Iowa earlier than the followers of Palin, Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich or others, who are essentially just in it for the horse race. Why not put this Ron Paul advantage to work?
Sure, there are no delegates from the Straw Poll, but the lift is enormous and there is the possibility, with this lift, to win it all. It is an old formula made famous by Jimmy Carter, who used the Democratic Jackson Day straw vote in the summer of 1975 as his launching pad for his surprise dark horse victory in 1976. And it is a perfect fit for Ron Paul and his followers.
Like past winners of the Iowa Straw Poll he will likely appear on the cover of TIME and NEWSWEEK, which in itself will pay back a couple of the million dollars spent on the event, and for the next few months he will be considered the front runner for the coming Iowa Caucus in January, if not the front runner for the nomination itself.
The beauty of winning the Poll is the long time between it and the next big event. The Poll is in the late summer of 2011. The Iowa caucus comes in January, 2012, followed within a week by New Hampshire and thereafter by one primary after another. Say for example that Sarah Palin makes a comeback from the Poll and wins the Iowa Caucus in January; she has only a few days to enjoy her lead for fundraising purposes. If Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich beat her in New Hampshire they only enjoy their frontrunner status for a few days before Mike Huckabee or Bobbie Jindal ambushes them in South Carolina.
But remember, there are no delegates from the Poll. So the idea is to win it and use the victory and status to raise a ton of money, which translates into winning the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary back to back in January.
Can it be done? That is, can Ron Paul translate a win in a straw vote in Iowa into something more? Well, that will depend on the money raised afterward. But remember, if he wins, for almost half a year he will be able to raise money while the other candidates will have to explain their loss.
“Yes, he won the Iowa Straw Poll,” Mike Huckabee will say, “but that is because he has a small cadre of devoted followers but he cannot go all the way.” Chuckle, chuckle, “Remember Mitt Romney won the Cavalcade last time and I won the Iowa Caucus and we both got beat by John McCain.”
Sarah Palin will say, “Yes, he won the Poll in Iowa but he is fifth in the national polls and I am leading. He can win a small contest but he can’t win a big one.”
They will all have their rationale for losing but it sure would be nice to be the winner, this time, the one who doesn’t need all those excuses.
There is more. If Ron Paul wins this Poll he will become the darling of the national media during these crucial five months of campaigning and fundraising. Yes, you heard me. The media will be amused by the Ron Paul surge, just as they enjoyed the Pat Buchanan insurgency against a GOP incumbent in the White House in 1992. Why? Because, like Buchanan, they will see Ron Paul as unwinnable in a general election. They will believe that Ron Paul is a safe nominee to face their beloved Barack Obama, who by then will be the second coming of FDR in American newsrooms. Ron Paul’s victory in the Iowa Straw Poll will be trumpeted to the highest heavens and he will be given every advantage. At least during the nominating process. But it will all depend on winning in Ames.
But don’t all the other candidates know that too? Can’t they do the same? Yes and no. They have different assets, priorities and needs. For example, Rudolph Giuliani skipped Iowa altogether because it is an Evangelical state and he would have been quizzed about his personal life. Mitt Romney poured in a ton of money and was in the lead but saw that lead evaporate as Evangelicals slipped away from him, probably because he was Mormon, to support Mike Huckabee, one of their own.
If you review the list of five reasons above you will see that neither Palin nor Huckabee nor Romney nor anyone else would benefit as much as Ron Paul from a Straw Poll win. Ron Paul is the leader of a movement, he offers a different option altogether, whereas Palin and Huckabee and others will simply be in a personality contest. If they win in Ames, it is only one of many more contests to follow. If Ron Paul wins in Ames, he awakens a whole political movement.
Then there is the mighty mistress of American politics…. expectations. Ron Paul would be a sensation, the talk of the country, because his emergence would be a surprise to the mainstream. For example, Palin and Huckabee would not benefit as much from a NEWSWEEK of TIME cover story because they have already had them and they probably will have had them again before the Cavalcade. Heck, Ron Paul garnered some headlines in 2007 when he came in fifth in that contest. A win would be big news.
And what about that all important Iowa Evangelical vote? This time, Huckabee and Palin, both Evangelicals, might have to split that vote, along with a resurrected Newt Gingrich and even a popular, born again Christian, Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana, who may not even enter the Straw Poll because his re-election as governor is in the fall of 2011.
Anyway, Ron Paul will get a big chunk of those Evangelical voters because I am going to help him, if he wants it. He is Christian, pro-life, married to the same wife forever and he wants the government out of our lives, believe me, it will work. And I know how to win that vote big.
For a history of the born again vote see: http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/...e-evangelical-vote-in-presidential-elections/
So how does Ron Paul harness his army and raise the money to win the Iowa Cavalcade? And if he won, where would he go from there? That discussion is coming in future posts. All I know is this… if Ron Paul can raise $32 million and get 15,000 people to buy tickets to his convention in Minneapolis after the nomination was already decided, then he has a very real chance of winning in the small universe of Ames, Iowa in 2011 and that win, my friends, would catapult him and his movement into the stratosphere.
(If you want to follow this rather complicated series on how Ron Paul can actually win, go all the way, do it, be elected and change the world…. Sign up to follow Doug Wead on twitter. http://twitter.com/dougwead1234 )
The next step? http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/ron-paul-and-karl-rove-dont-mix/
By: Doug Wead
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/how-ron-paul-wins-in-2012-step-one/
Ron Paul and Karl Rove don’t mix.
Okay, this is about hiring the right people at the right time and how that is critical for Ron Paul. But there is no way you will even comprehend what we are talking about unless you get caught up. So, if you haven’t read the following posts, start with the first one. If you are a veteran of this chain, skip the links below and dig right in.
Previous posts in this chain:
1.) Why he should run for president?
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/ron-paul-for-president-in-2012/
2.) But isn’t he too old?
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/is-ron-paul-too-old-to-run-for-president/
3.) How Ron Paul Wins: The Iowa Straw Poll.
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/how-ron-paul-wins-in-2012-step-one/
And now….. for your reading pleasure
4.) Immediately hire an inexpensive political advisor.
To win, Ron Paul has to hire the right people. There are only 24 hours in a day and he cannot do it all. Others have to think things through for him and present him with options. And, of course, he cannot run his own campaign. He will be too busy. He needs help.
Well, you say, shouldn’t he hire his political advisor before he commits to wining the Iowa Straw Poll? Isn’t hiring the first step? Answer? Nope.
In the first place, he has to decide about the Iowa Straw Poll right away because it affects the decision on whom he hires. He will want someone who agrees with the plan and who can bring something to the table to help make it work. Finally, if the person he hires doesn’t see the Iowa Straw Poll as a no brainer, he shouldn’t hire him or her anyway. So that is why I list the hiring of the political advisor after the ISP (Iowa Straw Poll) commitment.
Keep in mind, there are several kinds of hires Ron Paul may have to eventually make. There is the big shot political pro who has run numerous presidential campaigns and will cost a fortune and will have a brother in law or girlfriend who will have to be allowed to get rich off of commissions selling the television advertising and there is the less expensive, worker bee, who will stay in the trenches and get things done. The later is almost always a woman. They are the only people who work in political campaigns. And, shame oh shame, they are less expensive.
You say, well doesn’t Ron Paul need to get the very best? A real professional? Not now. That’s like walking into PricewaterhouseCoopers and asking them to do your taxes. And they say, “Okay, well put together a list of all your donations for the year and medical expenses and make sure you have receipts and cancelled checks for them, and travel for business, with the boarding passes if you can….”
And you say, “Whooooa. Wait a minute, hold on. That’s why I am hiring you. YOU… do my taxes. I will pay you to do all that.”
The point is, you really don’t want to be paying $600 an hour for someone to be ransacking your house looking for cancelled checks. “Do you keep them in this drawer maybe?”
As odious as it may be, there are some things you have to do yourself and you can do it in thirty minutes instead of three weeks. And if you can’t, you hire someone at $15 an hour to do it in three weeks, not the fellow from PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Ron Paul needs someone like Sydney Hay, who just lost her congressional run in Arizona, but who has experience running presidential campaigns. At this stage of the game she is more important than the big shot political advisor with the national name. Why? Because she knows more. She ran Alan Keyes presidential campaign which had to operate on a shoestring, which means she did the FEC filings herself at a kitchen table over days and nights of sleepless work. She got him registered in every state, in spite of the complex, arcane state party rules designed to keep pretenders off the ballot. And like any pol, she brings something to the table, in this case the whole Right to Life movement in Iowa.
Big shots don’t know how to file FEC financial reports. Karl Rove wouldn’t know. James Carville wouldn’t know. Charlie Black wouldn’t know. They outsource that sort of thing to specialists. They just know how to bluster, “You better be doing this right. That’s all I’ve got to say. Harrumph.”
So with Sydney, or someone like her, and by the way, I haven’t talked to Sydney about this, you get someone who is a generalist, a rare breed, someone who knows a little about all of it and a lot about some of it. This is critical. Because everyone else on staff are specialists. One is pulling you to this constituency and a second is pulling you to another. One worker says you have to do a fundraiser tonight, another says you have to have a private dinner with the State Chairman. Yet another says you have debate practice. Only the candidate and the generalist know enough to make the call.
Right now, he needs an economical, reasonably priced political advisor with experience in Iowa and the whole national scene, so he or she can prioritize with the congressman. It is a good hire until you break into the national spotlight and hire your prima donna, famous, celebrity advisor, who gives you credibility, makes a lot of noise as a surrogate on television, raises you some money, makes a few good calls and some bad ones and drains your pocket book. You want him, yeah okay, or her. You just don’t want him or her now. He is not only not worth it, he can do more harm than good at this stage. First get your act together, find your receipts and then go to PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Well, you say, but Sydney Hay ran the Alan Keyes campaign and he lost.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
I hate to tell you this but they have all lost. Anyone you hire with experience has lost. The only political advisors who have won are Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod, both headed for the White House, Karl Rove who is under contract with FOX and a major publisher, Ed Rollins who won Reagan’s re-election (Ho hum,) and lost Huckabee’s bid in South Carolina, James Carville and Paul Begala who are Democrats. And even these geniuses have all lost, it’s just that they once won a big one, which makes them all high priced.
The big shot whom Ron Paul eventually hires will also be a loser. That’s not so bad. The all lose before winning. They don’t lose on purpose. They try. And eventually some of them win.
But sometimes, those early, less expensive hires, bond with the candidate, learn while they are on the job and become national names. All of the biggies started small at one time.
Finally, you don’t want someone who is only Iowa. You need someone who has done it national. And there aren’t very many.
I once quizzed Jimmy Carter about his race to the White House and what he had that no one else did. He mentioned Iowa, of course, how he came to the state with a 2% name recognition. And then he said that the difference between him and the other campaigns is that he had a national plan. He had several alternate scenarios of how he could win it all, while the others were taking it one state at a time.
So I am not suggesting that Ron Paul not have the national plan. I am just saying that if he finishes fifth in the Iowa Straw Poll in the summer of 2011, he is out, no matter how good his national plan may be on paper. But if he wins….. or even threatens, look out. All hell will break lose. And he better have a plan ready to go all the way.
So he needs both. He needs a national plan tucked away somewhere, drawn up by a generalist and he needs to focus on the next football game as if nothing else matters. And the next football game, the big one, the only game, is the Iowa Straw Poll in August of 2011.
By: Doug Wead
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/ron-paul-and-karl-rove-dont-mix/
Last edited:
