It's amazing to me that people don't see what Ron Paul is doing.

[LibertyEagle]

Cleaner, it may have been that stupid Patriot Act. It put a lot of added requirements on banks.

 

[angelatc]

I think he is trying to do both, but at some point may not be able to win the nomination -- should he then throw the work and money his donors donated away? He has ALWAYS said he is running for both. There is no deception at all.

Oh obviously. But the bottom line is....either he's running for President, or he isn't. If he's not, then he should stop telling people that he needs money to run for President.

 

[angelatc]

Cleaner, it may have been that stupid Patriot Act. It put a lot of added requirements on banks.

It is. There's no technical ban on cashing 2 party checks, but the "know your customer" rule makes them pretty liable for anything bad that can happen as a result. It's a bunch of nonsense, really.

 

[bluesc]

Oh obviously. But the bottom line is....either he's running for President, or he isn't. If he's not, then he should stop telling people that he needs money to run for President.

For once I don't disagree with her.

Although your claim that this campaign is drawing more LIBRULS than it should is laughable. Isn't that the idea? Must keep the GOP pure!

 

[PierzStyx]

I think the Doctor is trying to be the Barry Goldwater of our generation. If he got nominated and didn't win, he'd still have a profound effect on the rebirth of true conservatism.

 

[bluesc]

I think the Doctor is trying to be the Barry Goldwater of our generation. If he got nominated and didn't win, he'd still have a profound effect on the rebirth of true conservatism.

The problem is making sure the Reagan of our movement doesn't get stuck with a Bush.

 

[coffeewithchess]

For once I don't disagree with her.

Although your claim that this campaign is drawing more LIBRULS than it should is laughable. Isn't that the idea? Must keep the GOP pure!

While drawing new voters is good, the problem is that the campaign seems to have ignored key issues holding it back from the voters already identified as "Republican". There's nothing wrong with "LIBRULS" joining RP, because he has issues they can agree with him on, the problem is hoping to convert enough to win a REPUBLICAN nomination, instead of focusing on the BASE that is already there.

 

[jolynna]

The problem is making sure the Reagan of our movement doesn't get stuck with a Bush.

Which is why Ron Paul cannot give any nod of approval to the GOP candidate who has hired the "worst" of the "worst" of Bush's team, which includes Michael Chertoff (Bush's head of Homeland Security who wrote the Patriot Act & disposed of the remains of the Twin Towers & damaged Pentagon after 9/11) as well as Eliot Cohen, closely affiliated with the circle of hawks who surrounded former Vice President Dick Cheney, Cohen served as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and sat on the Defense Policy Board during Donald Rumsfeld’s tenure as defense secretary. In 2001 Cohen started his rampage to take out much of the middle east, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/fcf1cea48c5eaf0c.

In my opinion.

 

[Johnny Appleseed]

yeah I think that is why his suits fit him like a shell because I think he is part tortoise.

 

[jolynna]

While drawing new voters is good, the problem is that the campaign seems to have ignored key issues holding it back from the voters already identified as "Republican". There's nothing wrong with "LIBRULS" joining RP, because he has issues they can agree with him on, the problem is hoping to convert enough to win a REPUBLICAN nomination, instead of focusing on the BASE that is already there.

Some of the strongest voices for civil rights, human rights and liberty are liberal voices. Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Dennis Kucinich are progressives who have had the courage to speak out against war, the NDAA, the Patriot Act, secret prisons and torture...all of which Ron Paul has taken strong stands against.

I think a true freedom and liberty movement should be MORE ABOUT ISSUES & PRINCIPLE rather than party. Liberals and conservatives SHOULD unite to do what is right because of principles instead of wanting to be on the "winning team" when the "winning team" advocates the WORST of the Bush and Obama atrocities against liberty, the constitution and rationalizes unjustifiable killing.

Ending war and atrocity makes good economic sense as WELL as being moral and ethical. It would make the U.S.A. a safer place to live (no blowback, a stronger economy, no searching our homes without a warrant, no detention without probable cause or being indefinitely jailed without a trial).

War is the reason Nixon got rid of our gold standard. He needed money to fund Vietnam.

Ending foreign adventurism AND NOT EXPANDING our military (as Romney intends to do...going from building 9 ships a year to 15 ships a year and more submarines with more missiles), but INSTEAD cutting our big ticket aircraft carriers down to half would save us TRILLIONS. (Cost of aircraft carriers: http://joecrubaugh.com/blog/2010/08/01/how-many-aircraft-carriers-do-you-need/)

The goal should be ending war & injustice, taking the moral high road (which can't include slaughtering innocents that are in the way or starving them for political advantage), not wasting trillions and trillions to be the guy with the biggest and most weapons. The moral high road is not only the decent thing to do it WOULD BENEFIT us ECONOMICALLY TOO.

What is the point of getting rid of ONE immoral warmonger, IF you are going to replace him with a FAR WORSE version.

Neither should be supported.

In my opinion.





In my opinion.

 

[tbone717]

Some of the strongest voices for civil rights, human rights and liberty are liberal voices. Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Dennis Kucinich are progressives who have had the courage to speak out against war, the NDAA, the Patriot Act, secret prisons and torture...all of which Ron Paul has taken strong stands against.

But while they may have spoken out against some policies that restrict civil rights and liberty, they have supported Socialist policies that also take away civil rights and liberty (the income tax, entitlement programs, unrestricted spending, regulations, etc).

So Kucinich and the rest are enemies of liberty just like those that support NDAA, the Patriot Act, etc. Progressives are as bad or worse than neo-cons. Don't be fooled by their rhetoric.

 

[anaconda]

this is a MARATHON, not a sprint! RP 2012 is only the first mile of our journey, and Ron Paul's strategy to create a new establishment in the GOP proves it!

Well said. However, my fear is that we will all be in FEMA camps long before we get to complete the marathon. The marathon will be terminated at about mile #3.

 

[anaconda]

When the house of cards collapses, which it will, we will be in place with both the solutions and the vigor to rebuild.

But the elite clique will have complete control of the military and the police state grid. Unless the military defects.

 

[anaconda]

We can take control of the GOP simply by showing up in numbers - participation is abysmally low and we're the only ones motivated to get anything done. Find out all the GOP functions in your area - local, state, federal - show up, and be heard. Take over - use our voting strength in these groups to anoint liberty people as candidates and as party functionaries.

Inspirational post. Thank you.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Don't give up. You don't give up a fight until it's lost. We haven't lost.
You can talk about the future fight after the current one is finished (yes, you can also consider the future). This one is not finished. Not in any since of the word.
Are we to take all the work of Athens or MO or many, many others and say, oh, well, in twelve tomorrows we fight again, the fight is now.

 

[Johncjackson]

Well that's just peachy keen. But when you tell people you're trying to win the nomination, if instead you're actually not much interested in that at all, some would say you're deceiving your donors.

Most of the people who got involved at Ron's behest in 2008 disappeared as soon as the election ended and the liberty buzz died. No reason to think that won't happen again, especially since this campaign is drawing a lot more liberals than it should.

He is running to win. So do most candidates, but not everyone can win. It doesn't mean they didn't try. You can nitpick and find legit weakness in every campaign, including winners. What do you expect him to do? There are not enough voters with the proper knowledge and views on the issues to deliver widespread popular vote victories for Ron Paul in a major party primary.. AT THIS TIME. WOuld it have been better if he said " We probably don't have the votes to win states, but I'm gonna do my darndest to grow our movement and grow the party?"

In 2008, Ron Paul was a single digit competitor- down around 2-3% nationally throughout nearly the entire primary season. His competitors did not take him as a serious threat. Now they can't afford not to. Going from someone treated as a joke to being the leader of a very significant movement in 4 years is a big deal. Trust me, there were candidates genuinely "In it to Win it" and tried their best, who did nowhere near as well as Ron Paul, even with media/establishment support.

Whether you want to throw away your political interests because you choose to idealistically throw all your hope and dreams behind ONE man and one political office in a nation of thousands of elected offices with a very small % of friendly officials, because you didn't get the result you want- That's up to you.

Your point about after 2008 is invalid. C4L and a lot of activism grew out of that. A lot of the groundwork was laid in 2008-2012. The campaign NEEDS to draw "liberals" to succeed. A lot of liberals aren't Dems, just as a lot of conservatives aren't Rs. Certainly neither party is liberal or conservative now. They are center/center-right establishments, with no consistent values/philosophy. Obama and GW Bush did a good job at disappointing liberals and conservatives, respectively. A liberty/freedom movement would be consistently "liberal", if anything. Liberties and Markets.

 

[Ivash]

...The other candidates don't take Dr. Paul very seriously, though. Neither do the elite. They see him as a 'passing fad'. People connected with Santorum and Gingrich are even glad Dr. Paul is in the race since they believe he 'takes votes/delegates from Romney'.

If a different libertarian candidate runs in 2016 and gets a significant percentage of the vote... well, then it would be a significant movement. Now? Eh.

 

[coffeewithchess]

In 2008, Ron Paul was a single digit competitor- down around 2-3% nationally throughout nearly the entire primary season. His competitors did not take him as a serious threat. Now they can't afford not to. Going from someone treated as a joke to being the leader of a very significant movement in 4 years is a big deal. Trust me, there were candidates genuinely "In it to Win it" and tried their best, who did nowhere near as well as Ron Paul, even with media/establishment support.

Whether you want to throw away your political interests because you choose to idealistically throw all your hope and dreams behind ONE man and one political office in a nation of thousands of elected offices with a very small % of friendly officials, because you didn't get the result you want- That's up to you.

I don't think they're saying give up politically or throw away interests, but perhaps the campaign needs to address legitimate problems...that they have ignored for months/years now...to grow the conservative base/activism.

It happened last time, when the campaign/RP announced he was dropping out, then a few weeks later he released a book? The grassroots supporters give time, money, effort...and most are making $0 off of this. The campaign has people in it that do politics for a career...and we should expect results from them, if they want this to continue.
I personally don't see how $30 million raised/spent, this time and last...is a positive. $60 million dollars? There are very legitimate issues with this campaign (and yes others), but the fact is no other campaign has grassroots supporters like RP does...people that quit school, jobs, etc., for months to help out...only to see little/no result...and what then appears to be a "company" in C4L to keep people getting a paycheck.
It happened in 2008, and it will probably happen again...mass influx/mass exit of supporters. It's the way politics is...

 

[PolicyReader]

I think he is trying to do both, but at some point may not be able to win the nomination -- should he then throw the work and money his donors donated away? He has ALWAYS said he is running for both. There is no deception at all.

^This

I agree. Ron knows this is not for him to win in 2012. But it is laying the groundwork for the future.

This would be one of the only things that might hold any chance of dampening my support for Paul. I think that without a Liberty White House this year we will suffer mightily both in elections and out, and feel the ramifications well beyond 2016 or even 2020 (I won't rehash all of why this is true here, but I've said it in detail in several other threads).

Happily I agree with the following, I honestly think Paul is more of a tactician than a 'fools errand' type of guy. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe all of the "this year is just a means to build the movement" stuff is really happening but that would be a waste and a shame and so far every 'hands dirty on the ground' activist from the grassroots this cycle knows it, I'm far from alone in seeing the writing on the wall here. Anyway on to the following quote which I agree with

I wouldn't write him off yet, as of THIS point his delegate count is quite good, from the convention reports we are getting. It is the lack of media coverage and momentum which is necessary for the upcoming primary states that is problematic, and, while hard to foresee how that would change right now, stranger things have happened in this campaign.

 

[affa]

Most of the people who got involved at Ron's behest in 2008 disappeared as soon as the election ended and the liberty buzz died. No reason to think that won't happen again, especially since this campaign is drawing a lot more liberals than it should.

So you're saying this campaign shouldn't attract new blood that used to be liberal? Interesting perspective. I, however, think it's great we wake people up from both sides of that imaginary line.