Ron Paul 2012: We are Running to Win, Right?

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

We absolutely run to win. Our trump card is that we understand the grassroots government. Look how many libertarians have gotten involved and are now local political leaders throughout the country! If We fail in getting Ron Paul into the White House, we need to realize that the automatons that vote for the other guys will most likely go back to sleep and our guys will remain active. Either we use the presidency itself or we use the local governments, but our only true measure of success should be the eroding relevancy of the federal government.

 

[MikeStanart]

If Ron Paul runs, we wil "Succeed" no matter what the outcome.

Whatever the case, lets campaign to win.

 

[wormyguy]

If we're running to win, we have to highlight issues that resonate with people. And no, the Federal Reserve does not resonate to the average Joe.

Good issues:

PATRIOT act/civil liberties
Afghanistan
Lower taxes
School choice
Anti-spending
Low taxes
An "independent voice"
Not owned by special interests
"Tea Party" candidate (in primaries)
Illegal immigration (should not be a focus)
Transparency/ethics
Innovative ideas
Appealing to young/first time voters (as media narrative)
Eliminating waste
Votes with Democrats ("moderate")

Bad issues:

Fed/monetary policy/gold standard
Military spending
Judicial activism
Eliminating federal departments
Peculiarities of Roe v. Wade stance.
Military spending
Foreign aid
Trade policy
Drug policy/war on drugs
Originalist constitutional interpretation

Danger, Will Robinson!

Israel
Social Security/Medicare
Civil Rights Act
Americans with Disabilities Act
Endangered Species Act
Anything involving the words "9/11" and something other than "al-Qaeda terrorists" (this is more directed at various supporters)
"States' rights"
Legalizing drugs

 

[Kregisen]

Am I the only one here who thinks running to win is the BEST way to educate? People will take him seriously if he puts up 15% each state.

If we're running to win, we have to highlight issues that resonate with people. And no, the Federal Reserve does not resonate to the average Joe.

Good issues:

PATRIOT act/civil liberties
Afghanistan
Lower taxes
School choice
Anti-spending
Low taxes
An "independent voice"
Not owned by special interests
"Tea Party" candidate (in primaries)
Illegal immigration (should not be a focus)
Transparency/ethics
Innovative ideas
Appealing to young/first time voters (as media narrative)
Eliminating waste
Votes with Democrats ("moderate")

Bad issues:

Fed/monetary policy/gold standard
Military spending
Judicial activism
Eliminating federal departments
Peculiarities of Roe v. Wade stance.
Military spending
Foreign aid
Trade policy
Drug policy/war on drugs
Originalist constitutional interpretation

Danger, Will Robinson!

Israel
Social Security/Medicare
Civil Rights Act
Americans with Disabilities Act
Endangered Species Act
Anything involving the words "9/11" and something other than "al-Qaeda terrorists" (this is more directed at various supporters)
"States' rights"
Legalizing drugs

Agreed. He just has to spell out exactly what he will do if elected president. I think one of the best ways to win over republicans is talking about spending, and getting rid of the INCOME TAX. There's not 1 republican out there this won't resonate with.

But yes, he can't run his campaign on the fed or the drug war, and even wars in general he may want to be cautious. Obviously, in 2012 a lot more people will be open to anti-war views, and if he strictly talks about NATION-BUILDING he can win many people over.


Unfortunately this is the republican party, so eventhough Ron is a libertarian he has to cater to republicans if he's trying to win.

 

[JeremyDahl]

<---------


v v v v v v

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Lol that list was utter bullshit. The "Bad" is basically everything that is to like about the man, the "Good" is every dumbass cliche known to politics in which EVERY politician utters. Ron Paul has to be different than the average politician or he won't be elected. Why vote for a guy who is 76 years old, when he is spouting the same shit as Romney, Gingrich, etc. who are both younger and more well-known?

That is just stupid advice imho. If he wants to win he has to be himself, express his views, and run a well oiled campaign which means well orchestrated radio, TV, newspaper, grassroots, etc. "He's catchin' on..." is not good.

 

[Eric21ND]

I think that Good/Bad issue list could be attuned to each individual state and probably even individual groups Ron is speaking to.

 

[K466]

I agree Ron Paul should not put emphasis on certain issues. If we want to win Paul needs to focus on what he will realistically do (whether or not congress would co-operate) rather than his underlying political philosophy.

Sound money and the Fed, as well as our foreign policy, must be part of the campaign, but Paul would probably win more votes talking about what he would realistically do, instead of what he wishes he could do.

 

[paulitics]

If we're running to win, we have to highlight issues that resonate with people. And no, the Federal Reserve does not resonate to the average Joe.

Good issues:

PATRIOT act/civil liberties
Afghanistan
Lower taxes
School choice
Anti-spending
Low taxes
An "independent voice"
Not owned by special interests
"Tea Party" candidate (in primaries)
Illegal immigration (should not be a focus)
Transparency/ethics
Innovative ideas
Appealing to young/first time voters (as media narrative)
Eliminating waste
Votes with Democrats ("moderate")

Bad issues:

Fed/monetary policy/gold standard
Military spending
Judicial activism
Eliminating federal departments
Peculiarities of Roe v. Wade stance.
Military spending
Foreign aid
Trade policy
Drug policy/war on drugs
Originalist constitutional interpretation

Danger, Will Robinson!

Israel
Social Security/Medicare
Civil Rights Act
Americans with Disabilities Act
Endangered Species Act
Anything involving the words "9/11" and something other than "al-Qaeda terrorists" (this is more directed at various supporters)
"States' rights"
Legalizing drugs

Based on this, I am going to have to vote NO on running to win.

There won't be any spirit left in the campaign, and the only issues that concern me are the ones that are bad or a danger to the comfort zone of sheeple.

What you outlined here is actually even more diluted than GJ, it is really no different than Bob Barr. Ron Paul would actually lose more than gain, especialliy with the base.

I think we forget that the reason RP is succesful is because he talks about the real issues people know deep down inside are the problem.

As soon as RP stops talking about the FED is the day I walk away. I won't even contribute to the campaign.

 

[paulitics]

Running to win, and running to educate are not mutually exclusive. I would vote for running to educate and to win, but it wasn't an option.

 

[Daamien]

Ummm, both?

 

[dude58677]

While it would be really nice to claim to be running to win, I see no signs whatsoever that the American people are ready to elect Ron Paul. I agree that there's a fervent minority that believes that would be a great step toward more freedom, and I'm proud to count myself among them.

But let's look at society as a whole and be realistic. Another educational campaign will certainly save a few more lives when the ship of state finally goes belly-up, but there's no chance in hell of the passengers electing a sane captain, Ron Paul or otherwise. Pretending otherwise is simply delusional. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.

Really? What about Rand Paul winning in Kentucky? What about all these other outsiders winning elections for Senate and House elections and governorships? How could you say such a thing?

 

[K466]

Running to win, and running to educate are not mutually exclusive. I would vote for running to educate and to win, but it wasn't an option.

Good point. Running to win, Should have noted that would also be educational. Sorry.:o

 

[pacelli]

2008 was more of an educational campaign.

What are your views for 2012? I'm hoping we have the full intention of winning this thing, we cannot afford another statist victory.

It's going to take a lot more sacrifice and money to win. Better start getting ready now!

I've got plenty of educational material to donate if Ron wants to run an educational campaign. All of it was purchased from the 2008 campaign.

If Ron wants to WIN in 2012, then I should have plenty of FRNs. But I can't afford public education.

 

[josh.schisler]

As soon as RP stops talking about the FED is the day I walk away. I won't even contribute to the campaign.

nobody is saying that he should reverse his positions on this issue or others.

he will just have to be more tactful in order to win.

that's what rand has done.

 

[european]

Run to win (goal).
Educating is part of the road to the victory (means).

 

[Anti Federalist]

nobody is saying that he should reverse his positions on this issue or others.

he will just have to be more tactful in order to win.

that's what rand has done.

Ron is not Rand, and at 76 years of age, multiple congressional wins and a lifetime in politics speaking about the critical issues tearing this nation apart (two of his most personal and important issues listed on the "bad list" posted above, war/foreign policy and FED/money supply, so I'm to assume he isn't supposed to talk about them anymore) Ron is not about to change his style, delivery, message or tact.

It is what it is.

 

[Promontorium]

If I think for a second that Ron Paul isn't in it to win, I'm out. I agree he's the best candidate, but philosophically I only agree with him more than other candidates. I'm on my own in this life otherwise. Besides I already dumped thousands of dollars last campaign. I genuinely don't give a shit if people haven't heard of him at this point. I'm not an evangelist and I discourage preaching.


If you want to do something to kickstart a better campaign, figure out why there is no Wikipedia article for Liberty Forest or Ronpaulforums.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The difference won't be Ron, the difference will be US. We, the activist core of RP08, have a metric pluck-ton more experience than we did 2 years ago... That experience will mean the difference between defeat and victory.

 

[jake]

anything less than victory is failure. that is just reality. that doesn't mean there can't be some good in failure - but we need to be in this for the WIN.