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

[erowe1]

Ron Paul winning this go around? hmmmnnn

Many things need to happen

he can't have "followers" look like crack pots pushing 9/11 truther shit (whether true or not)
he cant talk about removing the irs and federal reserve and going to gold
he can't talk about ALOT OF SHIT

however if he would just run on a solid platform that dems and repub sheep would accept he could THEN once in office take control and handle some shit.

There are many ways to win, its like sales. Yes you can be 100% honest with every point however you will lose sales except those who like exactly what it is you are offering. Instead you locate what it is the person is after and talk up the product on THEIR hot buttons without mentioning other stuff.

so

1. economy - reduce debt without saying you are removing EVERYTHING
2. health care - hes a damn doctor, who better
3. war - this will be touchy for dems and repubs


all the ron paul supporters last time simply made him look crazy, we ran around screaming how no one would listen to him or us, then screamed about 9-11, gun rights, marijuana rights, removing the entire tax system among other things.

what did we think was going to happen?

So when he's getting interviewed on the campaign trail and they ask him, "In 2008 you said you wanted to abolish the Federal Reserve. We don't hear you saying that any more. Has your position changed?" what should his answer be?

 

[Kludge]

So when he's getting interviewed on the campaign trail and they ask him, "In 2008 you said you wanted to abolish the Federal Reserve. We don't hear you saying that any more. Has your position changed?" what should his answer be?

"As you know, Chris, I have a method of leadership - okay? - where I delegate such responsibilities as this to my team of economic advisers: Peter Schiff, Steven Landsburg, and Stephen Moore. Within my sphere of trusted advisers, we would discuss issues like these and come up with the best solution for putting America forward."

 

[jake]

"As you know, Chris, I have a method of leadership - okay? - where I delegate such responsibilities as this to my team of economic advisers: Peter Schiff, Steven Landsburg, and Stephen Moore. Within my sphere of trusted advisers, we would discuss issues like these and come up with the best solution for putting America forward."

also, he can push the competing currencies and legalization of gold as legal tender etc.. (which in the end, would also result in ending the fed!)

 

[Peace&Freedom]

When/if Paul runs in 2012, he should run on ALL the issues of widespread concern to the liberty movement, which means especially 9-11 truth, ending the IRS, the Fed, and the rest of the issues. Last time we did it the fraidy cats' way, with Paul distancing himself from many of those issues, and it got us NOWHERE, as in zero primary wins. Those fraidy cats do not get to set the terms again, divide the movement once more, and set us up for second failure. We should not even care about what the establishment thinks about the agenda, our aim is to replace that establishment. Capitulating to the MSM again will be the kiss of death to a second Paul run.

Hopefully Paul will send no mixed signals about REALLY running to win, and even commit to being on the ballot on Election Day 2012 no matter what---meaning he unequivocally commits to also taking one or more 3rd party lines, regardless of what happens in the GOP race. This will reassure millions of supporters who want to work all out for Paul again that they will be able to vote for him in November, and that he will not pull another "February 8" on them again, essentially saying it was all just an educational effort.

But we may be over-thinking what could go wrong, and are ignoring the main asset we have this go around: readiness. It took a full year to bring the grassroots network to critical mass by primary time, when it was too late to put it to use to win the critical early primaries. It took almost all of 2007 to figure out and implement the money bomb concept. This cycle, however, the grassroots infrastructure is already in place, and we know what to do from day one.

WE NEED TO GET OCEANS OF CASH TO PAUL ASAP, ONCE HE ANNOUNCES. We also need to implement all the better spread-the-word ideas we had run out of time to really set in motion, from early 2011 onwards. We most of all need to focus on Paul winning the key early primaries outright. No detours into blimps, no street outreach to Democrats in states where they can't vote in the Republican primaries. No time-draining sign waving or literature distribution to the general population, when we could be funding billboard ads and flyer distribution services to blanket Republican districts. TARGET and saturate this time, and no more running from the whole liberty agenda.

 

[TheeJoeGlass]

When/if Paul runs in 2012, he should run on ALL the issues of widespread concern to the liberty movement, which means especially 9-11 truth, ending the IRS, the Fed, and the rest of the issues. Last time we did it the fraidy cats' way, with Paul distancing himself from many of those issues, and it got us NOWHERE, as in zero primary wins. Those fraidy cats do not get to set the terms again, divide the movement once more, and set us up for second failure. We should not even care about what the establishment thinks about the agenda, our aim is to replace that establishment. Capitulating to the MSM again will be the kiss of death to a second Paul run.

Hopefully Paul will send no mixed signals about REALLY running to win, and even commit to being on the ballot on Election Day 2012 no matter what---meaning he unequivocally commits to also taking one or more 3rd party lines, regardless of what happens in the GOP race. This will reassure millions of supporters who want to work all out for Paul again that they will be able to vote for him in November, and that he will not pull another "February 8" on them again, essentially saying it was all just an educational effort.

But we may be over-thinking what could go wrong, and are ignoring the main asset we have this go around: readiness. It took a full year to bring the grassroots network to critical mass by primary time, when it was too late to put it to use to win the critical early primaries. It took almost all of 2007 to figure out and implement the money bomb concept. This cycle, however, the grassroots infrastructure is already in place, and we know what to do from day one.

WE NEED TO GET OCEANS OF CASH TO PAUL ASAP, ONCE HE ANNOUNCES. We also need to implement all the better spread-the-word ideas we had run out of time to really set in motion, from early 2011 onwards. We most of all need to focus on Paul winning the key early primaries outright. No detours into blimps, no street outreach to Democrats in states where they can't vote in the Republican primaries. No time-draining sign waving or literature distribution to the general population, when we could be funding billboard ads and flyer distribution services to blanket Republican districts. TARGET and saturate this time, and no more running from the whole liberty agenda.

I hope they listen to you. My first response to this question was simple, its all about the money. He showed he was able to raise money and hold his own in debates. That will continue. He has a chance, and that chance is Iowa, then New Hampshire.

 

[DFF]

 

[lucius]

Running to Educate...me & the wife will max again...maybe run some other tomfoolery as well..most differently the radio ad...

I got your six...

 

[Imaginos]

Both!
We must win and we must educate and spread our message as well.

 

[pacelli]

When/if Paul runs in 2012, he should run on ALL the issues of widespread concern to the liberty movement, which means especially 9-11 truth, ending the IRS, the Fed, and the rest of the issues. Last time we did it the fraidy cats' way, with Paul distancing himself from many of those issues, and it got us NOWHERE, as in zero primary wins. Those fraidy cats do not get to set the terms again, divide the movement once more, and set us up for second failure. We should not even care about what the establishment thinks about the agenda, our aim is to replace that establishment. Capitulating to the MSM again will be the kiss of death to a second Paul run.

Hopefully Paul will send no mixed signals about REALLY running to win, and even commit to being on the ballot on Election Day 2012 no matter what---meaning he unequivocally commits to also taking one or more 3rd party lines, regardless of what happens in the GOP race. This will reassure millions of supporters who want to work all out for Paul again that they will be able to vote for him in November, and that he will not pull another "February 8" on them again, essentially saying it was all just an educational effort.

But we may be over-thinking what could go wrong, and are ignoring the main asset we have this go around: readiness. It took a full year to bring the grassroots network to critical mass by primary time, when it was too late to put it to use to win the critical early primaries. It took almost all of 2007 to figure out and implement the money bomb concept. This cycle, however, the grassroots infrastructure is already in place, and we know what to do from day one.

WE NEED TO GET OCEANS OF CASH TO PAUL ASAP, ONCE HE ANNOUNCES. We also need to implement all the better spread-the-word ideas we had run out of time to really set in motion, from early 2011 onwards. We most of all need to focus on Paul winning the key early primaries outright. No detours into blimps, no street outreach to Democrats in states where they can't vote in the Republican primaries. No time-draining sign waving or literature distribution to the general population, when we could be funding billboard ads and flyer distribution services to blanket Republican districts. TARGET and saturate this time, and no more running from the whole liberty agenda.

Completely agreed on all points listed.

Your post needs to be carefully read and digested by everyone involved with the RP2012 campaign. Then, folks need to read this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=232814

I'd also tack on that RP running a congressional campaign and asking for donations for that WHILE he was running for president didn't send a very confident message that he was running to win the presidency. If he does the same thing again in 2012, then I know how things will turn out.

 

[randolphfuller]

The real kiss of death for Ron Paul would be for the public to believe he has any connection to the birthers. truthers or any of the other conspiracy theorits! Just ask Debra Medina what happened to her campaign after her interview with Glenn Beck.

 

[MikeStanart]

The real kiss of death for Ron Paul would be for the public to believe he has any connection to the birthers. truthers or any of the other conspiracy theorits! Just ask Debra Medina what happened to her campaign after her interview with Glenn Beck.

This.

I respect people's opinion; but politically speaking; these issues are the kiss of death. To the truthers: Please keep quiet about anything 9/11 truth. Don't selfishly use Paul's campaign to push your agendas. Besides, it is in your interest to keep quiet and help Paul get elected because he's probably the only President who would ever consider having another investigation.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

This.

I respect people's opinion; but politically speaking; these issues are the kiss of death. To the truthers: Please keep quiet about anything 9/11 truth. Don't selfishly use Paul's campaign to push your agendas. Besides, it is in your interest to keep quiet and help Paul get elected because he's probably the only President who would ever consider having another investigation.

Nonsense. We tried it that way last time, it did not work. Being quiet about it in no way helped get Paul elected, period. Rather, it divided the movement and stalled attempts to change peoples's minds on foreign interventionism--I know of nobody, no one, zero, ZIP, none, who switched positions on the wars based on the 'blowback' concept alone, do you? But I do personally know folks who converted based on exposing false flag operations. So please keep quiet about your preference for avoiding 9-11 truth. Don't selfishly project your lack of courage on some liberty issues onto the Paul campaign, since it doesn't help him.

The fact that it is a preoccupation of non-truthers is demonstrated by the fact I barely mentioned it in four paragraphs in the previous message, yet you and the other poster jumped on it. Talking openly about it is probably what has deterred the establishment from false flagging us into another war. It is capitulating to the media pressure, by contrast, that costs us momentum and votes, as demonstrated by the Medina episode. Buck up, man up, and address the elephant in the room.

 

[MikeStanart]

Nonsense. We tried it that way last time, it did not work. Being quiet about it in no way helped get Paul elected, period. Rather, it divided the movement and stalled attempts to change peoples's minds on foreign interventionism--I know of nobody, no one, zero, ZIP, none, who switched positions on the wars based on the 'blowback' concept alone, do you? But I do personally know folks who converted based on exposing false flag operations. So please keep quiet about your preference for avoiding 9-11 truth. Don't selfishly project your lack of courage on some liberty issues onto the Paul campaign, since it doesn't help him.

The fact that it is a preoccupation of non-truthers is demonstrated by the fact I barely mentioned it in four paragraphs in the previous message, yet you and the other poster jumped on it. Talking openly about it is probably what has deterred the establishment from false flagging us into another war. It is capitulating to the media pressure, by contrast, that costs us momentum and votes, as demonstrated by the Medina episode. Buck up, man up, and address the elephant in the room.

You need to get out more. Paul's speech on blowback is what won me over. This isnt' an argument over whether 9/11 truth is legitimate or not. This is an argument about electability with delicate issues such as these. Rand Paul is doing wonderful, and will surely be Kentucky's next senator. Can you name me a successful campaign that chose to ally itself with 9/11 truthers?

Yeah. Didn't think so.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

You need to get out more. Paul's speech on blowback is what won me over. This isnt' an argument over whether 9/11 truth is legitimate or not. This is an argument about electability with delicate issues such as these. Rand Paul is doing wonderful, and will surely be Kentucky's next senator. Can you name me a successful campaign that chose to ally itself with 9/11 truthers?

Yeah. Didn't think so.

Agreed, just because you feel you know exactly what is needed there needs to be a majority to swallow and stomache it. Most won't accept their government has and is lying to them about anything as well as the government would never mess with our dollar, collapse markets or housing in general.

Its sales, you market on the main topics and leave the questionable ones alone until the need arises. Get a solid base then add on the additional support groups.

economy
health
security
ACCOUNTABILITY!

 

[K466]

Peace&Freedom, I agree with most of your original comment, except the part about 9/11 truth. That cannot be a campaign issue! Let’s not lose sight of our goals, free markets, sound money, non-interventionism, those should be what Paul campaigns on.

Anything he does about 9/11 should be a post-election issue. Running on that polarizing issue instead of the major underlying principles of the liberty movement will doom the campaign quickly.

 

[K466]

Bump.

Let's get more votes.

 

[MelissaCato]

Run to WIN !!! Ron Paul 2012 !!!

 

[Peace&Freedom]

You need to get out more. Paul's speech on blowback is what won me over. This isnt' an argument over whether 9/11 truth is legitimate or not. This is an argument about electability with delicate issues such as these. Rand Paul is doing wonderful, and will surely be Kentucky's next senator. Can you name me a successful campaign that chose to ally itself with 9/11 truthers?

Yeah. Didn't think so.

Actually, as a statewide Libertarian candidate in 2000 and 2006, I can tell you I ran on 9-11 issue in 2006, and got more votes than I did statewide in 2000. What likely won you over was Paul standing his ground on his views when demeaned by Rudy and others. The issue is, how many pro-war people become antiwar people, so long as they fundamentally think that, whatever their motives, "they" started it, so our military reaction is justified? NONE of those people come over to Paul's noninterventionism, unless the self-defense presupposition is challenged.

As for electability, I can attest that all the issues Paul DOES openly go with were equally ridiculed as making a candidate "nonelectable" for the last several decades. I've known about Paul from 1980, when he was dismissed as a national player because of his "unelectable" focus on the Fed, then his "unelectable" focus on the Constitution, then his "unelectable" focus on ending the drug war, his "unelectable" focus on the IRS, the NAU, the NWO, to now his "unelectable" opposition to the Mideast wars. By sticking to his guns, he has made each "polarizing" issue acceptable, and the politicians who now echo him more electable. We should follow his courage, and take the time to make the truth more acceptable, across the board.

 

[erowe1]

Nonsense. We tried it that way last time, it did not work. Being quiet about it in no way helped get Paul elected, period.

We didn't try it last time.

 

[Romulus]

9/11 is political suicide. Ron knows it and we should champion the issues that HE has, if we want to get him elected. Ron is not a truther, sorry. Truthers have their time and place. Rons campaign is not one of them. Ron knows 9/11 in politics is political suicide, he has said it - and keeping it out of his campaign should be RESPECTED.

If anything, it would be a cointel sabotage setup to paint him as one, like Beck did on Medina.