Ron Paul on Running in 2012: "I think it would be worthwhile"

[ItsTime]

I think Ron Paul is seriously running to do as best he can (even win if possible) but the most important thing for him is to spread the message whether he wins or not.

From his comments at CPAC 2011 it feels like that's the case:

"But let me close with comments from Sam Adams, he says 'Don’t worry about it if we’re not a majority, all we need is a minority keen on spreading the brushfires of liberty in the minds of man.'"

and:

"So we should not have long faces, we do not know exactly what tomorrow will bring, but I do know that the effort is worthwhile and I do know that you can have a lot of fun defending liberty, and believe me, if you understand liberty and realize it’s the only humanitarian system that existed ever on mankind, I’ll tell you what, if you learn about it study and know free market economics and fight for this, I can guarantee you, you will sleep better at night, you will enjoy your life and you will feel like you’re doing something worthwhile."

Matt Collins has it right.. "He can't do it on his own, we have to help him. "

Welcome to the board! Great first post.

 

[Matt Collins]

Nonsense. It's a winner-take-all system. Losers get zilch. What did Al Gore end up with despite getting more popular votes than Bush in 2000? Absolutely nothing.

That was good as an intermediate step before winning the Presidency. If he runs again, doesn't win, and statism destroys the country, then I don't think you can consider his runs successes.

Srsly?

Are yall really that unimaginative?

Look at our successes since 2007. Amash, Gunny, Rand, and countless others elected to local and state offices around the country all as a result of Ron's "success" in 2008.


Just imagine what will happen in 2013 and beyond as the result of Ron's 2012 campaign? Ron is already polling higher than what Ron actually received in terms of votes last time. Now just imagine if he gets the nomination or wins?!

Goldwater fundamentally changed the GOP and Ron/Rand will do the same. Goldwater's electoral failure lead to Ronald Reagan's electoral victory. Ron / Rand could lead to someone's electoral victory (hopefully better than Reagan though).


So please, try and keep an open mind here and don't get yourself boxed into a defeatist corner.

That is all, carry on.

:collins:

 

[Matt Collins]

Matt Collins has it right..

I always do :collins:

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Srsly?

Are yall really that unimaginative?

Look at our successes since 2007. Amash, Gunny, Rand, and countless others elected to local and state offices around the country all as a result of Ron's "success" in 2008.


Just imagine what will happen in 2013 and beyond as the result of Ron's 2012 campaign? Ron is already polling higher than what Ron actually received in terms of votes last time. Now just imagine if he gets the nomination or wins?!

Goldwater fundamentally changed the GOP and Ron/Rand will do the same. Goldwater's electoral failure lead to Ronald Reagan's electoral victory. Ron / Rand could lead to someone's electoral victory (hopefully better than Reagan though).


So please, try and keep an open mind here and don't get yourself boxed into a defeatist corner.

That is all, carry on.

:collins:

:collins:

 

[Thomas]

+rep 4 matt

 

[JohnGalt23g]

I think A Ron Paul win would be a death sentence for him, and I think he knows it. That being said, I think he will run to win, and put his life on the line for what he has always stood for.

Realistically, in a world where people kill over power (often without batting an eye) a successful Presidential campaign is a death sentence for anyone. That's why we have a Secret Service, and they will protect the POTUS, to whatever extent humanly possible.

Ron Paul can win, and I'm sure if he runs, he will run to win. I hope he does, but honestly, I can't blame him if he doesn't want to. The campaign is a giant pain in the ass, and i can't imagine being 75 years old makes it any more pleasant.

 

[erowe1]

Nonsense. It's a winner-take-all system. Losers get zilch. What did Al Gore end up with despite getting more popular votes than Bush in 2000? Absolutely nothing.

Interesting that you would choose that example.

In 2000 he was worth a few million dollars. Today he's worth a few hundred million dollars. I have a hunch he's glad he lost.

 

[prmd142]

As President I will fix everything...

"As president I'll let you fix everything yourselves. You people are suppose to run the economy not me, the president."

 

[prmd142]

it was good that ron didn't get Republican nomination in '08. The Obama 'hope' 'change' bullshit was running too thick and deep. Also recession wasn't in full swing then. Events in the past 2yrs have made the chances of a Ron nomination and the win much more likely than in '08. Loss in 08 was a blessing in disguise!

 

[Romulus]

x100 on the 'As President' speak.

"As President I dont want to run your life. As President I dont want to police the world. As President my job is to uphold the Constitution and protect your individual right, whether they are civil or economic."

 

[Fredom101]

If that's the case, Ron Paul shouldn't solicit money for an official campaign under the guise of being a serious presidential candidate. He should come out and openly tell supporters "I'm not trying to win, at all" so people know what their money, time and labor would be going towards.

I want Ron Paul to run for President for real. But if Paul is not going to at least try to win, he should step aside for someone who will (Gary Johnson?). No more "education campaigns" for me.

Sorry but education is the only true goal. If we're not out there educating, then we are just another campaign trying to force our candidate down everyone's throat. Our discussions must be educational in nature, and not in a pushy way. If RP disrupts the GOP primaries and takes down a "front-runner" in a few states that's nice, but "winning" is simply not going to happen without education. Then we can define what winning truly means. Getting the GOP nomination? Unseating Obama? Or spreading the message of liberty to as many people as possible?

 

[Fredom101]

it was good that ron didn't get Republican nomination in '08. The Obama 'hope' 'change' bullshit was running too thick and deep. Also recession wasn't in full swing then. Events in the past 2yrs have made the chances of a Ron nomination and the win much more likely than in '08. Loss in 08 was a blessing in disguise!

Unfortunately, that's just not how most voters think. Most voters are voting to GET something. We are in a recession and RP is going to take away their goodies! This is precisely why libertarian-leaning New Hampshire went overwhelmingly for statist McCain in 08- the old people turned up and made sure their precious SS isn't going to be touched.

So the best thing we can do is educate, and let the chips fall.

 

[trey4sports]

Sorry but education is the only true goal. If we're not out there educating, then we are just another campaign trying to force our candidate down everyone's throat. Our discussions must be educational in nature, and not in a pushy way. If RP disrupts the GOP primaries and takes down a "front-runner" in a few states that's nice, but "winning" is simply not going to happen without education. Then we can define what winning truly means. Getting the GOP nomination? Unseating Obama? Or spreading the message of liberty to as many people as possible?

+rep Great analysis!

 

[JRudolph]

I agree with so many of you who understand the importance of having him in the debates. But honestly, I have a feeling Ron Paul is going to get the vote.. maybe not the nomination, because the establishment would rather his head be mounted on the wall in the Oval Office than have him sitting in it, but he is going to get the people's vote.. I can feel it

 

[erowe1]

I think the win vs. education debate is moot.

If he is running to educate, then it's worth taking a moment to think about what it is about running for president that makes it a better educational opportunity than other endeavors that are more directly focused on education. No matter what he wants to accomplish through a presidential campaign, whether it be winning, building a network that pays off in future races, or educating, the immediate goal is the same, and that's to get as many people to vote for him as possible.

Does anybody think that in 2008 he didn't try to run as successful of a campaign as he possibly could, measured according to the goal of getting elected as president? Or that he somehow ran the campaign differently because of some kind of educational goal that differed from the goal of winning? Do you think that if he had won, he would have backed out at the last minute and said he didn't really want to be president?

He's ran to win, and to educate people by way of doing that. And that's what he's doing again.

 

[trey4sports]

I think the win vs. education debate is moot.

If he is running to educate, then it's worth taking a moment to think about what it is about running for president that makes it a better educational opportunity than other endeavors that are more directly focused on education. No matter what he wants to accomplish through a presidential campaign, whether it be winning, building a network that pays off in future races, or educating, the immediate goal is the same, and that's to get as many people to vote for him as possible.

Does anybody think that in 2008 he didn't try to run as successful of a campaign as he possibly could, measured according to the goal of getting elected as president? Or that he somehow ran the campaign differently because of some kind of educational goal that differed from the goal of winning? Do you think that if he had won, he would have backed out at the last minute and said he didn't really want to be president?

He's ran to win, and to educate people by way of doing that. And that's what he's doing again.

In 2008 he DIDN'T run to win. I was talking to a guy whos managing a local campaign and he was like (parpaphrasing of course) "and the she said that Ron needed to do X, and Ron said, but i don't want to win!"


I'm not trying to be a downer but i really don't think his goal was to get elected president in 2008, and hopefully that changes this time around.

In terms of running a campaign there are two polar opposites.......

Running to educate

and

Running to win


My hope is that the pendulum swings toward running to win, but no so far that Ron comes off as a soundbite politician (think Mitt Romney) I would ideally like a balance of spreading the message of liberty, BUT doing so in a manner that will still give him a chance of winning. (think Rand Paul)

 

[erowe1]

In 2008 he DIDN'T run to win. I was talking to a guy whos managing a local campaign and he was like (parpaphrasing of course) "and the she said that Ron needed to do X, and Ron said, but i don't want to win!"

That does not strike me as at all believable. Why do you think it's true?

 

[outspoken]

I think A Ron Paul win would be a death sentence for him, and I think he knows it. That being said, I think he will run to win, and put his life on the line for what he has always stood for.

'Give me liberty or give me death.'

 

[pacelli]

That does not strike me as at all believable. Why do you think it's true?

Apologies in advance for this wall of text.


I'm sure you saw Bydlak's thread, here are some quotes that are perhaps more important today than the day they were written:

I agree that Ron Paul did not spend as much time in Iowa as would have been optimal. But it's a mistake to think that this was a strategic mistake. As I mentioned earlier, we had limitations as to how much time of Ron's we had -- unlike a Barack Obama, Clinton or McCain, Ron was not just letting his congressional obligations fall by the wayside. So while these other candidates were missing vote after vote, Ron was not. This is why you got to see all the other candidates but Ron did not get closer than 50 miles.

I believe the same thing happened in New Hampshire.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...han-Bydlak-willing-to-answer-questions/page30

But as I said before, you're right that we needed more visits to Iowa. And Ron has spoken many times on his reluctance... seems reasonable to me that that affected things more than we'd like to admit.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...han-Bydlak-willing-to-answer-questions/page31

I just don't have the energy to respond to everyone's posts, but I want to take the time to make one comment. And please don't just have a knee-jerk reaction to it... just think about it for a bit, and consider the source that it's coming from.

*How could HQ play to win with a candidate who wasn't playing to win? Do you really think that people in the campaign didn't want to do everything possible to win, or is it possible -- just perhaps -- that all of the things that you people are complaining about weren't issues with the campaign staff, but with the candidate himself?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...han-Bydlak-willing-to-answer-questions/page56

So you see, I think it is quite rational to question Ron's intentions this time around. Before people start spending money they can't afford on a campaign, wouldn't it be nice to know that Ron will be PLAYING TO WIN?

 

[pacelli]

bump