Should we not run a presidential candidate in 2016?

[supermario21]

Having 8 years of Romney would be advantageous to our base. Rand moves into a more powerful position in the Senate and we buy ourselves 4 more years to get our guys in place throughout the House and Senate. Guys like Graham and McCain will all be gone (hopefully) and we would have more party infrastructure to get Rand nominated. 8 years could also be long enough to see the guys like Christie/Jeb Bush get old for example and decide against running.

 

[supermario21]

I'm open to supporting Rand provided he votes the right way. He'll be more than tested by 2016 so we'll should know.

If Romney wins, it would probably be better not to put all our eggs in the presidential race tho. Running against an incumbent is almost impossible. However if Obama wins, it's going to be an seat with no incumbent after 8 years of Democrat rule. Maybe America will be ready by then?

Have you watched his votes the last few weeks?? LOL

 

[Smart3]

Having 8 years of Romney would be advantageous to our base. Rand moves into a more powerful position in the Senate and we buy ourselves 4 more years to get our guys in place throughout the House and Senate. Guys like Graham and McCain will all be gone (hopefully) and we would have more party infrastructure to get Rand nominated. 8 years could also be long enough to see the guys like Christie/Jeb Bush get old for example and decide against running.

In case you hadn't noticed, Christie is only 50 years old. Much less than 65-year-old Romney.

 

[supermario21]

In case you hadn't noticed, Christie is only 50 years old. Much less than 65-year-old Romney.

Yeah but Christie would be out of office for a few years and I don't think his personality is suited to being without a bully pulpit for awhile. Once he's done I'd say he's done for good.

 

[ScotTFO]

I'd still have a hard time respecting Rand after what he did, though he'd probably be our best option.

Though I would take Judge Napolitano over anyone any day! (Except Ron Paul himself of course)

 

[Smart3]

Yeah but Christie would be out of office for a few years and I don't think his personality is suited to being without a bully pulpit for awhile. Once he's done I'd say he's done for good.

Why wouldn't Christie run against Menendez in 2018? or Lautenberg's successor in 2020?

I doubt Christie would be out of office.

 

[FrankRep]

Rand Paul.

 

[Matt Collins]

I'd still have a hard time respecting Rand after what he did

Huh? What in the hell are you talking about?

You mean Rand keeping his word?

 

[Matt Collins]

Hopefully, Ron will be involved (in 2016), or will run (or at least threaten to) on a 3rd party line to help shake the 'electable' aura off the next establishment GOP frontrunner.

Not happening.

 

[Matt Collins]

I will never vote for Rand for President for a lot of reasons, some of which are strategic

Then you are not helping the cause of liberty

 

[Matt Collins]

Its not counterproductive. Rand hasnt done enough for me to lock a solid vote for me if he ever does run as of right now.

LOLz, then you haven't been paying attention apparently.

I"m sorry but endorsing someone just to play along loses major points with me.

He endorsed Romney to keep his word.

 

[Matt Collins]

Sadly, I don't think the C4L's structure as a 527 allows it to do either.

I think maybe you meant "501c(4)?"

 

[Matt Collins]

Why do we need to package or market anything?

Because that is how you convince people to vote for you.

Ron Paul gathered us all here because he didn't package and market his message to anyone. He told the truth. The blunt truth.

Yes, and that doesn't win elections as evidenced by '08 and 2012.

I sure as hell wouldn't have joined his campaign had he had different rhetoric. We don't need someone to tell the Republicans what they want to hear. We need someone to tell them what they NEED to hear.

The average Ron Paul supporter is not like the average Republican (obviously). If you want to convince them to vote for your guy, you have to not piss them off first.


This is why Rand is successful and has droves of Republicans who like him when he is essentially the same as his dad.

 

[TheTexan]

With the exception of education, anything at the Federal level is pointless. That's a road that leads nowhere.

FSP, secession, and/or nullification is what we need to be focusing on. If you can't move to NH, try to get your local conservatives riled up about whatever issue just to piss them off enough to threaten secession. Try obamacare. They love to hate that shit.

Yes, yes, most of these conservatives actually do love obamacare. But they can't admit it. They have to say they hate it with every fiber of their being just to maintain their cognitive dissonance. So use that to your advantage, and run a campaign on nullification or secession to get rid of obamacare. Even if we can get nullification/secession into the public discussion that in of itself would be a victory.

Of course, the easier way is for us to simply pack up our shit and move to a state that has 1/300th the population of the US. If even 10% of the movement did this, mathematically it would be 30 times more effective than trying to play the political game at a national level. We would have a shitload more leverage if we just focused on making one state free instead of fifty.

 

[LibertyEagle]

With the exception of education, anything at the Federal level is pointless. That's a road that leads nowhere.

FSP, secession, and/or nullification is what we need to be focusing on. If you can't move to NH, try to get your local conservatives riled up about whatever issue just to piss them off enough to threaten secession. Try obamacare. They love to hate that shit.

Yes, yes, most of these conservatives actually do love obamacare. But they can't admit it. They have to say they hate it with every fiber of their being just to maintain their cognitive dissonance. So use that to your advantage, and run a campaign on nullification or secession to get rid of obamacare. Even if we can get nullification/secession into the public discussion that in of itself would be a victory.

Of course, the easier way is for us to simply pack up our shit and move to a state that has 1/300th the population of the US. If even 10% of the movement did this, mathematically it would be 30 times more effective than trying to play the political game at a national level. We would have a shitload more leverage if we just focused on making one state free instead of fifty.

That is just so much bullshit.

 

[cindy25]

take over the Democratic party. I assume Romney will start a war, and a foreign policy election is long overdue

 

[ProvincialPeasant]

I'd prefer Rand succeed DeMint as leader of the conservative Senate wing. Help elect true conservatives and libertarians in 2014, 2016 and beyond (especially if Romney wins). But I know people think he will make a good Presidential candidate. I don't think so, he just doesn't have Presidential traits, and I think a loss would hurt him (especially since it will force the GOP base to decide whether they like him or not).

 

[ScotTFO]

Huh? What in the hell are you talking about?

You mean Rand keeping his word?

you are obviously an idiot if you think that is the reason why some of us are angry with Rand

 

[ScotTFO]

Then you are not helping the cause of liberty

I thought the cause of liberty was to promote individuality and to support people being able to make their own decisions.

 

[BuddyRey]

Nothing beats having a principled libertarian candidate running as a *Republican* and getting in the debates to expose people to libertarian ideas. The educational impact of the Ron Paul campaign alone has been solid proof that our current strategy is working. We just need to keep forging ahead until we have about 20% of the voters on our side. Remember, revolutions are never started by "the majority" of people....all it takes is a tireless and pissed off minority. Something about brushfires of liberty and so on.