Should we not run a presidential candidate in 2016?

[sailingaway]

I should make clear that I never thought Ron had any chance in 2012 either and still had no problem supporting him, encouraging people to vote for him, passing out literature, talking to voters about him, et.

His chances were always greater for waking people up and developing influence to launch his post-Congressional influence, than for winning the nomination, but those should have been secondary goals, NOT a future campaign for someone else. That the residue organization would inure to Rand's benefit was clear, not that Ron's campaign and HIS influence and trajectory should be summarily torpedoed for comity with the party for some other person's later benefit. In my opinion.

 

[DylanWaco]

That isn't how it was billed and many don't think they are interchangeable or would deliver the same 'liberty'. Some think waking up those ignoring politics (Ron) is the way to go, and they don't necessarily support Rand. Others think Rand is fine after they are foreclosed from having Ron, due to age, but that not one iota of the maximum trajectory of Ron's run for RON'S influence should be lessened, because he is the standard. Who exactly do you think was more likely to have been donating AFTER SC? Those people or those who were just marking time until Rand could run?

again, your assumption really doesn't help matters. You are saying YOU are as fine with Rand as Ron, and it was ok for people to make that same judgment call on behalf of all who donated to RON, regardless of language saying he would run his best race, fight to the end, and the fact that Ron himself actually seemed to be doing that.

I don't know that the campaign actually decided that as a policy matter, although at this point I suspect it, but if it did, I would absolutely consider that unacceptable.

This is really the point. It's highly deceptive, politics as usual stuff, from a campaign representing a candidate who's appeal is that he was above that sort of thing.

One can make the argument that political deception is required when battling with the scum on the Hill. But the idea that it is a just and necessary good when dealing with supporters is at best amoral. And I'm being generous.

 

[DylanWaco]

His chances were always greater for waking people up and developing influence to launch his post-Congressional influence, than for winning the nomination, but those should have been secondary goals, NOT a future campaign for someone else. That the residue organization would inure to Rand's benefit was clear, not that Ron's campaign and HIS influence and trajectory should be summarily torpedoed for comity with the party for some other person's later benefit. In my opinion.

Totally agree

 

[whoisjohngalt]

I also totally agree. They should have known Rand 2016 was the plan all along coming in to the campaign, but that it was not their responsibility to do anything to further that objective. Those people managing Ron's campaign should have focused solely on their duty, which was running Ron's campaign and not torpedoing anything. Beyond that, I think it was completely unnecessary for anyone who is not Rand or Ron to worry about Rand 2016 at the time.

I just don't see any difference in strategy between trying as hard as possible to get Ron elected in 2012 and preparing for Rand 2016. I'm no Benton apologist.

 

[sailingaway]

I do see the difference, because enthusiasm seemed to be expressly drowned to KEEP there from being enough delegates to get Ron on the floor, and when we had them anyhow, someone on staff told delegates FALSELY Ron wouldn't accept the speech even if he could get it (Tate had to send an email correcting this due to the furor over it.) Ron's influence, momentum (which cratered after the endorsement and staff emails) and overall stature going into retirement would have been greatly enhanced by a speech to GENERAL ELECTION audience at the debate, given he speaks to independents as others, including Rand, do not. (IMHO.) Playing a 'play nice' strategy to administer RON'S campaign definitely, if intentional or not, impacted RON'S influence. And Rand is a different person and as you say, should not have been the concern of RON'S campaign.

In my opinion Ron is the gold standard, and no one having influence is more important than his. And I'm one of the ones who donated all along.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

I could get behind Rand. If he doesn't run it is LP me, unless they pick Bob Barr again.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Yes, there is no argument that the campaign was horribly mismanaged and kowtowed to the establishment. Rand was not part of Ron's campaign. I'm not defending the injustices that happened within the campaign. I think they did nothing to serve the advancement of Rand and obviously greatly damaged the influence Ron could have and his chances of winning.

 

[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.

You give me a neg rep for pointing out to you that your idiotic assumption about conservatives was idiotic. You apparently wanted me to explain to you for the umpteenth time that you cannot categorize people like that. First of all, who are you talking about? Neoconservaties? Paleoconservatives? Social Conservatives? People who claim they are "conservatives" and aren't? People like Romney, McCain, Huckabee and Santorum? Who?

Neocons are not conservatives at all. They are leftist-progressives who left the democratic party and saw an opportunity to take over the conservative movement and did it. Some that go by "Social Cons" were brought into the Republican Party during Reagan's run, not because they believed in conservative principles, but because of their vote. Many of them are little different than big government leftists who are quite willing to use government force as long as it is used to cram their own agenda down everyone else's throat. Then there are the paleocons. These are the only real conservatives from where I sit. They believe in limited constitutional government, individual liberty, personal privacy, personal responsibility, a strong national defense, and "states' rights".

So no, you cannot just group all people claiming to be "conservatives" together with some blanket statement like you did. After Reagan, everyone in the damn Republican Party calls themselves a conservative. That doesn't make them one.

 

[Matt Collins]

Yes, there is no argument that the campaign was horribly mismanaged and kowtowed to the establishment. Rand was not part of Ron's campaign.

Untrue on both accounts.

 

[Matt Collins]

That isn't how it was billed and many don't think they are interchangeable or would deliver the same 'liberty'.

And they obviously don't know Rand very well, nor are they paying attention to his voting record.

Some think waking up those ignoring politics (Ron) is the way to go, and they don't necessarily support Rand.

And that is not a winning strategy.

 

[Matt Collins]

I was told by someone in the very inner circle of the campaign that the campaign effectively turned into the Rand Paul 2016 infrastructure campaign immediately following the last SC debate where the perception among campaign insiders was that Ron bombed.

Who?


But regardless of who may or may not have told you that, doesn't make sense to have a backup plan? If Ron wasn't able to do it, doesn't it make sense to ancillary lay the groundwork for Rand?

Some may have no problem with this, but I have a major problem with that sort of dishonesty, particularly when it is known that there is a movement split on Rand.

Nothing is dishonest, we are building the liberty movement. And those who don't support Rand obviously aren't a part of it.

 

[Matt Collins]

To Matt the cause of liberty means "things that will get me paid." That's obvious.

LOLz, you obviously don't know how little I get paid.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It was pretty obvious that Ron reached his threshold after Iowa. Making lemonade out of lemons was the only logical next move. You may lose the battle (the primary) but you plan accordingly to win the war. With that said, the campaign should have notified their donors of their strategy instead of leading them along.

I would agree with you, if I thought that was what happened. But, I don't. I am pretty sure that at least most of them thought that there was a chance for a brokered convention. But, that hope was all over when Santorum dropped out. Then, they segued into trying to make as much of an impact as possible. But, there was really no hope of winning.

I do agree that at that point, they should have been upfront before asking for anymore donations.

I know how frustrating it is and the campaign did make mistakes. But, hell guys, look at what we all did. The establishment is still talking about us. We have made huge inroads towards accomplishing our goals. Many more people have joined our cause; we now have more than just Ron in Congress and have started laying the groundwork to make it much easier to get more elected. Most Americans know that the Federal Reserve exists and while they may not understand it a whole lot, they know it is a bad thing.

 

[DylanWaco]

LOLz, you obviously don't know how little I get paid.

If you are paid a dime it's more than you're worth.

 

[Matt Collins]

Tell us how the foreign policy of Mitt Romney, sanctions on Iran, calling for the massive seizure of private land by the government on behalf of corporations, expanding corporate state/fascist economics, and taking the ultra-nationalist, pro-bribery, position on foreign aid is "helping the cause of liberty?"

I never said that it was.

It's not enough to view Rand as a potential ally - something I have written about in a public forum very recently - one must accept him as a christ like, messianic figure, who's status as a serial liar is a positive good that is actually somehow supposed to make him MORE trustworthy.

Not at all, but Rand is the new Ron.

And that is how he is being casts by the great majority of his supporters, to say nothing of those (like Collins) who are attempting to build their careers off of him in the future.

Ha ha ha, not hardly. I'd much rather be doing other stuff than politics. Ayn Rand has a quote about this somewhere...

 

[Matt Collins]

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

Maybe.... a popular federal candidate, like Ron, can be used as a rallying base, and a way to build lists.

FSP, secession, and/or nullification is what we need to be focusing on.

I agree that the majority of our focus for the time being needs to be on the state and local level, that's where we can all make the most difference.

 

[sailingaway]

Who?


But regardless of who may or may not have told you that, doesn't make sense to have a backup plan? If Ron wasn't able to do it, doesn't it make sense to ancillary lay the groundwork for Rand?


Nothing is dishonest, we are building the liberty movement. And those who don't support Rand obviously aren't a part of it.

that sounds like a 'Rand Paul movement' not a liberty movement, particularly when phrased in such a 'him or nothing' manner. And the back up plan of Ron's campaign was to build RON'S influence in his congressional retirement, to those who supported RON.

 

[sailingaway]

Maybe.... a popular federal candidate, like Ron, can be used as a rallying base, and a way to build lists.

Which lists would belong to RON and no one else, except with his express permission.

 

[DylanWaco]

"Rand is the new Ron" - Matt Collins

But I thought he was his own man and it's not fair to judge him against his dad and you have to make room for different political realities?

Well no. Not in this case. Because Rand is the New Messiah and any criticism of him is disallowed. His paid lemming has all but said as much in this thread. Those who would be unwilling to kill or die for him hate liberty. Can't you all see that?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Hey guys, for those of you who want to keep dragging Ron's campaign through the mud, what do you think of Romney's campaign? How do you think they are doing? You know Romney is paying them top dollar and he has millions and millions of money to work with. Do you think they are better?

I don't. They have let Obama completely define their candidate and his positions.