The Next Ron Paul

[Original_Intent]

Uhhh...let's not. Remember the Barr / Baldwin wars on RPF in 2008?

There would have been no wars if the Barr supporters hadn't been such clueless dipshits.

Just kidding guys - sheathe your knives, holster your firearms!

 

[klamath]

Ron Paul has one more chance to run for President and that is 2012...but I really like Gary...maybe we should run many candidates...and then support the last man standing...

yeaw like Romney. Let's all back Romney because he most likely will be the last man standing.

 

[constituent]

It's defeatist to call throwing out all the recognition that's been built a bad idea?

I'm sorry, can you quote where I said that please?

 

[ChaosControl]

I cannot vote for him, sorry.

 

[RevolutionSD]

I know that the plan among libertarian insiders was to have both RP & Gary J run for the GOP nomination in 2012. That was about 6 months ago that I heard this.

Now, I'm not a voter as I have become an ancap since the 2008 primaries. But, I see no point in promoting Gary. Ron Paul has far more name recognition now than he did in 2008, and he can build this up even more to '12.

The downsides to RP are mainly his age, and his stance on abortion. The good thing is RP exercises daily and is in very good health. I think his mind has slipped some, but he is still far sharper than GW Bush in his presidency!

The abortion thing doesn't offend me much because he is just saying leave it to the states. But RP does not attract the female vote, that is just a fact that must be overcome somehow if he is to have any significant impact.

 

[jmdrake]

The abortion thing doesn't offend me much because he is just saying leave it to the states. But RP does not attract the female vote, that is just a fact that must be overcome somehow if he is to have any significant impact.

Support for abortion is below 50% for women as well as men.

Besides that only becomes an issue in the general election. Republicans are solidly pro life. No pro choice GOP presidential candidate could get the nomination.

 

[RM918]

I'm sorry, can you quote where I said that please?

You quoted my post and called it defeatist, and that was the subject of my post.

 

[constituent]

You quoted my post and called it defeatist, and that was the subject of my post.

"throwing out all the recognition..."

If you can't even speak to what I'm asking, it's clear that further discussion with you on this matter will bear no fruit.

meh.

Enjoy your day either way!

 

[constituent]

Now, I'm not a voter as I have become an ancap since the 2008 primaries. But, I see no point in promoting Gary. Ron Paul has far more name recognition now than he did in 2008, and he can build this up even more to '12.

Let's see, Ron Paul stands for the same issues today that he stood for before the primaries. Exactly what changed for Ron Paul in terms of name recognition?

Care to take any wild guesses at what made all the difference between some no name congressman, and the current heavy hitter almost everyone knows as Ron Paul (before they'd never even heard of the guy, much less could they have placed his face or name).

To be fair, the economy hasn't hurt RP's position of influence, but I would argue, however, that he wouldn't have a position of influence had it not been for grassroots intervention. There is no doubt in my mind that a dedicated grassroots can do the same again for Gary Johnson, if not winning the presidency, at least propelling the liberty agenda onto the national stage well into the next decade.

If you can't or won't see this as a win for progress toward the goals of limited American government and unlimited American potential, then I don't know what to tell you.

Figure it out.

 

[RM918]

"throwing out all the recognition..."

If you can't even speak to what I'm asking, it's clear that discussion with you on this will bear no fruit.

meh.

Enjoy your day either way!

I'd argue there's no point in getting snarky, but hey, internet. I guess you wouldn't have the confidence to say anything if you had to do it in a civil manner.

Anyhow, to my point:

Yes. As in, running this guy, who has no name recognition, who no-one's ever heard of, who very few people are excited about...when we already have someone who has those things, perhaps not as strongly in certain categories than others but still far above the other guy but dismissing him because he's a few years older than before is starting over from square one. Paul's staunch and has made his mark, and has a lot more momentum especially after the recent 1207 success.

Throwing all that away and relying on an endorsement to carry that momentum through is a bad idea, and I don't see how thinking it's a bad idea is somehow defeatist. There was no choice but to deal with it in '07, but just because I'd rather not see the progress made thrown to the winds does not make me 'defeatist'.

 

[Romulus]

Despite how good of an idea it may seem, I can only think we'll just end up with another, 'Who is Gary Johnson?' campaign and get a repeat blackout shutout of '08.

this

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Let's see, Ron Paul stands for the same issues today that he stood for before the primaries. Exactly what changed for Ron Paul in terms of name recognition?

Care to take any wild guesses at what made all the difference between some no name congressman, and the current heavy hitter almost everyone knows as Ron Paul (before they'd never even heard of the guy, much less could they have placed his face or name).

To be fair, the economy hasn't hurt RP's position of influence, but I would argue, however, that he wouldn't have a position of influence had it not been for grassroots intervention. There is no doubt in my mind that a dedicated grassroots can do the same again for Gary Johnson, if not winning the presidency, at least propelling the liberty agenda onto the national stage well into the next decade.

If you can't or won't see this as a win for progress toward the goals of limited American government and unlimited American potential, then I don't know what to tell you.

Figure it out.

I will abstain from voting in 2012 if Ron doesn't run and Mary doesn't win the LP nomination. Gary Johnson is nothing to me period, and to a lot of others also. The guy has no clue on the economy, and his only libertarian credentials is that he wants to decriminalize (legalize?) marijuana, but not all drugs? Wow, call me excited! Oh, he's also for LOWER taxes, not no taxes, and I have no clue on his position with all the ABC departments? Does he want to end every single one like Ron does? I'll take a wild guess at no. What about closing all 750+ overseas bases and massively reducing military spending? Does he know what the MIC is?

How much did he decrease NM spending? Does he want to End the Fed? Does he even know about Boom-Bust, and the distorting the Fed does by artificial fixing interest rates? Does he know about higher/lower order of capital?

 

[constituent]

Lol, if you'd have spent half the time researching your concerns that you put into drafting the rant below, you'd already have your answers.

I will abstain from voting in 2012 if Ron doesn't run and Mary doesn't win the LP nomination. Gary Johnson is nothing to me period, and to a lot of others also. The guy has no clue on the economy, and his only libertarian credentials is that he wants to decriminalize (legalize?) marijuana, but not all drugs? Wow, call me excited! Oh, he's also for LOWER taxes, not no taxes, and I have no clue on his position with all the ABC departments? Does he want to end every single one like Ron does? I'll take a wild guess at no. What about closing all 750+ overseas bases and massively reducing military spending? Does he know what the MIC is?

How much did he decrease NM spending? Does he want to End the Fed? Does he even know about Boom-Bust, and the distorting the Fed does by artificial fixing interest rates? Does he know about higher/lower order of capital?

That's a ton of questions. Frankly, for all that legwork, you'd have to ask someone on the payroll.

 

[constituent]

I'd argue there's no point in getting snarky

You're certainly one to accuse...

 

[constituent]

Throwing all that away and relying on an endorsement to carry that momentum through is a bad idea, and I don't see how thinking it's a bad idea is somehow defeatist. There was no choice but to deal with it in '07, but just because I'd rather not see the progress made thrown to the winds does not make me 'defeatist'.

I'll ask you again, who said that's what supporting Johnson would mean? Only you friend, only you.

If you can't figure out how to support two candidates with hopes that at least one makes the big rodeo, I can't help you.

To be blunt, I enjoyed the RP campaign much more when it was actually about something, not just your run of the mill political wonkery. Frankly, I look forward to letting you power hungry, would-be politicos have your little circus, while those who enjoy advancing the debate and reframing issues enjoy our own.

It will make for an interesting dynamic if we can all work together. There is no good reason not to.

Of course, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

 

[constituent]

...

 

[W. E. Messamore]

A lot of people are pointing out that this is a Ron Paul forum. I'd like to point out we rallied around Ron Paul because we believed in his ideas. It was never about him, but about the ideas, and the policies, and America's future.

This is not and must not be a cult of personality like Obama's following is- but a college of like-minded individuals who have rallied around someone who represents our principles. Someone else does too and I believe has an excellent shot at getting Ron Paul's ideas, our ideas into the Oval Office- Gary Johnson.

Frankly, I would ideally like a Johnson Paul ticket. The Washington outsider with an "insider" veep is usually a winning combination.

 

[RM918]

I'll ask you again, who said that's what supporting Johnson would mean? Only you friend, only you.

If you can't figure out how to support two candidates with hopes that at least one makes the big rodeo, I can't help you.

To be blunt, I enjoyed the RP campaign much more when it was actually about something, not just your run of the mill political wonkery. Frankly, I look forward to letting you power hungry, would-be politicos have your little circus, while those who enjoy advancing the debate and reframing issues enjoy our own.

It will make for an interesting dynamic if we can all work together. There is no good reason not to.

Of course, you'll have to figure that out on your own.

Is that not what you are suggesting by saying Paul is too old? If it isn't, why even bring it up?

I don't see how a perfectly reasonable line of logic is somehow now 'political wonkery', does it not simply make sense to go with the guy that's proven himself thus far after at least somewhat successfully breaking out into the open, instead of going to a fresh face that nearly no-one is familiar with or excited about? Are we somehow compromising our values by doing so? Assuming Paul and Johnson are equal ideologically, how is choosing the more prominent one 'political wonkery'? And if it is, how is your argument that it's better to stick with someone younger and fresher not also 'political wonkery'?

How is ANY of that power-hungry compared to your supposed pure-and-holy stance, and what sets them apart? What makes either one morally superior to the other? Do I get some sort of army commission for supporting Paul instead of Johnson and no-one told me? If I remembered correctly, what matters here is the ideas and the only difference between my position and your position is strategy.

You're certainly one to accuse...

I merely return the respect given to me, which is apparently running dryer by the second.

 

[klamath]

A lot of people are pointing out that this is a Ron Paul forum. I'd like to point out we rallied around Ron Paul because we believed in his ideas. It was never about him, but about the ideas, and the policies, and America's future.

This is not and must not be a cult of personality like Obama's following is- but a college of like-minded individuals who have rallied around someone who represents our principles. Someone else does too and I believe has an excellent shot at getting Ron Paul's ideas, our ideas into the Oval Office- Gary Johnson.

Frankly, I would ideally like a Johnson Paul ticket. The Washington outsider with an "insider" veep is usually a winning combination.

Gary Johnson does not represent my principles any more than Huckabee or Palin.
RP represents my principals and so why the hell should RP take second fiddle to GJ

 

[constituent]

Is that not what you are suggesting by saying Paul is too old? If it isn't, why even bring it up?

Stop there. Show me where I said that. Show me where I said it even once.

I stand by my statement about this discussion bearing fruit.

Assuming Paul and Johnson are equal ideologically, how is choosing the more prominent one 'political wonkery'? And if it is, how is your argument that it's better to stick with someone younger and fresher not also 'political wonkery'?

Show me one instance of my argument being that which you're trying to suggest here. Just one.

How is ANY of that power-hungry compared to your supposed pure-and-holy stance, and what sets them apart?

It is abundantly clear that you do not understand my position enough to suggest that it is "pure-and-holy." If you believe that my choice to support Gary Johnson is anything but a bucket of compromise, then I suggest that you search my posting history concerning Gary Johnson. Devote particular attention to those posts dating back to the first rumblings that he might choose to run.

What makes either one morally superior to the other? Do I get some sort of army commission for supporting Paul instead of Johnson and no-one told me? If I remembered correctly, what matters here is the ideas and the only difference between my position and your position is strategy.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand wtf you're even trying to get at here...

I merely return the respect given to me, which is apparently running dryer by the second.

If I've heard it once... Disagreement is not disrespect, btw.

Mischaracterization of your opponent's argument to look right, however, is.

Consider this in the future when you formulate your positions, and we can avoid any unnecessary tension. I'll gladly return you the favor.