We must draft Ron Paul, starting over, not an option

[rp08orbust]

I agree that Ron Paul is still our best hope for 2012. But I just wish Ron Paul could give a decisive answer to the question of whether he will run again, one way or the other, because if we are going to start over, we need to start now. We need to be at the "Google Gary Johnson" stage (or Google whoever) now, not in the summer of 2011 when the three tiers of candidates will already be declared by the MSM. Our candidate needs to already be regarded as a serious contender by then, and our work needs to be convincing voters that he is the best candidate to save our country, not struggling with name recognition.

And if our candidate is going to be Ron Paul, then we need to be working on winning over Iowans right now. I agree with Doug Wead in http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/how-ron-paul-wins-in-2012-step-one/ . If Ron Paul is going to win the Republican nomination, it's going to take a game-changing upset, the winning of the Iowa Caucus. And that will require winning the Ames Straw Poll (Pat Robertson won it in 1987, for crying out loud!). And to do that, I think we must win the 2010 and 2011 CPAC straw polls for Ron Paul in order to generate the attention and news narrative that we need, which is that the Republican Party, in its desperation, is turning back to its roots.

Winning the CPAC straw polls seems extremely doable. How hard can it be to get 500 of us there next year when we can fill auditoriums in Philadelpia or St Louis? Please vote in this poll: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186253

 

[nayjevin]

We need to go hard out in NH this time. The reason I heard from a legitimate political strategist that he did not do well in NH in 2008 is that he did not spend enough time there, as the other candidates did. Thats what you gotta do to win in New Hampshire!

I do not trust the vote results in New Hampshire. Kook as I may be, paper ballots initiative is just as important as anything else we do, IMO

 

[rp08orbust]

We need to go hard out in NH this time. The reason I heard from a legitimate political strategist that he did not do well in NH in 2008 is that he did not spend enough time there, as the other candidates did. Thats what you gotta do to win in New Hampshire!

While I don't think Ron Paul is too old to be president, he may be too old "to go hard out in NH" and elsewhere like younger candidates can. Ron was starting to look exhausted by the end of December 2007 with what campaigning (allegedly not much) he did do, so I wouldn't expect him to intensify his efforts in 2011.

Which brings us back to the necessity of starting early: Early if it's going to be another lesser-known candidate like Gary Johnson (I think even Mark Sanford is lesser-known than Ron Paul at this point), and early if it's going to be Ron Paul himself so that he can take a more gentle pace. We will need to be the ones going hard out in IA, NH etc.

 

[CareerTech1]

Ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul ron paul

 

[Nathan Hale]

While I don't think Ron Paul is too old to be president

The age issue isn't about whether the candidate is too old to successfully execute the functions of the job, it's about whether the people PERCEIVE HIM TO BE too old to execute the functions of the job.

Unfortunately, for "the people" it seems as though 70 is the upper limit for a Presidential candidate. Paul and McCain both got clobbered last time around for their age, and that's when the challenge was "on inauguration day you'd be as old as any president who ever took office". In 2012 the challenge will be "dr paul, you're 4 years older than any president ever to take office". It's a tough hurdle to bring people over.

But you're right, introducing a new name, especially so perfect a candidate as Gary Johnson, is tough and takes time. Which is why it's important that we get over the cult of personality and move to expand this into a real movement rather than just idol worship at the altar of Dr. Paul. The Reform Party failed because they passed at the opportunity to become a real party and instead went to Ross Perot in 1996, let's not make the same mistake.

 

[LibertasPraesidium]

I agree, there is this feeling in the political realm that if people don't stand up to find a candidate one maybe chosen for us to lead the "movement" in our name.

This is what I see Glenn becks program doing, It would be so nice to know that the media would actually be truthful, if people are to position them selves as the bearer of the flag they need to really deserve it. I find it hard to believe that Beck would actually have a "wake up" on air.

Too good to be true maybe. There is Gary Johnson and Ill look into that. We can get things rolling so as soon as we have a person to push we can. full out.

 

[Imperial]

I don't think Ron Paul is the best candidate because when he wins the nomination he won't beat Obama.

Why? It is simple: The newsletters. It doesn't matter if they are not in fact valid or not; many voters will not be able to get over them. This is especially true against a black candidate like Obama.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I don't think Ron Paul is the best candidate because when he wins the nomination he won't beat Obama.

Why? It is simple: The newsletters. It doesn't matter if they are not in fact valid or not; many voters will not be able to get over them. This is especially true against a black candidate like Obama.

And let's not forget that Obama could talk a ring around Ron Paul. Paul has awesome theory, and he's great about not always talking from a script, but when he talks off the cuff (i.e. debates), he's not the most articulate. He misses many slam dunks and offers to his opponents many weak spots. We saw it in the 2007 debate season and I even see it today when I watch Paul on all the cable news shows.

 

[TheTyke]

And let's not forget that Obama could talk a ring around Ron Paul. Paul has awesome theory, and he's great about not always talking from a script, but when he talks off the cuff (i.e. debates), he's not the most articulate. He misses many slam dunks and offers to his opponents many weak spots. We saw it in the 2007 debate season and I even see it today when I watch Paul on all the cable news shows.

Actually, I would disagree with this. Obama, for all his polish, relies heavily on teleprompters. He would be at a disadvantage vs. Paul in an unscripted debated. That said, they're partially scripted from what I understand. Call me an idealist, but I think an Obama vs. Paul debate would be amazing - smooth-talk-rhetoric vs. simple and undeniable truth.

Don't forget, the public barely had a chance to hear Paul's message in 2008. If it actually came down to a showdown of nominees, it would be that much harder to keep that common sense from being heard.

Edit: And quite frankly, I agree with the poster of this thread. I don't see how we can start over either, much less with someone that we ourselves have trouble trusting, like Sanford.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Actually, I would disagree with this. Obama, for all his polish, relies heavily on teleprompters. He would be at a disadvantage vs. Paul in an unscripted debated. That said, they're partially scripted from what I understand. Call me an idealist, but I think an Obama vs. Paul debate would be amazing - smooth-talk-rhetoric vs. simple and undeniable truth.

Smooth-talk rhetoric beats truth, unfortunately. Because while smooth-talk rhetoric comes off as smooth, the truth takes a lot of explanation. In the case of the truths that Ron Paul communicates, it takes a LOT of explanation.

Don't forget, the public barely had a chance to hear Paul's message in 2008. If it actually came down to a showdown of nominees, it would be that much harder to keep that common sense from being heard.

Oh, it certainly would. And I acknowledge the possibility of it coming out, but speaking specifically of the two men doing the talking, Obama talks a ring around Ron Paul. Now, if Gary Johnson or Mark Sanford was doing the talking, it might be a different story.

Edit: And quite frankly, I agree with the poster of this thread. I don't see how we can start over either, much less with someone that we ourselves have trouble trusting, like Sanford.

So fuck Sanford and go with Gary Johnson or whomever else emerges as a liberty movement contender. It's not about starting over. Any serious movement HAS to get past the cult of personality or it's over. I tell you this as FACT - if we base this movement on Ron Paul, as he himself has warned us numerous times not to, we will fail. This movement needs to be larger than the one man. The Reform Party is perfect example of this. They had their opportunity in 1996 to evolve into a true political party by nominating a different candidate, but Perot played his cards, they turned into a cult of personality, and the whole thing collapsed. This is not about Ron Paul. This is about the cause of liberty and who best stands a chance of putting us in a better position to have liberty.

 

[torchbearer]

I agree that Ron Paul is still our best hope for 2012. But I just wish Ron Paul could give a decisive answer to the question of whether he will run again, one way or the other, because if we are going to start over, we need to start now. We need to be at the "Google Gary Johnson" stage (or Google whoever) now, not in the summer of 2011 when the three tiers of candidates will already be declared by the MSM. Our candidate needs to already be regarded as a serious contender by then, and our work needs to be convincing voters that he is the best candidate to save our country, not struggling with name recognition.

And if our candidate is going to be Ron Paul, then we need to be working on winning over Iowans right now. I agree with Doug Wead in http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/how-ron-paul-wins-in-2012-step-one/ . If Ron Paul is going to win the Republican nomination, it's going to take a game-changing upset, the winning of the Iowa Caucus. And that will require winning the Ames Straw Poll (Pat Robertson won it in 1987, for crying out loud!). And to do that, I think we must win the 2010 and 2011 CPAC straw polls for Ron Paul in order to generate the attention and news narrative that we need, which is that the Republican Party, in its desperation, is turning back to its roots.

Winning the CPAC straw polls seems extremely doable. How hard can it be to get 500 of us there next year when we can fill auditoriums in Philadelpia or St Louis? Please vote in this poll: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186253

If he announced tonight that he was going to run... he wouldn't have another televised appearance.

 

[nate895]

The age issue isn't about whether the candidate is too old to successfully execute the functions of the job, it's about whether the people PERCEIVE HIM TO BE too old to execute the functions of the job.

Unfortunately, for "the people" it seems as though 70 is the upper limit for a Presidential candidate. Paul and McCain both got clobbered last time around for their age, and that's when the challenge was "on inauguration day you'd be as old as any president who ever took office". In 2012 the challenge will be "dr paul, you're 4 years older than any president ever to take office". It's a tough hurdle to bring people over.

But you're right, introducing a new name, especially so perfect a candidate as Gary Johnson, is tough and takes time. Which is why it's important that we get over the cult of personality and move to expand this into a real movement rather than just idol worship at the altar of Dr. Paul. The Reform Party failed because they passed at the opportunity to become a real party and instead went to Ross Perot in 1996, let's not make the same mistake.

Gary Johnson believes in permits, not liberty. He is far from perfect.

You are right about the age issue, it is about public perception. If he hits the campaign trail hard and appears young, the age issue won't come up. McCain's problem was health and age. There was an inordinate likelihood that he could get sick while President and possibly die. Ron Paul is older than McCain and I barely ever heard his age mentioned. If anything it will be a benefit in the primaries because he will be the wise old man, and as long as Obama's policies don't do so hot, he can win in the general. It might be a good idea for him to make a one-term pledge or something. So long as he picks a good heir for VP, I can't see a problem in that.

 

[rp08orbust]

It might be a good idea for him to make a one-term pledge or something. So long as he picks a good heir for VP, I can't see a problem in that.

Has picking one's VP before winning the nomination ever been done before? It might be a good idea. If he explicitly referred to his running mate as his heir after one term, that could neutralize the age issue in the nominating contest.

The problem is that the strategy of partisan politics requires you to nominate someone who will be an incumbent for the same office 4 years later.

 

[amonasro]

If he announced tonight that he was going to run... he wouldn't have another televised appearance.

This is a good point. I wonder how we get around that? I mean, if he's gonna do it, he has to do it soon. But when he announces, wave goodbye to MSM coverage. Timing is critical.

 

[rp08orbust]

This is a good point. I wonder how we get around that? I mean, if he's gonna do it, he has to do it soon. But when he announces, wave goodbye to MSM coverage. Timing is critical.

Anyone know when we can expect to find out whether Andrew Napolitano gets his own Fox News show? If Ron Paul can get a solid ideological ally on Fox News (not just a few secret admirers like Neil Cavuto) and the Constitution starts making money for Rupert Murdoch, next time could be different, at least as far as Fox News is concerned.

 

[mstrmac1]

he is going to run .... I read "the secret" its laws of attraction. I already can see his announcement in front of the Federal Reserve after HR 1207 passes.

Its True!

 

[Nathan Hale]

Gary Johnson believes in permits, not liberty. He is far from perfect.

Define "perfect". I'd bet that many of us have different ideas of what constitutes "perfect" in politics.

You are right about the age issue, it is about public perception. If he hits the campaign trail hard and appears young, the age issue won't come up. McCain's problem was health and age.

We've already seen that this isn't true. Paul was confronted during news interviews and (if I'm not mistaken) during a debate (where he was co-criticized with McCain for his age). The numbers are what drive the criticism. Obviously Paul is energetic and youthful at heart, but the numbers are what the media covers. That's why they spoke during the 2007 primary in terms like "as old as any president to ever take the inaugural address" when referring to McCain and Paul. This time around for Paul it will be even worse, as he'll be four years older than any president to ever take the inaugural address.

 

[anaconda]

Agree, but this time he needs to build support then switch to 3rd party when the time is right, imo. I know I will get hammered for that comment, and it may put his congressional seat in jeopardy, but a 3rd party can win.

Obama gets 33%
GOP nominee gets 33% (same cast of characters that we saw last time)
Ron gets 34%

And full force in Iowa with many personal stops. Do some infommercials like Perot.

I think this is the right approach. We also need some slick Madison Avenue public relations firm to handle RP. Not the people from the official campaign in 2007-08. Paul might do more damage as a VP candidate and simultaneously do an end-run around the age issue. Maybe with Ventura or (no joke) Palin. Palin could even nab the Libertarian nomination and, with Ron Paul, easily prevent the GOP from winning. This will be obvious early on, and will result in mass defection from the Republican Party, i.e. those that previously voted party line because they wanted to vote for someone "who could win." When they realize that NO GOP nominee can win, it will induce a slingshot effect. If she parrots the Ron Paul Revolution platform she will draw many disaffected Obama voters. Palin/Paul Libertarian ticket 39%. Democrat ticket 34%. Republican ticket 27%. Ventura/Paul has potential, but may be seen as more of a novelty. Palin will have pull witht he current Republican base. I think there is a possibility that she is not owned, and may seize on the opportunity.

Unfortunately, this still puts the election into the House of Representatives. This might be tricky with a Democrat majority.

 

[kathy88]

If he announced tonight that he was going to run... he wouldn't have another televised appearance.

I don't believe that. He's gained too much momentum. People that laughed at me a year ago are apologizing.

 

[RickyJ]

Agreed.

Although Bruno I couldn't even keep up with RP in Iowa. Him not working his ass off is a misconception and I'm not sure how it got started.

I was tired following him around at all the different places in Iowa and I didn't have to stand for hours at a time giving speeches.

Ron Paul rides his bike everyday. He is in better shape than most 20 year olds. The guy could easily live over 100 and still be active.