PDA

View Full Version : A Revolution Betrayed?




bobbyw24
02-13-2008, 11:46 AM
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/a_revolution_betrayed/


A Revolution Betrayed?
Posted by Justin Raimondo on February 13, 2008

This is the second installment in a symposium on the Ron Paul movement to be published in Taki’s magazine over the next two weeks.

The original title of this piece was to be “Which Way for the Paul Campaign?” but the candidate has preempted that by telling us, exactly, which way he is going. I’ll cite his statement in its entirety in order to give the reader the full flavor:

“Whoa! What a year this has been. And what achievements we have had. If I may quote Trotsky of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked. Not because of me, but because of you. Millions of Americans--and friends in many other countries--have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you. I can never possibly repay your generous donations, hard work, whole-hearted dedication and love of freedom. How blessed I am to be associated with you. Carol, of course, sends her love as well.”

With Romney out, and only the Huckster holding the fort (so far) against a total McCainiac takeover, it looks like the inspirer of the biggest eruption of old-fashionied Old Right populism since the campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan is taking his final bows:

“Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no 3rd party run. I do not denigrate third parties;just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.”

“I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.”

“In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.”

To summarize: the presidential campaign is in limbo, there will be no third party run, and we’ll get back to you later about what we’re going to do with all that money we raised ($6 million still unspent).

As Representative Paul put it: Whoa!

Let’s rewind, slowly: To begin with, there never was that much chance of a brokered convention. It isn’t the Republican way: and if Paul is saying he somehow hoped to at least wield influence on the process by parlaying his delegates as bargaining chips, then it’s hard to believe that’s what many thousands of Paulians nationwide were working for.

Secondly, we know Rep. Paul doesn’t denigrate third parties--after all, he ran as the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 1988--but he doesn’t mention that, merely reiterating that “of course” he is “committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party.” One’s heart sinks: where has he been this whole campaign? Didn’t he notice that, in spite of the respectable crowds of thousands that flocked to hear him on the campaign trail, he rarely pulled more than 10 percent of the vote in mostly closed GOP primaries? His appeal is to younger, non-Republican independent voters, not to your typical GOP primary goer: he cannot realize his full electoral potential without running as a third-party candidate.

Indeed, the field has never been more inviting for a third-party candidate of the Right, as the man conservatives love to hate takes his place as the GOP standard-bearer in 2008. Such a run has been expected, and even welcomed by many right-wing activists, such as Mark Krikorian writing in National Review online:

“A third-party candidate for president may be essential for limiting the damage to Republicans in Congress. For instance, the Libertarian and Constitution parties, which are on the ballot in almost all states, could agree on a joint anti-McCain ticket (with one person from each party); yes, I’m sure they can’t stand each other, but the question is whether they fear McCain more. Such a ticket could conceivably get 1 or 2 percent of the vote, and some of those voters would otherwise have stayed home, potentially spelling the difference between congressional Republicans getting creamed like 1974 and merely suffering small losses that could be reversed in Hillary’s mid-term election, after she’s made a hash of things. Would such a strategy cost McCain the election, by siphoning away people who’d otherwise hold their noses and vote for him? Two things: first, I want him to lose, and second, he’s going to lose regardless. So congressional Republicans need to do whatever they can (and maybe that’s not much) to save themselves from the deluge.”

With the Krikorians of the world just waiting for the opportunity to cast a protest vote, Paul’s dismissal of the third-party option is mysterious and inexplicable. The idea that he would have to use up his millions to secure ballot status is nonsense: the Libertarians have ballot access in most states, and those few which are problematic could be managed just as they have been in the past.

Thirdly, this business about saving his congressional seat is just a lot of malarkey: Representative Paul has millions in cash on hand, which he can readily use for his congressional campaign. Furthermore, his opponent in the GOP primary--no Democratic candidate has bothered to file--is a Republican town councilman who hasn’t raised much money outside his own family circle and has mainly loaned money to himself. Another candidate, one Andy Mann, a NASA contractor, has also filed, although I can’t quite figure out why he’s running. In short: Paul has never had much trouble getting re-elected to Congress. So that’s not what’s really going on here.

The reality is that for Ron Paul to rule out a third-party run, at this point;when his announcement of just such a move would have had maximum impact;is a tragic error, one that we will look back on and regret all the more as time goes on. It is a major opportunity, forever lost--because the Paul campaign, for all its educational impact, in the end means nothing absent an effort to take it all the way to November, and beyond.

Paul’s presidential campaign galvanized so much energy and enthusiasm that, at times, it mimiced the dimensions and depth of a real mass movement, that is, of a serious effort to recapture the GOP from the neoconservatives and inaugurate a new era on the Right. The Paul campaign ignited interest at both ends of the political spectrum, and drew in a broad array of activists and more passive supporters (contributors and voters) that, despite their ideological diversity, showed remarkable cohesion and an amazing degree of self-organization. As a grassroots phenomenon, it has outpaced anything seen in the libertarian movement or, indeed, on the far right side of the political spectrum; since the storied days of Barry Goldwater.

Even as he was announcing the de facto suspension of his presidential campaign, Paul was garnering 21 percent of the vote in the Washington state primary. Aside from which, Paul’s dedicated activists have managed to pull off a number of similar coups in caucus states, where organization and dedication count for more. On Super Tuesday, a North Dakota newspaper reported, “In the northwestern corner of the state, a farmer spray-painted “RON PAUL” on seven large hay bales stacked beside a highway. The campaign set down roots in the Midwest, where the candidate’s staunch antiwar views and strict constitutionalism resonated in places like Montana” western plains. But this was no regional phenomenon: in cities and towns, as well as the rural bastions of “isolationism” and hillbilly anarchism, the Ron Paul Revolutionaries were on the march. In San Francisco, Paulistas went door-to-door soliciting votes, while, in New York, the candidate’s supporters rallied in Grand Central Station. Thousands flocked to his campaign rallies, and Ron Paul Meet-up groups have sprung up by the hundreds all across the country.

Furthermore, all this activity generated more publicity in the mainstream media than any comparable candidate: national newspapers, magazines, television, and the Internet have all featured interviews, profiles, stories, and editorials that have focused attention on Paul, and made him the subject of discussion from sea to shining sea. Two appearances on Jay Leno: more publicity than this no libertarian standard-bearer ever dreamed of.

The campaign seemed to have a lot going for it, at least initially, its most valuable asset being the candidate himself. Ron Paul emanates sincerity: it forms a veritable penumbra about his person. He is unique in Washington politics in that he is a man of principle: his stance is best described as intransigently libertarian. That he has become an unlikely kind of cult figure, especially among the younger set, is one of the most interesting aspects of the Paul phenomenon: his very modesty inspires adulation.

This Paul youth movement--a far more serious, and, in the long run, more significant phenomenon than the Obama fad in the same demographic--is a response, in part, to Paul’s unmitigated radicalism. The congressman they call ”Dr. No” isn’t some fellow-traveling conservative who sometimes mouths libertarian rhetoric, and even occasionally means it: this is someone who not only opposes the welfare state, but also speaks out against the warfare state. Paul goes out of his way to make the connection between his economic views and the most controversial aspect of his libertarian platform, an angular anti-imperialism. During the debates, for example, he rarely let an opportunity go by without referring to the rising material and moral costs of our overseas empire.

Paul set out, I think consciously, to recreate the Old Right coalition on contemporary terrain. Was he so astonished by his own success that he pulled back at the last moment? We can’t know that, but what we can ask is why he failed to give us the leadership implicit in his presidential bid. After all, when you run for president, and put yourself at the head of a movement, you have a responsibility to follow through: you’re asking your supporters to make a commitment, and, implicit in that, is an unwritten agreement on the candidate’s part to follow through.

It’s ironic, and telling, that in the wake of his scale-back announcement, Paul’s supporters pulled off a substantial achievement by garnering some 20-plus percent of the Washington state caucus vote. That result underscores an important point. The people who went through all the trouble to find the caucus locations, show up on time, and sit through the involved caucus procedures, where some kind of political commitment and even savvy is required, were and are serious about politics and about ideas. To now tell them to go home and await further orders is simply not wise: it is demoralizing, and it wastes the momentum--the intellectual momentum--enjoyed by Paul and the campaign to date.

What really scared the substantial anti-Paul contingent among the conservative GOP establishment is that they looked at the youth movement he had generated and saw that this was the future of their movement and their party--if it was to have a future. The venomous smear campaign organized by the Orange Line Mafia, and the hooligan-style assault launched by Bill Kristol and the worst of the neocons, such as David Frum, was simply a defensive war, at least on their part. After all, Paul has continually gone after the neoconservatives, explicitly pointing to them as the real source of the GOP’s problems. His campaign was and is a dagger pointed at the heart of the neocon network in the Republican party, and they responded in kind – that is, in the only way they could, not with a refutation of Paul’s ideas but with smears and a campaign based entirely on the “principle” of guilt-by-association. I’ve covered that campaign here, here, and here, and won’t get into specifics, except to say that, in assessing the effect of the Paul campaign, this chapter takes on special significance.

Every political movement that has an ounce of vitality in it evolves over time, it develops in response to events even as it tries to shape those events: new leaders arise, and other fall by the wayside, in a process of natural selection that keeps the movement healthy--or, conversely, causes it to decline. Up until the launching of the Paul campaign, the libertarian movement--and, more broadly, the paleoconservative-Constitutionalists who occupy the space to the right of National Review--had fallen into a precipitous degeneration. The various “far right” third parties were all fading into the woodwork, with the Libertarians a shadow of their former selves, having “reformed” their platform into the ideological equivalent of vaporware and nearly expired from a fatal dose of “pragmatism.”

Intellectually, the situation was even worse: the Reason crowd and the Cato Institute types constituted the Beltway fraction of a “libertarian” movement that had basically made its peace with the welfare-warfare state. A significant proportion, albeit not all, of these Beltway types rationalize their ideological adaptation to Washington politics-as-usual with a grand over-arching Panglossian theory of increased wealth guaranteeing a very long-term triumph of libertarian principles.

When the Paul campaign appeared on the scene, the instinctive reaction of this crowd was repulsion: after gauging that their libertarian readers and supporters were strongly favorable, they abruptly switched their line--but merely bided their time. When the smear campaign started, the Beltway battalions of the “official” libertarian movement went into action, with statements from Cato bigwigs as well as vitriolic attacks on Paul in the online edition of Reason.

Of course, when anyone looked at the alleged “hate” in his infamous newsletters, and at the accusations leveled in The New Republic and by Marty Peretz’s “libertarian” cohorts, as I did, it became all to clear that the big objection had nothing to do with what was actually written. Paul’s real crime, in the view of his critics, was the very idea of appealing to what is, after all, Ron Paul’s mass base: rural, white, home-schooling, primarily Midwestern farmers and lower-middle class small business owners and blue- collar workers. For the Beltway “libertarians,” this simply will not do. As Radley Balko, of the Cato Institute, lamented: “The Ann Althouses of the world, for example, are now only more certain that opponents of federal anti-discrimination laws should have to prove that they aren’t racist before being taken seriously.”

The Ann Althouses of this world amount to a very small percentage of the general population: after all, what if we got together all the cranky, neoconnish know-it-all female lawyers--;would we even have enough to fill a small room?

Yet it is unfair to apply this argument to the Beltway types, who couldn’t care less about building a real political movement outside the confines of the Georgetown cocktail party circuit. That’s why they care more about the Ann Althouses of this world than they do about that North Dakota farmer who spray-painted “RON PAUL” on hay bales. Heck, they’re embarrassed that Paul won his highest vote totals in rural districts like North Dakota and Montana. Why, those places are nowhere, they don’t matter: only the Washington-New York-Hollywood axis matters: the rest is fly-over country, which, if it isn’t exactly uninhabited, is certainly empty intellectually, as least as far as the Orange Line Mafia is concerned.

This “scandal” was actually a good thing for libertarians, and the broader “freedom movement” that Paul often refers to: in separating out the professional boot-lickers and careerists in Washington, and showing them up for what they are--basically a tame “libertarian” side-show, run and maintained financially by neocons--the newsletter controversy had a salutary effect on the movement. In struggling to identify itself, and refine its sense of who are its friends, and who are its enemies, the emerging right-wing populist tendency represented by the Paul campaign received an intensive education that it will not soon forget.

Ron Paul’s great achievement has been to inspire a veritable army of Myrmidons, who seemingly rose up out of the earth in response to his summons, and whose numbers and fervor astonished the candidate--and this writer, who has been laboring in the vineyard of the “movement,” lo these many years now, and has never seen its like.

Paul’s great error, on the other hand, is to literally throw this army away, demobilize and demoralize it, with a curt announcement: surely they deserve--we all deserve--a little more than that.

Finally, the Paul campaign needs to reconsider its summary rejection of the third-party route. This is an historic opportunity that will not reoccur any time soon. McCain is enormously unpopular with conservatives who will turn to Paul in increasing numbers--if only there is something for them to turn to. Concerns about Paul’s congressional seat are overblown: that cannot be the real reason for the sudden drawing in. It is a question of what will be the legacy of the Paul campaign: will it be yet another ephemeral right-wing populist effort that, in the end, came to nothing--or will it lay the basis for a new organization, perhaps a new party of the Right--or, in any event, a vehicle for the movement to take a more activist form?

As Murray N. Rothbard, the founder of the modern libertarian movement, put it in the scintillating final chapter of The Ethics of Liberty:

“The Marxists have correctly perceived that two sets of conditions are necessary for the victory of any program of radical social change; what they call the ‘objective’ and the ‘subjective’ conditions. The subjective conditions are the existence of a self-conscious movement dedicated to the triumph of the particular social ideal--conditions which we have been discussing above. The objective conditions are the objective fact of a ‘crisis situation’ in the existing system, a crisis stark enough to be generally perceived, and to be perceived as the fault of the system itself.

“It is such a breakdown that stimulates a sudden search for new social alternatives and it is then that the cadres of the alternative movement (the ‘subjective conditions’) must be available to supply that alternative, to relate the crisis to the inherent defects of the system itself, and to point out how the alternative system would solve the existing crisis and prevent similar breakdowns in the future. Hopefully, the alternative cadre would have provided a track record of predicting and warning against the existing crisis.”

The crisis, as anyone can see, is all around us: the objective conditions are not only ripe, they are over-ripe. Ron Paul has indeed been a prophetic voice: his warnings that we’re headed for a financial 1930s-style meltdown are well-known, and, yes, he and his movement do relate the crisis to the inherent defects of a financial system and foreign policy regime that is pushing us into bankruptcy. Yet without an organized movement--not only an electorally-oriented party, but the sort of literary and activist apparatus that provides the institutional and political basis for the rest--the opportunity to change the world, instead of simply analyzing it from the sidelines, is irretrievably lost.

Justin Raimondo is editorial director of Antiwar.com and author of the soon to be republished Reclaiming the American Right.

[Photo Courtesy of Ron Paul 2008]
Article URL: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/a_revolution_betrayed/

seeker1
02-13-2008, 11:54 AM
This article expresses my feelings exactly. Thanks for posting it.

hyoomen
02-13-2008, 11:58 AM
Indisputably. We, who let ourselves sleep as America ignorantly sacrificed herself, have been awakened, but we have not yet begun to shout, fight, or celebrate.

bobbyw24
02-13-2008, 11:58 AM
Yep. I hesitated to post it but it does sum up the way a lot of us feel. I really don't see us "taking back" the Republican Party but I guess it's all that is left for many of us to try to do.

hyoomen
02-13-2008, 12:04 PM
Aye. I don't count myself as a part of the "Republican Party" to begin with, let alone any interest in taking it back. My America doesn't need a party -- My America needs an educated voter capable of making decisions independent of the narrow policies of various parties.

That having been said, I'd probably be a bit more willing to support any candidate or party who is willing to take a stand for the more successful elements of what initially brought this movement together and can leave the social/religious agendas at home.

ButchHowdy
02-13-2008, 12:07 PM
Ron's "Paul McCartney" is obviously working!

Freedom&Reason
02-13-2008, 12:17 PM
When I read Dr. Pauls message I felt the same way as this author did in Dr. Paul's reasoning on that message. This in no way changes my ideals of this cause. I had post previous to all of this that it would be logical to run 3rd party(he already did once) to keep the growth going. I always thought we didn't get that big of percentages in the states just because he was not known that well. We just need more time for this movement as if that is not common sense. I think this movement won't fade, I believe the people that have seen enough corruptions to come over to paul will not be forgotten so easily. Thanks, Ron Paul for starting the movement!!!!!!!!!!

Any form of being with common sense is more dangeous when you back them into a corner threatening thier life and freedoms.

Dave Pedersen
02-13-2008, 12:18 PM
The GOP is neither friend nor ally in this struggle for our constitution. It serves as our greatest stumbling block.

bobbyw24
02-13-2008, 12:22 PM
That is true; many Ron Paul supporters were not registered Republicans before this election and they are not comfortable in the Rep. party. The official party is uncomfortable with us in their ranks. By the time these old men Rep. die off, the country will have been lost. Ron Paul is not your typical Republican. If he were, the movement would have died months ago.

SteveMartin
02-13-2008, 12:23 PM
The betrayal was not of, or from, Ron Paul himself as the article comes close to suggesting. It was based in Arlington, VA.

We were infiltrated, and poor Dr. Paul was too busy being a congressman AND a presidential candidate all at the same time to be able to see it and react in time.

Truth is, a 3rd party run would have been quickly obfuscated anyway by planned announcements waiting in the wings from others like Bloomberg, Nader...perhaps even Dobbs...It would never have gotten off the ground without hundreds of millions of dollars, and the "protest vote" it would have engendered would have been split 3-4 ways, and none of them (except maybe Bloomberg) would have been invited to future general-election debates.

I believe RP was offered such an option by a billionaire (Mark Cuban?) but decided he would want to much in return, or that he had ulterior (read: non-patriotic) motives for doing so.

All JMO...

ConstitutionGal
02-13-2008, 12:23 PM
It will be many years, I fear, before any REAL conservartive movement 'takes back' the Republican Party. Those in the actual seats of power are too heavily entrenched to be vulnerable for years to come. Of course, we can all get involved at the local level but those who make it to the state level within the actual party are the party faithful who have no qualms about compromising their supposed beliefs simply to remain in power. I'm not saying it can't be done, only that it will take YEARS to be able to actually accomplish anything meaningful. I know, I've actually served two terms on the local county executive committee and, while the county parties are often VERY conservative, those at the state level are there to simply push whatever the party line is at that particular time. Make waves and you'll get nowhere.

I've been very hesitant to even CONSIDER Dr. Paul's making a third-party run as I see one going nowhere. The third parties are ignored even more than Dr. Paul has been ignored this election cycle and most people, having been thoroughly brainwashed into the two-party system, would never consider 'throwing their vote away' by voting for a third party candidate. In other words, Dr. Paul would probably actually lose the portion of his support that consideres themselves Republicans, while only picking up a few votes from those who consider themselves 'independent'. So...while I'm afraid that a third-party run would only be preaching to what is already the choir, I'm now seeing little chance (thanks mainly to that email that was sent out that is referenced in the above article) of accomplishing our goals from inside the Republican Party.

Now, most on these forums know that I'm generally a cheerleader for whatever Dr. Paul thinks is best, I'm having to seriously question the future direction and possibilities of this campaign. I was still cautiously optimiistic until last evening when he barely garnered enough votes to beat Mittens in two of the three states and actually came in behind him in one. Now I know this is party due to the MSM and local media making it appear that Dr. Paul had dropped out and that Mitten had only 'suspended' his campaign, however, at this point, I have to begin to believe that a third-party run might actually get more traction given the outright hatred of the two probably nominees (McCain and either Hilary or Obama). I can't ever recall an election where emotions are running so high against the Republican nominee from within the rank and file of the party and, therefore, this just might be a golden opportunity for a third-party run (even considering the sore-loser laws and potential ballot access issues). The Consittution Party is now the third-largest party in the U.S. surpassing even the Libertarians and they don't have a lot of the perceived baggage as the "L" party who is seen by most folks at the 'legalize drugs' and 'open borders' party.

As you can tell, I'm still trying to reconcile my feelings on what direction should be undertaken (as I'm sure many other are too) but, the bottom line is, I'm seeing less and less chance of actually getting to a brokered convention with each passing day. IF Dr. Paul doesn't do well in Texas (and who knows, miracles DO happen), I'm imagining a REAL withdrawal afterwards. Thing is, where do we go from here?

JS4Pat
02-13-2008, 12:27 PM
but what we can ask is why he failed to give us the leadership implicit in his presidential bid. After all, when you run for president, and put yourself at the head of a movement, you have a responsibility to follow through: you’re asking your supporters to make a commitment, and, implicit in that, is an unwritten agreement on the candidate’s part to follow through.
I agree - it is this that most disappoints me about Dr. Paul.

He has done incredible things over the past year and I am thankful and appreciative, but it bothers me that he is not willing to GO ALL THE WAY.

I would like to at least know why?

Goldwater Conservative
02-13-2008, 12:28 PM
Yep. I hesitated to post it but it does sum up the way a lot of us feel. I really don't see us "taking back" the Republican Party but I guess it's all that is left for many of us to try to do.


Aye. I don't count myself as a part of the "Republican Party" to begin with, let alone any interest in taking it back. My America doesn't need a party -- My America needs an educated voter capable of making decisions independent of the narrow policies of various parties.

That having been said, I'd probably be a bit more willing to support any candidate or party who is willing to take a stand for the more successful elements of what initially brought this movement together and can leave the social/religious agendas at home.

Even if you aren't willing to get active in GOP circles (and I can respect that), you should at least stay registered Republican (if you're in a state that registers voters by party) to vote for Ron Paul Revolutionaries in the primaries.

Anyway, I don't blame Paul for not running third party. He knows he'd have to put even more energy and spend even more money to get less media coverage than he has and be treated like dirt by even more people. He wouldn't even have the benefit of being able to campaign state-by-state, gauge the results, and adjust strategies accordingly. And general elections are like extremely high turnout primaries, and neither high turnout or primaries have favored him. He's reached an age where I can understand if he's not up to putting his health and his family through that.

jblosser
02-13-2008, 12:29 PM
I typically like what Justin has to say but his analysis of the results so far could not be much more wrong.

We are, in fact, doing the best in the GOP *caucus* states, including those like Montana that only allowed party officials to vote. It is exactly the Republican party that is ripe for this message. One only need to look at the speed with which they are flocking to us after Romney's drop out to see this. Running third party would destroy this momentum and tear the Ron Paul delegates away from the very party they are very nearly taking over already.

We are doing poorly in primary states because of the MSM machine black out and the masses who vote for whichever name they recognize the most. Say what you want about the youth and hordes of indy voters, they are not doing us any good right now vs. the masses. Running third party would not change this media problem one bit without hundreds of millions of dollars. I can't be the only one who got what Ron was saying months ago -- give the money for a third party run, and he'd consider it. The money did not come in. Stories it's all there waiting for him to announce a third party run are not compelling. He's not going to risk the existing ability he has to defend us in Congress over internet promises like that.

And that same MSM machine is now turning its eyes on CD14 with a determined will to take Ron Paul out for good. He really does have a fight on his hands there; they are reporting him behind in their polls, and we have seen by now they are quite good at turning their poll results into reality. He cannot use his Presidential funds for his Congressional race; if anyone wants proof he isn't giving up, they should find it in the fact he hasn't dropped out to get that money and save his seat. He's raising separately, even though that's really hard to pull off.

He's not BSing us now, just like he's never BSed us before. If people don't want to believe the threats he sees are real... well, I imagine that's nothing new to him.

bobbyw24
02-13-2008, 12:30 PM
Constitution Gal: in case you missed this for some reason:

Dear Fellow Constitution Party Members,

Like many others, I was sorely disappointed in Ron Paul’s decision this weekend to stay within the Republican Party. Quoting from his letter:

“Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties — just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.”

I have been thrilled with how much attention and support Ron Paul has received. Never before have I seen our values and beliefs get so much attention from the mainstream media. He has done more than any other person to raise our standard high. I publicly endorsed the man, and was a Ron Paul for President precinct captain. However, I was saddened by his refusal to take his candidacy to the next step.

Ron Paul would have made an incredible Constitution Party nominee. He would have brought more people into the party, united us under one banner, and given us more exposure than ever before. Ron Paul supporters are enthusiastic, dedicated Constitutionalists who are willing to sacrifice and work for their cause. Paul’s views clearly have no home in the GOP (thus his poor primary polling numbers) but would have received much better numbers in a general election. Republicans may not have elected him, but Americans could have.

Yet, Dr. Paul knows he will not capture the GOP nod and believes he should focus on keeping his seat in Congress. I have heard many others echo this same sentiment. What a loss it would be for us to lose Ron Paul in Congress – our ONLY voice in Washington. I share those concerns, but I have a far greater scheme in mind.

We often hear it said that freedom is never free. That is 100% correct. If we wish to regain our freedom and God-given liberty, we must be willing to sacrifice. If it means losing a House seat, we must be willing to sacrifice that for the greater good and future of the nation.

The Ron Paul Revolution often reminds us of another revolution back in 1776. In that year, 55 men signed the Declaration of Independence. They signed this document knowing this would sever all ties with England. It was a point of no return. Not only was there no longer a safety net, each of these signers knew should they lose in their efforts, this document would turn into their death warrant. They were willing to sacrifice everything. Now it is our turn.

If we are ever going to win the fight for freedom and liberty, we must be willing to put all on the line. Ron Paul took the first step, and now has decided to go back to the safety of his Congressional district. I applaud his efforts and thank him for his hard work. But, someone needs to pick up the mantle. Some needs to pick up where he left off – that is the job of the Constitution Party.

I do not know who our nominee will be. We have some excellent possibilities – Chuck Baldwin, Bob Smith, Alan Keyes, Judge Roy Moore, or others who are willing to throw their hat into the ring. But no matter who our nominee is, there is hard work for us ahead. We must all be willing to sacrifice and lay it all on the line in the next months leading up to November.

Our first step is choosing a nominee. We ought to be praying right now for God’s guidance in this crucial area. We want just the right man. Along with this, each state should be trying their best to get as many people to Kansas City for the convention as possible. Your voice cannot be heard if your body is not present.

Second, we need to secure ballot access for our nominee. No matter who we choose, they have no possibility of success if people cannot vote for him. This is difficult in some states. It will take great amounts of effort to see this accomplished. Yet, let us remember – it is worth the effort, the time and the money involved. We are fighting for freedom!

Third, we need to get the word out. We ought to be willing to sacrifice our time and go door-to-door and let people know we exist! Let’s get the bumper stickers and yard signs out for all to see. Let’s write the editors of our papers and take every opportunity to let everyone know what we stand for!

This may mean taking time off of work. This will require great amounts of money. In a word: sacrifice. I know not everyone can give thousands or take off much time from work. But we all can do something. Together, we can all do something great.

2008 can be the greatest year the Constitution Party has ever had. Our message is getting out there. Ron Paul had a lot of success. Ron Paul did not have success in the Republican party, because his views are not Republican views – they are Constitutional. Constitutional values transcend this two-party system and reaches out into all demographics, voting blocs and social classes. We can make some headway.

Last year, I ran for Congress in a special election. At first, my only goal was to get on the ballot in order to give the party some exposure. I now look back on that as the biggest mistake of my campaign. You see, I never thought any one would listen to me. Boy, was I wrong! I had to turn down speaking engagements! We have an audience out there. I live in liberal Massachusetts, but everyday I found more people who believe just as we do. They are out there. Had I actually set the goal of winning that election, who knows what could have happened?

Being Ron Paul’s precinct captain here in Brockton, MA, I paid close attention to the voter turn-out on February 5 (Super Tuesday). Our Secretary of State boasted of a great voter turn-out that day – 30%. That was a great turn-out! That means 70% of those registered to vote did not vote! They chose to sit out. That means two things. First, it means that we still do not know what the majority of voters in Massachusetts think. We know that the minority of citizens that show-up to the polls are liberal. This gives us 70%, millions of people, to work with! That is encouraging. Second, this statistic means the overwhelming majority of registered voters are not happy with their current crop of choices. They are not thrilled with anyone in the two major parties, at least not enough to drive to a voting place. America is ripe for a third party.

Now is not the time to be discouraged because one man has decided not to run with us. Now is the time to dig in our heals and prepare for the fight ahead. I’ve said it once, and I will say it again – Liberty is worth the fight!

Kevin Thompson

MusoSpuso
02-13-2008, 12:34 PM
It's simple:

1) Make a point and keep political power

or

2) Make a point and lose political power

which has a higher net gain? That's right, 1.

People will feel how they feel so that's neither here nor there. But logically, Ron Paul has more to lose and less to gain from a 3rd party run. He would not win. He would make a point, sure. But he can make that same point AND continue to spread the freedom message within Washington by holding on to his congressional seat and not running 3rd party.

This whole 3rd party talk (as the situation stands currently) just makes me think of the army losing a battle (not the war) and decides to make a suicide charge wiping themselves out (thus losing the war) instead of retreating, re-grouping and fighting on later.

AlbemarleNC0003
02-13-2008, 12:35 PM
As you can tell, I'm still trying to reconcile my feelings on what direction should be undertaken (as I'm sure many other are too) but, the bottom line is, I'm seeing less and less chance of actually getting to a brokered convention with each passing day. IF Dr. Paul doesn't do well in Texas (and who knows, miracles DO happen), I'm imagining a REAL withdrawal afterwards. Thing is, where do we go from here?

Every primary thus far I've heard how well we should do only to see pretty much the same results everywhere. I'm frustrated as hell here in NC since it looks like even if I vote for him, canvass my ass off, write letters, purchase ads, etc etc etc, I'm still looking at getting only 10-15 votes in my town. There's 16k people here and the locals are strongly behind the party nominee. They hate Ron Paul and his anti-war stance. They see him as an isolationist and even bringing up his name has cut me out of the loop. I have to search to find any information on the delegate process and when/where meetings are to be held. There is very little support among the insiders and most people don't know him at all. The only positive feedback has been from ex-mil types that have followed him since the 80s.

I know we all want Ron Paul to give us the leadership we crave, but his philosophy of government is for the people, by the people. The grassroots has done about all it can, I think, to accomplish that goal. Once in a while, the leader of the movement needs to make some serious noise. The march should have been planned in December 07. May is too late to affect this election and will probably have a very small turnout.

Go ahead and scream at me, but look how donations/postings have gone. We've got a lot of fair-weathered patriots even on this forum. We all complain, but are we willing to do anything about it? I'd guess about 10% or less (same as most states' voting results) are willing to put their time and energy into this.

But one thing is very clear. The GOP does not want us.

Pauliana
02-13-2008, 12:38 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again - Not even SuperRon can save us from the destructive economic policies that are about to come crashing down on the head of the next president. And in the minds of the sheeple, it will be all the new president's fault.

Do you really want a Libertarian president so much RIGHT NOW that you will surely never have one again?

Think long term. In 8 years when all this is blown over and we've made progress and we have a great candidate, do you want to wrestle with the public perception of "A Libertarian? Remember what happened with the Second Great Depression of '09? We don't want that again."

Me? I'd rather never have another woman, or black president, or even war-monger president, than to elect our very last libertarian president ever.

This move will make Ron Paul a prophet, not a perpetrator.

Freedom&Reason
02-13-2008, 12:40 PM
It's simple:

1) Make a point and keep political power

or

2) Make a point and lose political power

which has a higher net gain? That's right, 1.

People will feel how they feel so that's neither here nor there. But logically, Ron Paul has more to lose and less to gain from a 3rd party run. He would not win. He would make a point, sure. But he can make that same point AND continue to spread the freedom message within Washington by holding on to his congressional seat and not running 3rd party.

This whole 3rd party talk (as the situation stands currently) just makes me think of the army losing a battle (not the war) and decides to make a suicide charge wiping themselves out (thus losing the war) instead of retreating, re-grouping and fighting on later.

So by your logic here he should have never ran in the first place. You are not making much sense with this.

DeanToPaulIn4Years
02-13-2008, 12:42 PM
I agree. 3rd party was always my hope. And I agree that there's never been a better chance for a 3rd party than right now.

AlbemarleNC0003
02-13-2008, 12:43 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again - Not even SuperRon can save us from the destructive economic policies that are about to come crashing down on the head of the next president. And in the minds of the sheeple, it will be all the new president's fault.

Do you really want a Libertarian president so much RIGHT NOW that you will surely never have one again?

Think long term. In 8 years when all this is blown over and we've made progress and we have a great candidate, do you want to wrestle with the public perception of "A Libertarian? Remember what happened with the Second Great Depression of '09? We don't want that again."


That is a very fair point. 4 years is not enough time to undo a century of bad policies.

SteveMartin
02-13-2008, 12:44 PM
Many of you are missing the point that we were infiltrated.

However/wherever/whenever the next patriot runs for president, he/she MUST put the highest priority on fully-vetting potential paid staff or everything else will be a waste of time.

Personally, I think we've run out of time. RP was this Republic's last hurrah...

Freedom&Reason
02-13-2008, 12:48 PM
If running for 3rd party we mean we would get even less media attention(did this stop us through this presidential bid? If it did I am glad you came back to the forums)I don't see how that would make a difference since we use the internet. It takes time to keep the movement going, not running 3rd party is going to let it die down.

DeanToPaulIn4Years
02-13-2008, 12:48 PM
Aye. I don't count myself as a part of the "Republican Party" to begin with, let alone any interest in taking it back. My America doesn't need a party -- My America needs an educated voter capable of making decisions independent of the narrow policies of various parties.

That having been said, I'd probably be a bit more willing to support any candidate or party who is willing to take a stand for the more successful elements of what initially brought this movement together and can leave the social/religious agendas at home.

ditto

coffeewithchess
02-13-2008, 12:49 PM
I edited a YouTube video about RP's campaign's strategy...http://youtube.com/watch?v=hSjdG3LjQZ8
BTW, I don't support a third party run and I'm glad RP doesn't...unless I see RP actually step up and fire somebody or somebody step aside, then I seriously don't think they have had any strategy to win other than to plunder the grassroots of money on campaign advisers...it doesn't make any sense. Nearly $17.5 million spent in the 4th quarter and not a single NATIONAL tv ad, that is ridiculous.

Freedom&Reason
02-13-2008, 12:49 PM
Many of you are missing the point that we were infiltrated.

However/wherever/whenever the next patriot runs for president, he/she MUST put the highest priority on fully-vetting potential paid staff or everything else will be a waste of time.

Personally, I think we've run out of time. RP was this Republic's last hurrah...

You have valid info for this? give me a link to some documents or videos that are valid please.

Banana
02-13-2008, 12:50 PM
Some talk about how we may not take back the party, or doubt whether we want to take it.

The way I look at it, Paul wins if we take over the party and reform it.

Take a look over here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=119814).

SWATH
02-13-2008, 12:50 PM
I feel as though the grassroots effort is being stiffled by the campaign itself, almost to the point of sabotage. It is heart-wrenching.

Where are they? What are they doing? Why don't we get updates as to what is going on after every primary or caucus? There is almost ZERO communication. Where are the ads? How can they expect to compete with a media blackout and have no ads? Are they content to just collect money then sit back on the asses and do nothing while being content with a consistant distant last place in every state? What is the new media consultant doing? Is he making sure that Ron Paul gets no media coverage at all costs? The official campaign needs to get it's act together and think about running a serious campiagn for a change instead of this sideshow oddity that loses to candidates that have dropped out. Something like 80% of people base their candidate decisions on information they get from t.v. We NEED to get on t.v. somehow.

The grassroots cannot do it all, we have done our part, the official campaign has not only not done much, they have thwarted the efforts of the grassroots to the point that confidence and motivation is wanning. THEY HAVE GOT TO FOCUS ON A WIN!!! A WIN THAT THE MEDIA CANNOT IGNORE!!! Then the campaign will get it's money. I think many of us have stopped donating because we feel that our money is not doing anything. The campaign seems to be saying, send us money and we will push for a big 6%, yeah it's still a distant last place but look on the bright side, it's better than 3%.

We need a trustworthy badass campaign manager and staff to turn this ship around, I hope it's not too late. If by chance I am way off and infact we are somehow winning with a clandestine strategy the campaign could at least give us the update with words of encouragement even if subtle insinuations to maintain secrecy.

SteveMartin
02-13-2008, 12:52 PM
You have valid info for this? give me a link to some documents or videos that are valid please.

The infiltrators will be coming out with a press release any moment. And I am sure they will be putting many videos about their activities up on YouTube shortly as well.

ConstitutionGal
02-13-2008, 12:54 PM
Go ahead and scream at me, but look how donations/postings have gone. We've got a lot of fair-weathered patriots even on this forum. We all complain, but are we willing to do anything about it? I'd guess about 10% or less (same as most states' voting results) are willing to put their time and energy into this.

But one thing is very clear. The GOP does not want us.

I'll certainly not scream at your for pointing out the obvious. Dr. Paul was our Pied Piper but sadly, I don't think he ever REALLY believed he could win and this is becoming more apparent every day. Remember when many on these forums were arm-chair quarterbacking after media appearances where Dr. Paul made comments about being surprised at the support he was getting? Folks here kept commenting that those statements didn't look good? They may not have looked good but they were Dr. Paul being honest. I don't think he ever envisioned getting past the first couple of debates - being about to get his message out there for just a few times to the masses. It snowballed on him I don't think either he or HQ were prepared enough for it to actually run a professional national campaign. People here kept waiting for some 'secret strategy' to come to materialize and, it never did because there wasn't one. Just look at all the instances where HQ basically told the grassroots to 'stand down' and then HQ completely dropped the ball resulting in nothing getting done! I don't believe it was saboutage, I think it was sheer incompetance on the part of folks who had no experience with running a national campaign.

While most of us believe wholeheartedly that Dr. Paul is the perfect candidate, his campaign apparatus has not been up to par and has cost us dearly along with the media blackout (this was partly due to HQ dropping the ball on interviews and failing to send out press releases in a timely manner).

The lack of good showings is both harming our morale as well as lessening the chances of garnering new supporters (as is evidenced by these forums as well as donation levels). Granted, we've had good showings that the media has ignored but, where were the press releases from HQ about them? Oh, they sent out emails to the grassroots but, we weren't the ones that needed to hear about them (most of us were here on the forums watching the results as they came in!). The masses needed to hear about them to grow the movement. Ads, if necessary, should have been quickly launched talking about those 2nd place wins so people might have begun to see Dr. Paul as a 'viable' candidate and alternative to the neocon, flip-flopping 'front-runners'. People will NOT vote for someone that they believe has no chance of winning.

I somehow don't see Dr. Paul being willing to undertake a national run again so, I reiterate, where does that leave us?

Freedom&Reason
02-13-2008, 12:55 PM
kind of curious, why would they incriminate themselves?

coffeewithchess
02-13-2008, 12:57 PM
I feel as though the grassroots effort is being stiffled by the campaign itself, almost to the point of sabotage. It is heart-wrenching.

Where are they? What are they doing? Why don't we get updates as to what is going on after every primary or caucus? There is almost ZERO communication. Where are the ads? How can they expect to compete with a media blackout and have no ads? Are they content to just collect money then sit back on the asses and do nothing while being content with a consistant distant last place in every state? What is the new media consultant doing? Is he making sure that Ron Paul gets no media coverage at all costs? The official campaign needs to get it's act together and think about running a serious campiagn for a change instead of this sideshow oddity that loses to candidates that have dropped out. Something like 80% of people base their candidate decisions on information they get from t.v. We NEED to get on t.v. somehow.

The fact is that the media would have to run RP's ads, because he is a presidential candidate. If RP is going out, he should go out with hard fact hitting ads that may actually start waking people up. Your last two lines sum it up nicely. I can email, give literature and talk to the majority of Americans(like my family) but unless and until they see RP on the news or tv every two minutes, in their minds he "isn't electable".

AlbemarleNC0003
02-13-2008, 12:59 PM
I somehow don't see Dr. Paul being willing to undertake a national run again so, I reiterate, where does that leave us?

If we take our marching orders from the Constitution, we start running and supporting local candidates and then state reps and go up from there. Our gov't is supposed to be based on the people, by,for the people. This campaign was run just that way. We really need to rethink waiting for HQ to do anything.

SteveMartin
02-13-2008, 12:59 PM
I somehow don't see Dr. Paul being willing to undertake a national run again so, I reiterate, where does that leave us?


It leaves us on our knees, praying that the Good Lord will spare this nation during four more years of a godless, totalitarian, bloodthirsty leadership without WWIII breaking out against us so that we can try to find a reasonable facsimile of Dr. Paul to rally behind in 2012.

SteveMartin
02-13-2008, 01:00 PM
kind of curious, why would they incriminate themselves?

LOL...I can't find the sarcasm button on here....

Banana
02-13-2008, 01:03 PM
If we take our marching orders from the Constitution, we start running and supporting local candidates and then state reps and go up from there. Our gov't is supposed to be based on the people, by,for the people. This campaign was run just that way. We really need to rethink waiting for HQ to do anything.

*Exactly*.

We all got in this mess because we somehow believed that POTUS is the leader.

WRONG!

POTUS is a public servant! So are the Senators and Representatives.


You should go over to that thread about what Alaskans did to get their resolution passed. And don't forget Heather_in_WI's anti-McCain resolution. Those are what we can do, and the more delegates we send to National Convention, regardless of who is the nominee, we get to dictate the platform and basically chain the nominee to Paul's message.

This is how Paul will win.

AlbemarleNC0003
02-13-2008, 01:05 PM
You should go over to that thread about what Alaskans did to get their resolution passed. And don't forget Heather_in_WI's anti-McCain resolution. Those are what we can do, and the more delegates we send to National Convention, regardless of who is the nominee, we get to dictate the platform and basically chain the nominee to Paul's message.

This is how Paul will win.

I'm 100% in agreement with you. I've been to that thread. I think it's gone on too long that people keep looking to the top for answers when the bottom is where we find the motivation and the reason for continuing.

ConstitutionGal
02-13-2008, 01:06 PM
If we take our marching orders from the Constitution, we start running and supporting local candidates and then state reps and go up from there. Our gov't is supposed to be based on the people, by,for the people. This campaign was run just that way. We really need to rethink waiting for HQ to do anything.

I would advocate focuing on Congressional campaigns for U.S. House seats. ALL spending bills must originate in the House so that's where the power is. If we can raise millions of dollars to fund a presidential campaign, we should be able to throw $50,000 or so at many different U.S. House campaigns. That would buy a lot of signs, mailouts and local ads. This, IMHO, would serve two-fold, it would get us people in Congress of a like mind which would give Dr. Paul support there AND those newly elected officials would have a bully-pulpit to use to begin educating and winning over the local districts.

Dr. Paul has paved the way for us and the official campaign has shown us what NOT to do to win. If we actually learn from these, we could realistically actually take over Congress in just a few short years. The question then is whether we can keep the support together and active once the presidential campaign begins to fade out of mind....

Shink
02-13-2008, 01:07 PM
A few things:

Ron Paul has every reason NOT to run third party. Seriously, he's not only been there/done that, but if he were to make us happy and do so, HE WOULD NOT BE IN A SINGLE DEBATE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates


The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

Like it or not, we would not raise Ron enough cash to make a big dent. We could possibly beat December 16th, but Ron would have to spend most of the money getting on ballots (disgusting) and wouldn't be able to buy his way into a debate. We all know that debates are where Ron does some heavy damage. If he was disallowed from debates, maybe we could run enough ads to pick up a few thousand votes in all the states. Maybe.

Remember, though, we've had people leave the fold for reasons of: racism smears, the campaign staff not pleasing people one way or another, lack of media announced victories, a sense of wasted effort in some, and general lack of true commitment from some (I posit the 'Obama's my 2nd choice' types as evidence).

Nader and Bloomberg will likely only run IF Ron does play the 3rd party card. If you don't think this election is scripted as I, that's fine, but I bet you anything Nadeberg would announce within a couple days of Ron if he chose to go through with it. Were that to happen, Ron would get zero mention, but Nader would be covered as 'a potential spoiler for Democrats' and Bloomberg would be 'the billionaire wildcard that cannot be ignored.' Ron? *cricket, cricket*

I am not one of those 'let's give up' people, but I am a 'let's factor reality into our strategy' person. One of the smartest things RP supporters can do right now is support this GOP run to its fullest potential, stay registered (in closed primary states) long enough to vote in Ron Paul Republicans, and ALWAYS spread the message whether there's an election or not. Live every day like you have to personally get Ron Paul's message understood by the world.

ConstitutionGal
02-13-2008, 01:08 PM
It leaves us on our knees, praying that the Good Lord will spare this nation during four more years of a godless, totalitarian, bloodthirsty leadership without WWIII breaking out against us so that we can try to find a reasonable facsimile of Dr. Paul to rally behind in 2012.

Gee!! And here I thought I was being the gloomy Gus for today!! :eek:

With that being said - I don't think we can afford to wait for four years or we will see the grassroots fall apart. See my post above....

The Good Doctor
02-13-2008, 01:09 PM
If we are not locked up for our beliefs in the Halliburton built FEMA camps first. :rolleyes:

PS That's the sarcastic emoticon! ;)


It leaves us on our knees, praying that the Good Lord will spare this nation during four more years of a godless, totalitarian, bloodthirsty leadership without WWIII breaking out against us so that we can try to find a reasonable facsimile of Dr. Paul to rally behind in 2012.

AlbemarleNC0003
02-13-2008, 01:11 PM
The question then is whether we can keep the support together and active once the presidential campaign begins to fade out of mind....

There are ideas around to start a new forum dedicated to this purpose. Anyone have any real information?

Shink
02-13-2008, 01:14 PM
The infiltrators will be coming out with a press release any moment. And I am sure they will be putting many videos about their activities up on YouTube shortly as well.

Don't blow smoke up our asses, Steve. I'm not saying you are, but I'm saying if what you put in your post comes to pass, you're making a fool of yourself.

People please click this link. My post was kinda big, and I'm sure won't be read unless I ask for people to click the quote arrow below:


A few things:

ConstitutionGal
02-13-2008, 01:14 PM
There are ideas around to start a new forum dedicated to this purpose. Anyone have any real information?

I think that's what the LibertyForest (see the upper right hand side of this forum) was started for. The problem that I'm seeing is that as the presidential campaign begins to fade, less and less people will stay active or engaged. People will gradually get back to 'business as usual' pretty soon and I'm afraid what has been begun by Dr. Paul will gradually fade away. What we need to be doing is ACTIVELY recruiting, if necessary, people to run for every Congressional seat across the country! Some of them are bound to get elected this cycle and they can then help pave the way for the next crop in two years.

Jon4Ron
02-13-2008, 01:18 PM
Nearly $17.5 million spent in the 4th quarter and not a single NATIONAL tv ad, that is ridiculous.

Yes I totaly agree. In a television media centric society you wont get very far, especially when the MSM wont do you any favors. This is exactly why most of America says "RON Who?" I don't know who kept this from happening but who ever it was either thought the Internet was bigger and more powerful then it is or they are clueless in Marketing 101. If they would have started national adds prior to Iowa and NH donations we would be dwarfing the previous records and we would be kicking some primary ass right now. You all can argue until the Cows come home but IMHO this is the very core of the issue.

R_Harris
02-13-2008, 01:22 PM
I'll certainly not scream at your for pointing out the obvious. Dr. Paul was our Pied Piper but sadly, I don't think he ever REALLY believed he could win and this is becoming more apparent every day. Remember when many on these forums were arm-chair quarterbacking after media appearances where Dr. Paul made comments about being surprised at the support he was getting? Folks here kept commenting that those statements didn't look good? They may not have looked good but they were Dr. Paul being honest. I don't think he ever envisioned getting past the first couple of debates - being about to get his message out there for just a few times to the masses. It snowballed on him I don't think either he or HQ were prepared enough for it to actually run a professional national campaign. People here kept waiting for some 'secret strategy' to come to materialize and, it never did because there wasn't one. Just look at all the instances where HQ basically told the grassroots to 'stand down' and then HQ completely dropped the ball resulting in nothing getting done! I don't believe it was saboutage, I think it was sheer incompetance on the part of folks who had no experience with running a national campaign.

While most of us believe wholeheartedly that Dr. Paul is the perfect candidate, his campaign apparatus has not been up to par and has cost us dearly along with the media blackout (this was partly due to HQ dropping the ball on interviews and failing to send out press releases in a timely manner).

The lack of good showings is both harming our morale as well as lessening the chances of garnering new supporters (as is evidenced by these forums as well as donation levels). Granted, we've had good showings that the media has ignored but, where were the press releases from HQ about them? Oh, they sent out emails to the grassroots but, we weren't the ones that needed to hear about them (most of us were here on the forums watching the results as they came in!). The masses needed to hear about them to grow the movement. Ads, if necessary, should have been quickly launched talking about those 2nd place wins so people might have begun to see Dr. Paul as a 'viable' candidate and alternative to the neocon, flip-flopping 'front-runners'. People will NOT vote for someone that they believe has no chance of winning.

I somehow don't see Dr. Paul being willing to undertake a national run again so, I reiterate, where does that leave us?


Post of the day.

I am convinced beyond any doubt that Ron was running this campaign as an "educational" campaign and nothing more. When fundraising and support swelled, Snyder, Benton, and the other "leaders" of the campaign had no clue what to do.

That this entire campaign was poorly planned and executed cannot be doubted by any honest, objective observers. Do you really believe the campaign when they tell you otherwise? What would you expect them to say?

Just look at the debates. While people on this forum were saying "he's great!", I was not. I actually thought he came across very poorly, except perhaps for the first two debates. He tended to ramble aimlessly, he kept repeating the same mantras, and he had little or no comeback when the others ganged up on him.

I think the May debate, the one with the infamous Rudy exchanged, should have told us all we needed to know. As a poster stated, it is true - the average GOP primary voter is a war hawk, does not like Ron Paul and thinks that he is a kook, and is woefully misinformed on a number of issues. The debate formats could not possibly help Ron overcome and correct all of these deficiencies, yet unfortunately they were his largest medium to get his message across.

I agree with the poster above that the problems facing this country are overwhelming and cannot be fixed without serious pain. The only thing Ron would not have done is declare a national emergency or martial law.

I don't think Huckabee or Obama would do such a thing (they might though), but I have no doubt that Hillary and McCain have the personalities to enact such authoritarian measures in a heartbeat. THAT is what really scares me.

SteveMartin
02-13-2008, 01:22 PM
Don't blow smoke up our asses, Steve. I'm not saying you are, but I'm saying if what you put in your post comes to pass, you're making a fool of yourself.


You think they would be that stupid? You will never hear from them. That post was 100% sarcasm.

WilliamC
02-13-2008, 01:28 PM
The GOP is neither friend nor ally in this struggle for our constitution. It serves as our greatest stumbling block.

It is also our best chance at a vehicle for promoting liberty on the National level.

Good luck to all of you who wish to try and get any respect or attention to the Libertarian or the Constitution Party. Their platforms may be more closely aligned with the Constitution but they have essentially zero chance of enacting them because of the way the cards are stacked.

I don't like the two-party system, but it's the reality of the political reality in the USA today. The only good part of this is that the Republican party is very weak, and will probably get weaker. If even 100,000 new members who believe in the Constitution like Ron Paul does join and get active we can take it back from the evangelicals and the neocons. Then we can get Representatives and Senators and Governors elected who will put their oath of office to the US Constitution ahead of their personal desire for power.

tstorey
02-13-2008, 01:29 PM
F U Raimondo.

You, the self appointed commentator of the revolutionary movement.

You couldn't shine Dr. Paul's shoes.

You, Mr. Raimondo have done ZERO for the anti war movement .

The anti war movement in this country is fully marginalized, fully discredited and so completely infiltrated by agents for the status quo they can't even agree on what day it is.

A five page synopsis on Dr. Paul?

You have it all figured out, Mr. Raimondo?

I have two draft aged children and friends with children who are IN WARS, Justin.

What have you done from your position as a "major commentator" for the anti war anti establishment movement in the US? I say nothing, but stir the pot.

Dr. Paul has done more in 11 months than anyone since Andrew GD Jackson and you have the nut to call him out?

On what?

10 terms in congress getting absolutely pissed on 24 hours a day fighting for your freedom so you can post your writing at your so called anti war sites?

You can't event stand in the same room as Dr. Paul let alone have your writing posted on Dr. Paul's site.

I disagree with this Raimondo person. I have been in the anti war movement since 196 f%$ing 8.

This is not a presidential campaign. This is all there is. If you need to win a presidential campaign then you have not been paying attention.

I don't need to apologize for Dr. Paul.

He did not want to run.

He did it to help all of us.

He did it to help those kids getting killed every damn day in he middle east.

He did it because because he is a decent man who has the best interest of all at heart.

He didn't do it to make some "follower" happy about being with the winner of some fixed screw job election, he did it to help you. You pay him back this way?

Knock yourself out.

Just think what you are going to tell your children when they ask you about this 20 years from now?

I come here and get told what to do by Justin Raimondo?

No thanks.

MusoSpuso
02-13-2008, 01:32 PM
So by your logic here he should have never ran in the first place. You are not making much sense with this.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion but let me clarify if it's confusing:

Ron Paul has sparked a revolution. Thus it was a good thing that he is running and continues to do so up to the convention.

However, breaking off from the Republican party and losing his congressional seat is not going to help the revolution as much as staying in congress and continuing to bring the fight to washington.

To summarize my point: a 3rd party run is a dead end (more or less). Continuing the fight in congress IF he doesn't get the GOP nomination has much more potential to help the revolution.

AJ Antimony
02-13-2008, 01:32 PM
People, you have to look at this through Ron's eyes. Remember HE RAN THIRD PARTY in 1988. Where did it get him? No where. He didn't get really any votes and most importantly he didn't get any exposure being a third party candidate.

In 2008 he, like a model American, is showing us that he has learned from his mistakes. This is why he's running as a Republican. He knows as a mainstream party, he will get at least SOME media exposure, and most importantly, would be able to participate in the televised debates. I dont know about you guys, but I haven't ever seen a third party debate on national (hell, local) television. Because of Ron's stubbornness with the Republican party, he has garnered a LOT more votes in these primaries than he did in his 1988 general election.

Something else you people HAVE TO remember is that the Republican nominee is named in SEPTEMBER! That means, despite what the media will tell us, that John McCain will NOT be the Republican nominee by the end of the month or the end of the spring. If McCain wins the nomination, he will do so at the convention, that's what it's for. Eight months of the media pounding the public with Obama/Clinton vs. McCain isn't only going to make Americans sick of them, but it buys plenty of time for SOME scandal to come out and ruin McCain's presidential bid. Stranger things have happened.

With this said, I do agree Congressman Paul should run third party... JUST NOT RIGHT NOW! Let the man have eight more months as a Republican so he can get his .0001% media exposure rather than a definite 0% if he went third party. Let the man fight this battle all the way until the September convention. THEN, in September, if McCain is named the nominee, Paul should go third party or start a write-in campaign.

Statistically speaking, John McCain will likely win the nomination, there will be more Ron Paul supporters in September than there are now, and the anti-McCain movement will grow. With this in mind, ask yourself, is right now REALLY the best time to launch a third party run?

coffeewithchess
02-13-2008, 01:38 PM
That this entire campaign was poorly planned and executed cannot be doubted by any honest, objective observers. Do you really believe the campaign when they tell you otherwise? What would you expect them to say?

Just look at the debates. While people on this forum were saying "he's great!", I was not. I actually thought he came across very poorly, except perhaps for the first two debates. He tended to ramble aimlessly, he kept repeating the same mantras, and he had little or no comeback when the others ganged up on him.


Yea, and I think that RP should step up to the plate and fire somebody or somebody in the campaign should voluntarily step aside out of decency. The fact this didn't happen after the New Hampshire primary is still amazing to me. More than $20 million has been spent in total on this campaign and again there has not been ONE national tv ad. The majority of the tv ads the campaign produced were horrible quality and looked like they were from the early 90s.
Again, http://youtube.com/watch?v=hSjdG3LjQZ8

Shink
02-13-2008, 01:41 PM
You think they would be that stupid? You will never hear from them. That post was 100% sarcasm.

So what do you have to support your 'we were infiltrated' claim? I know about COINTELPRO and all that stuff, but I would like to know what you know, and what supposedly happened?

literatim
02-13-2008, 01:46 PM
The Republican Party is filled with paleo-conservatives. Mark Sanford, Sarah Palin, all those Republican officials that voted for Ron in the Montana caucus. The problem is that htey lost their voice, their base became quiet and with it they lost clout.

Ron Paul understand the most likely way to fix America, many here do not. You can cast aside your delusion of grandeur of Ron Paul running 3rd party and winning. 3rd parties are dead in the water and they always will be until one of the two parties decides to let them play.

CUnknown
02-13-2008, 01:46 PM
WilliamC said:

Good luck to all of you who wish to try and get any respect or attention to the Libertarian or the Constitution Party. Their platforms may be more closely aligned with the Constitution but they have essentially zero chance of enacting them because of the way the cards are stacked.

So are you saying that we shouldn't vote for them because they have no chance to win? Isn't that what everyone says about Ron Paul? I don't think that is a good reason not to vote your conscience.

Besides, as other have pointed out, many of the people in this movement aren't Republicans. Some say "We should just take over local GOPs" but that doesn't work for the independents and democrats in this movement. Personally, I'd never set foot anywhere near my local GOP.

Let's take this movement where everyone in the movement can follow. That's third party, Libertarian or Constitution. The most important thing is that we stick together, and all vote as one so our influence can be felt.

LEK
02-13-2008, 01:48 PM
Many of you are missing the point that we were infiltrated.

However/wherever/whenever the next patriot runs for president, he/she MUST put the highest priority on fully-vetting potential paid staff or everything else will be a waste of time.

Personally, I think we've run out of time. RP was this Republic's last hurrah...

Who else is known to be a quissling besides Luskin? I am curious...it really ticks me off that these "powers-that-be" can quash anything they choose - makes me feel emasculated and I'm not even a man.

coffeewithchess
02-13-2008, 01:49 PM
Stevemartin started a thread where he claimed that Carol Paul had contacted him personally and stated that Ron did not write that email on 2/8/08. The mods let it stay on the forum all day until someone pointed out that if it was true, it made Ron Paul look like the dumbest man on the planet.

They finally moved it to hot topics and then later deleted the whole post. In the meantime, they banned a poster who was trying to protect Ron Paul and who called the poster a liar (it was true, he was lying) and they let the lying poster (stevemartin) stay on the forum to keep stirring up trouble.

Is this true?

literatim
02-13-2008, 01:51 PM
So are you saying that we shouldn't vote for them because they have no chance to win? Isn't that what everyone says about Ron Paul? I don't think that is a good reason not to vote your conscience.

Vote for them all you want, but that won't change the fact that they won't get elected. All the Libertarian and Constitutionalist candidates would be better off joining the Republican Party and running in the primary.


Besides, as other have pointed out, many of the people in this movement aren't Republicans. Some say "We should just take over local GOPs" but that doesn't work for the independents and democrats in this movement. Personally, I'd never set foot anywhere near my local GOP.

Then you aren't really apart of this movement and should return to whatever ineffective 3rd party you came from.


Let's take this movement where everyone in the movement can follow. That's third party, Libertarian or Constitution. The most important thing is that we stick together, and all vote as one so our influence can be felt.

The majority of this movement are Republicans. The rest are from all over the place. What makes you think an ex-Constitutionalist will ever join the Libertarian Party and vice versa? What makes you think an ex-Democrat will go to either as well?

mosquitobite
02-13-2008, 02:00 PM
It’s ironic, and telling, that in the wake of his scale-back announcement, Paul’s supporters pulled off a substantial achievement by garnering some 20-plus percent of the Washington state caucus vote. That result underscores an important point. The people who went through all the trouble to find the caucus locations, show up on time, and sit through the involved caucus procedures, where some kind of political commitment and even savvy is required, were and are serious about politics and about ideas. To now tell them to go home and await further orders is simply not wise: it is demoralizing, and it wastes the momentum--the intellectual momentum--enjoyed by Paul and the campaign to date.

I agree with this. Indiana's primary isn't until May 6th, and I'm a precinct leader. How could I still be pumped to do so when the candidate himself has said he'll scale back? :(

beachmaster
02-13-2008, 02:05 PM
I remember telling my wife back in September or October that I thought at some point Ron Paul might purposefully fizzle and leave us deflated. I didn't think that he would do it because he wanted to, but because his family would be threatened. I still feel that's a possibility, maybe a probability. No way the NWO is just going to let someone waltz in an rain on their parade.

Freedom&Reason
02-13-2008, 02:14 PM
I dont know about you guys, but I haven't ever seen a third party debate on national (hell, local) television.

I swear I saw Ross Perot in debates. I could be wrong and maybe your not that old.

Freedom&Reason
02-13-2008, 02:18 PM
Stevemartin started a thread where he claimed that Carol Paul had contacted him personally and stated that Ron did not write that email on 2/8/08. The mods let it stay on the forum all day until someone pointed out that if it was true, it made Ron Paul look like the dumbest man on the planet.

They finally moved it to hot topics and then later deleted the whole post. In the meantime, they banned a poster who was trying to protect Ron Paul and who called the poster a liar (it was true, he was lying) and they let the lying poster (stevemartin) stay on the forum to keep stirring up trouble.

Is this true?

I don't know about him being an imposter. He is not credible at all though, since he doesn't give up much in the way of facts.

silverhandorder
02-13-2008, 02:21 PM
I don't get it, what do you hope to accomplish going 3rd party? Only way to work is to take over the party.

SteveMartin
02-13-2008, 02:22 PM
Stevemartin started a thread where he claimed that Carol Paul had contacted him personally and stated that Ron did not write that email on 2/8/08. The mods let it stay on the forum all day until someone pointed out that if it was true, it made Ron Paul look like the dumbest man on the planet.

They finally moved it to hot topics and then later deleted the whole post. In the meantime, they banned a poster who was trying to protect Ron Paul and who called the poster a liar (it was true, he was lying) and they let the lying poster (stevemartin) stay on the forum to keep stirring up trouble.

Is this true?

coffeewithchess,

Calling me a liar on an open forum is libel. Are you ready to defend it?

I said in that post that Carol told me that RP would be addressing the situation of the misintepretation of the "Trotsky Letter" in a video by Tuesday. That is exactly what subsequently happened. Or, are you saying I made the video up too?

Carol did not "contact me"...I contacted her and asked about the "Trotsky Letter" and she was kind enough to respond.

This is the essence of my contention that we have been infiltrated. Nobody but an infiltrator would put out such a letter quoting Trotsky and saying we had "0% chance" the night before three major elections. That letter cost us an outright win in WA. That would have put us back in the news and inline for more upsets in the primaries/caucuses to follow. Somebody knew what effect such a letter would have on the grassroots. The question is WHO??

My thread exposed the infiltration and gave the grassroots renewed hope.

Get over it. Some people are apparently jeolous that CP would write back. Big woops! I am one of the earliest supporters (coordinator of meetup group #17-- what, of almost 1800 of them now?)

I met Ron and Carol before half of you even heard of them.

Steve_New_Jersey
02-13-2008, 02:23 PM
Keep hoping for a 3rd party.... The variables waiting in the shadows have way more money then Ron can raise. He isnt stupid. He already knows what he is up against. Dont you all think this long time patriot knows that a 3rd party run would be near usless? If anything Ron would empower those waiting in the shadows by running 3rd party.

seeker1
02-13-2008, 02:29 PM
The majority of this movement are Republicans.

I guess, since you and your ilk have been banishing the non GOP loyalists, that claim is probably now true, but I don't believe republicrats were the majority when we first started.

You always speak with alot of authority and so I yield to your superior knowledge.

Actually, you've succeeded in convincing me to go away. :cool:

syborius
02-13-2008, 02:32 PM
Dr Paul did not betray us, Dr Paul was betrayed from within. He did not write that message. That message was sabotage of the most insidious kind.

seeker1
02-13-2008, 02:33 PM
I met Ron and Carol before half of you even heard of them.

I met them in 1978. Does that mean anything? Yeah, I didn't think so. :cool:

SteveMartin
02-13-2008, 02:37 PM
seeker1,

My apologies. I wasn't refering to you, but to these people who are calling me a liar and saying I never really heard from Carol.

And, I did say "half of you." Why would you immediately assign yourself to the wrong half?

Did you even post in this thread prior to the last few minutes?

joemiller
02-13-2008, 02:38 PM
It will be many years, I fear, before any REAL conservartive movement 'takes back' the Republican Party. Those in the actual seats of power are too heavily entrenched to be vulnerable for years to come. Of course, we can all get involved at the local level but those who make it to the state level within the actual party are the party faithful who have no qualms about compromising their supposed beliefs simply to remain in power. I'm not saying it can't be done, only that it will take YEARS to be able to actually accomplish anything meaningful. I know, I've actually served two terms on the local county executive committee and, while the county parties are often VERY conservative, those at the state level are there to simply push whatever the party line is at that particular time. Make waves and you'll get nowhere.

I've been very hesitant to even CONSIDER Dr. Paul's making a third-party run as I see one going nowhere. The third parties are ignored even more than Dr. Paul has been ignored this election cycle and most people, having been thoroughly brainwashed into the two-party system, would never consider 'throwing their vote away' by voting for a third party candidate. In other words, Dr. Paul would probably actually lose the portion of his support that consideres themselves Republicans, while only picking up a few votes from those who consider themselves 'independent'. So...while I'm afraid that a third-party run would only be preaching to what is already the choir, I'm now seeing little chance (thanks mainly to that email that was sent out that is referenced in the above article) of accomplishing our goals from inside the Republican Party.

Now, most on these forums know that I'm generally a cheerleader for whatever Dr. Paul thinks is best, I'm having to seriously question the future direction and possibilities of this campaign. I was still cautiously optimiistic until last evening when he barely garnered enough votes to beat Mittens in two of the three states and actually came in behind him in one. Now I know this is party due to the MSM and local media making it appear that Dr. Paul had dropped out and that Mitten had only 'suspended' his campaign, however, at this point, I have to begin to believe that a third-party run might actually get more traction given the outright hatred of the two probably nominees (McCain and either Hilary or Obama). I can't ever recall an election where emotions are running so high against the Republican nominee from within the rank and file of the party and, therefore, this just might be a golden opportunity for a third-party run (even considering the sore-loser laws and potential ballot access issues). The Consittution Party is now the third-largest party in the U.S. surpassing even the Libertarians and they don't have a lot of the perceived baggage as the "L" party who is seen by most folks at the 'legalize drugs' and 'open borders' party.

As you can tell, I'm still trying to reconcile my feelings on what direction should be undertaken (as I'm sure many other are too) but, the bottom line is, I'm seeing less and less chance of actually getting to a brokered convention with each passing day. IF Dr. Paul doesn't do well in Texas (and who knows, miracles DO happen), I'm imagining a REAL withdrawal afterwards. Thing is, where do we go from here?


That is true; many Ron Paul supporters were not registered Republicans before this election and they are not comfortable in the Rep. party. The official party is uncomfortable with us in their ranks. By the time these old men Rep. die off, the country will have been lost. Ron Paul is not your typical Republican. If he were, the movement would have died months ago.

Ron Paul's supporters, if they are smart and committed, can take over the Republican Party within a year. Use the next year to position themselves to control the mid-term elections, and by 2012, be in an absolute position to make all the changes Dr. Paul would support, and more.

seeker1
02-13-2008, 02:42 PM
seeker1,

My apologies. I wasn't refering to you, but to these people who are calling me a liar and saying I never really heard from Carol.

And, I did say "half of you." Why would you immediately assign yourself to the wrong half?

Did you even post in this thread prior to the last few minutes?



This thread was going off track and I was just having a little fun pointing out that knowing someone longer than another doesn't mean anything. I'm the one who should apologize.

And yes I read the entire thread. It is difficult to know where the fiction started and where it ends. :cool:

bobbyw24
02-13-2008, 02:44 PM
I do hope you're right, Joe Miller

beachmaster
02-13-2008, 02:45 PM
Ron Paul's supporters, if they are smart and committed, can take over the Republican Party within a year. Use the next year to position themselves to control the mid-term elections, and by 2012, be in an absolute position to make all the changes Dr. Paul would support, and more.

A year may be too late. Our time is NOW!

If Ron Paul loses the GOP nomination, we need to find another candidate to rally behind in the general election. Hopefully someone Ron Paul could endorse.

Oh sure, call me a defeatist! lol

seeker1
02-13-2008, 02:45 PM
Ron Paul's supporters, if they are smart and committed, can take over the Republican Party within a year. Use the next year to position themselves to control the mid-term elections, and by 2012, be in an absolute position to make all the changes Dr. Paul would support, and more.

There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Dreams can come true and all good dogs go to heaven. :cool:

SteveMartin
02-13-2008, 02:53 PM
This thread is straying way too far off the mark, as Seeker has pointed out.

To reiterate, Raimondo is wrong to assume that RP has anything personally to do with the failure to win the nomination. That failure, IMO, was planned and executed brilliantly by plants within the official campaign.

Oh lookie...another state being ignored (someone just started a thread)...WI...When will some of you wake up and string the traitors up! (metaphorically, for now....)

pacelli
02-13-2008, 02:56 PM
I love the message and spread it any chance I get.

I get deflated and demoralized during every primary & caucus. It doesn't stop me from spreading the message or canvassing (my neighbors are quite frankly SOLD on voting for Ron as a result), but my belief in RP securing the presidential nod has been impacted.

My eyes peeled to the streaming election results as well as the forums, I see a disparity. In nearly every state so far, there are numerous prediction threads on RPF implying that Ron will win. I think the values of the grassroots are in the right place, and I also think that Ron Paul Forums Myopia leads to inflated hopes based on an unrealistic assumption that we somehow represent more than 10% of the US voting population. When these hopes are deflated, we turn on ourselves. I see it happen after every primary or caucus. There is generally little effort given to a sober post-mortem, and threads that illustrate winning strategies are frequently buried and replaced by the latest fundraising fad, MSM conspiracy theory, or election fraud allegations. And before I get flamed for it, I believe that there is an organized MSM blackout and I believe that election fraud has been rampant. I also believe that the campaign has been infiltrated, even though I have no hard evidence to support this view. Furthermore I believe the posted reports that Romney & Huckabee's robocalls were telling people that Ron Paul dropped out.

We have a number of supporters in other countries who are unable to vote in our primaries, and are legally unable to donate to the campaign. That being said, I think it is remarkable how Dr. Paul's message has gathered such reaching support -- we are a global community committed to making real changes.

We have also had a number of supporters post that they are not of legal voting age, or dropped the ball entirely on registering appropriately in their state. I think the anonymity of the forums contributes to the myopia, and in some cases, pure laziness. I don't say this as a sweeping generalization, as many of us are fully committed and take offense to the mere implication of laziness. But let's be real here-- many of the summer patriots that have either left us or been banned have put a lot of words out there but were never DOING what was required. Hence we had a false impression of greatness.

I knew going into this campaign that it would be an uphill fight. Ron still gets my vote.

stevedasbach
02-13-2008, 02:57 PM
It is a debatable proposition as to which course offers the greater likelihood of long-term success -- taking effective control of the Republican party or building a competitive third party that can displace one of the two current major parties.

It is important to understand that a third party must displace one of the existing two parties to be competitive. In winner take all contests, there will always be two, and only two major parties. This is a consequence of the wasted vote syndrome and occurs whether or not there are legal barriers to third parties.

The advantage of focusing on taking effective control of the Republican party is that there is a base of voters who reliably vote Republican irrespective of who the candidate is. This reduces the number of people you have to win to your side to gain a majority. Also, major party nominees generally get far more MSM coverage than third party candidates. The disadvantage is that many of the people who currently hold leadership positions in the party are opposed to our agenda.

The third party option gets you directly to the general election without having to overcome opposition within the Republican party. However, you have to build your base from scratch, which is time consuming and expensive. You have to overcome the perception that third party candidates can't win, and you will get virtually no MSM coverage (i.e. less than Paul is getting right now) unless/until you are polling high enough to be seen as having an effect on the race. Even then, your coverage will be that of a "spoiler" unless/until you are polling high enough to qualify for the debates (i.e. over 15%). Best guess is that would require over $100 million, with most of it devoted to national TV advertising.

Dr. Paul has apparently made the calculation that his efforts are more likely to bear fruit within the Republican party than without. Some of us may disagree with his choice, but it is a reasonable one. (IMO the third party option would also have been reasonable, but it's not at all clear that it would have been more likely to be successful).

Building a successful third party that can successfully compete in elections for Congress and the presidency is very difficult. If you haven't been involved in trying to do it, you really have no idea the hurdles that have to be overcome.

seeker1
02-13-2008, 02:59 PM
I love the message and spread it any chance I get.

I get deflated and demoralized during every primary & caucus. It doesn't stop me from spreading the message or canvassing (my neighbors are quite frankly SOLD on voting for Ron as a result), but my belief in RP securing the presidential nod has been impacted.

My eyes peeled to the streaming election results as well as the forums, I see a disparity. In nearly every state so far, there are numerous prediction threads on RPF implying that Ron will win. I think the values of the grassroots are in the right place, and I also think that Ron Paul Forums Myopia leads to inflated hopes based on an unrealistic assumption that we somehow represent more than 10% of the US voting population. When these hopes are deflated, we turn on ourselves. I see it happen after every primary or caucus. There is generally little effort given to a sober post-mortem, and threads that illustrate winning strategies are frequently buried and replaced by the latest fundraising fad, MSM conspiracy theory, or election fraud allegations. And before I get flamed for it, I believe that there is an organized MSM blackout and I believe that election fraud has been rampant. I also believe that the campaign has been infiltrated, even though I have no hard evidence to support this view. Furthermore I believe the posted reports that Romney & Huckabee's robocalls were telling people that Ron Paul dropped out.

We have a number of supporters in other countries who are unable to vote in our primaries, and are legally unable to donate to the campaign. That being said, I think it is remarkable how Dr. Paul's message has gathered such reaching support -- we are a global community committed to making real changes.

We have also had a number of supporters post that they are not of legal voting age, or dropped the ball entirely on registering appropriately in their state. I think the anonymity of the forums contributes to the myopia, and in some cases, pure laziness. I don't say this as a sweeping generalization, as many of us are fully committed and take offense to the mere implication of laziness. But let's be real here-- many of the summer patriots that have either left us or been banned have put a lot of words out there but were never DOING what was required. Hence we had a false impression of greatness.

I knew going into this campaign that it would be an uphill fight. Ron still gets my vote.

very well said and accurate, i think. :cool:

stevedasbach
02-13-2008, 03:01 PM
I swear I saw Ross Perot in debates. I could be wrong and maybe your not that old.

Ross Perot was included in 1992. After that, they set the polling threshhold to be included at 15%, which virtually no third party or independent candidate has ever met. Jesse Ventura was polling at 7% when he was included in the debates for Minnesota Governor -- he went on to win. If the 15% threshold had been in place for that contest, he would have been excluded and would probably not have won.

stevedasbach
02-13-2008, 03:11 PM
This thread is straying way too far off the mark, as Seeker has pointed out.

To reiterate, Raimondo is wrong to assume that RP has anything personally to do with the failure to win the nomination. That failure, IMO, was planned and executed brilliantly by plants within the official campaign.

Oh lookie...another state being ignored (someone just started a thread)...WI...When will some of you wake up and string the traitors up! (metaphorically, for now....)

I disagree. There is nothing to suggest that this was intentional. The people involved had no experience running a national presidential campaign and they made some bad strategic choices (IMO - so did the grassroots). They also were unprepared to take advantage of the explosion of support and funding that occurred.

Even if they had done everything right, winning the nomination still would have been an uphill battle.

Washington lost a lot of battles, but the tide ultimately turned and he won the war. The fight for the nomination was a series of battles, but the war is about more than winning the nomination and presidency this year. It's about restoring liberty and that war will continue long past November.

Ron Paul Fan
02-13-2008, 03:16 PM
The main problem is that Paul's message just doesn't appeal to a lot of people. Libertarianism is dead. Paul did terribly in most places and may even lose his house seat. You can't just go up there and say that the solution is to do the exact opposite of what we've been doing for the past 70-80 years. That's what Paul tried to do. Paul wanted to stop giving aid to other countries, repeal all of our peace and trade treaties, take our troops out, abolish FDR's New Deal, abolish the IRS, abolish the Fed. These are things that have been around for a long time while the U.S. has prospered. Do you think people are gonna vote for the guy who says that if we do the opposite of the conventional wisdom for the past 70-80 years that everything will be ok? NO! The other main problem was the crazy 9/11 truthers and scum white supremacists supporting the campaign, and the amateur campaign staff.

Signzit
02-13-2008, 03:22 PM
bobbyw24, i have read many threads started by YOU and don't care for you or your apparent motives. Every post I have read, by you smacks of divisiveness. You are a net loss here in the group IMO; your posts are demoralizing and many times, IMO almost anti-Ron Paul.

I do not like you, nor do i trust your motives within the group. I have you at arm's length pal and suggest others do the same. I think you are fooling far fewer people than you think!

CUnknown
02-13-2008, 04:02 PM
It's unfair to tell the non-GOP loyalists among us to go away, and that they're not really a part of this movement. Some of us have worked hard for Ron Paul and believe in him as much as anyone else. Trevor himself, if I'm not mistaken, is no GOP party loyalist.

You want the movement to shrink, is that what you're saying?

You say, 3rd parties are ineffective, that I should go back to whichever one I came from.

Let me ask -- what has the economic conservative/Ron Paul wing of the Republican party done lately? How have they influenced the Republican party in the past...oh I don't know... 30 years? You have influenced the rhetoric of the party, but not the substance. The Republican party has been ignoring you for decades now, except when it's time to give speeches.

The neo-cons are in firm control of the party still. Hence McCain in first place. Hence Romney in 2nd place. The religious right is also in a position of influence in the party, although not as much so as the neo-cons. Hence Huckabee in 3rd place. It's amazing that Ron Paul has done as well as he has in the primaries, but still he is a distant 4th (Romney at any time could un-suspend his campaign and be beating Paul as far as delegates).

So, if I go back to my ineffective 3rd party, you go back to your ineffective wing of the Republican party, and we will both be ineffective seperately.

I think that, together, we can be an effective force in the Libertarian party. And even if that is wishful thinking, I would still rather be ineffective together rather than ineffective seperately.

Think about it? :)

coffeewithchess
02-13-2008, 04:41 PM
coffeewithchess,

I met Ron and Carol before half of you even heard of them.

I'm not calling you a liar, what was in bold was written in a message, not by me. So I was asking for clarification. Also, I've been supporting RP since before he declared his campaign and I was watching him on CSPAN the morning he did, not that it matters. Just because you met Ron and Carol doesn't mean anything. I've met Ron twice, that doesn't make me special or a close friend. Meeting somebody doesn't have any weight. Also, posting vague threads about "insiders" without stating any facts is like many posts by ghemminger that have no substance.

seeker1
02-13-2008, 05:17 PM
bobbyw24, i have read many threads started by YOU and don't care for you or your apparent motives. Every post I have read, by you smacks of divisiveness. You are a net loss here in the group IMO; your posts are demoralizing and many times, IMO almost anti-Ron Paul.

I do not like you, nor do i trust your motives within the group. I have you at arm's length pal and suggest others do the same. I think you are fooling far fewer people than you think!

I believe thats cause there's far fewer people here. :cool:

Malakai0
02-13-2008, 05:26 PM
Ron has always said he wasn't going to run 3rd party. Been there done that, he knows hes more effective in congress than sitting at home in texas, and that's where he will end up if he abandoned the republican party and his congressional seat.

I think that article and most of you are dead wrong, especially those who are disappointed in Paul. No offense but I don't recall any of you spending your entire lives fighting an endless fight for the best (but most understood and hated) ideal we have in government, ie the constitution and a literal interpretation thereof, also known as libertarianism.

So yeah, get off your high horse and do something yourself if your so upset. Blogging and bitching and blaming everyone else for why you think we failed (anyone who expected RP to just sweep the nomination on super tuesday was living in fantasyland anyway).

The fact is we haven't failed at all, we showed the powers that be that they will have to work extra hard to keep us suppressed in the future. We showed them we can, independent of the powers that be, finance and promote a candidate without the help of the MSM, and get him to 3rd place out of a field starting with 12.

Ron with our support can still take our ideals and some delegates to a convention where the frontrunner is pretty well hated by powerful groups inside the shrinking GOP. Anything can happen.

The biggest roadblock to any chance of success is the naysaying and negativity from the bloggers and posters around the RP online community. You guys are destroying our enthusiasm which was our secret weapon. You guys let the media propaganda war get to you and kill your spirits. People in the grassroots are still talking about the newsletters, I mean come on we knew about these and that the whole thing was bullshit months in advance. The first time they dropped the newsletter bomb we all just ignored it and it went away, but the second time everyone got all flustered. We knew it was coming, and when it hit everyone got really bummed and the enthusiasm dropped. Combined with (expect but not what people wanted) the results from the early primaries, pretty much nailed a large part of the community; at least with much of the vocal bloggers/forum posters.


All IMO no hate

seeker1
02-13-2008, 05:31 PM
Ron has always said he wasn't going to run 3rd party. Been there done that, he knows hes more effective in congress than sitting at home in texas, and that's where he will end up if he abandoned the republican party and his congressional seat.

I think that article and most of you are dead wrong, especially those who are disappointed in Paul. No offense but I don't recall any of you spending your entire lives fighting an endless fight for the best (but most understood and hated) ideal we have in government, ie the constitution and a literal interpretation thereof, also known as libertarianism.

So yeah, get off your high horse and do something yourself if your so upset. Blogging and bitching and blaming everyone else for why you think we failed (anyone who expected RP to just sweep the nomination on super tuesday was living in fantasyland anyway).

The fact is we haven't failed at all, we showed the powers that be that they will have to work extra hard to keep us suppressed in the future. We showed them we can, independent of the powers that be, finance and promote a candidate without the help of the MSM, and get him to 3rd place out of a field starting with 12.

Ron with our support can still take our ideals and some delegates to a convention where the frontrunner is pretty well hated by powerful groups inside the shrinking GOP. Anything can happen.

The biggest roadblock to any chance of success is the naysaying and negativity from the bloggers and posters around the RP online community. You guys are destroying our enthusiasm which was our secret weapon. Thanks much.


All IMO no hate

Did you sign on to elect Ron Paul to be President or to get out the message? Or to reform the Republicrat party?

Just curious. :cool:

Thunderbolt
02-13-2008, 05:32 PM
coffeewithchess,

Calling me a liar on an open forum is libel. Are you ready to defend it?

I said in that post that Carol told me that RP would be addressing the situation of the misintepretation of the "Trotsky Letter" in a video by Tuesday. That is exactly what subsequently happened. Or, are you saying I made the video up too?

Carol did not "contact me"...I contacted her and asked about the "Trotsky Letter" and she was kind enough to respond.

This is the essence of my contention that we have been infiltrated. Nobody but an infiltrator would put out such a letter quoting Trotsky and saying we had "0% chance" the night before three major elections. That letter cost us an outright win in WA. That would have put us back in the news and inline for more upsets in the primaries/caucuses to follow. Somebody knew what effect such a letter would have on the grassroots. The question is WHO??

My thread exposed the infiltration and gave the grassroots renewed hope.

Get over it. Some people are apparently jeolous that CP would write back. Big woops! I am one of the earliest supporters (coordinator of meetup group #17-- what, of almost 1800 of them now?)

I met Ron and Carol before half of you even heard of them.

Mr. Martin,
You wrote a post insinuating that Ron Paul did not write the email dated 2/8/08. Are you saying that is not true?

You write that your thread exposed the infiltration and gave the grassroots renewed hope. If so, then why is that thread deleted? Or can you give me a link to it.

What infiltration was exposed? Ron Paul certainly did not say that anyone had stolen his account, sent out an email without his knowledge and in fact, it remains on the front page of his website. So, you are here to say that you exposed infiltration into his campaign of some supposed ghost writer of that letter that remains on the front page of his website?

You wrote that you gave the grassroots new hope with supposed expose of yours: how is it hope if you are making it all up? Or are we supposed to believe you, that an infiltrator did write the letter and Ron Paul is too daft to remove it from his website? If so, then you are effectively calling Ron Paul one of the dumbest men on earth - just how do you think that is helpful?

Finally, you write that no one but an infiltrator would have written that letter. Well, Ron Paul has not denied writing it, it is still on his webpage, so I will have to assume that Ron Paul either wrote it or is happy with its contents. By making the statement that no one but an infiltrator would have written that letter, you sir, are calling Ron Paul an infiltrator.

Moreover, you have implied in your post that you took a letter that Carol Paul wrote you, interpreted it the way you thought it should be interpreted and then tried to get the entire grassroots to believe your interpretation of that letter.

Well, Ron Paul did not come out and deny writing that letter as you implied and outright stated in that other thread and here.

bobbyw24
02-13-2008, 05:36 PM
Signzit: sorry you feel that way about my posts. I simply post what I get from daily Google updates. I post a lot of positive stuff from Nolan Chart. I agree with only about 50% of the articles that I post. I just put them here for people to consider.

I was hoping that Ron Paul would run as a third party or independent candidate but was disappointed that he will not do so. I posted this latest article and many people wrote saying that they feel the same way.

Ron Paul values diversity of ideas and you need not dislike people with whom you disagree or never met just because of the stuff they post on some forum.

We are all here--most of us--since we support Dr. Paul's message and all that we do here should be to promote his message of liberty.

I have been a supporter of Ron Paul since the late 80s and will continue to be one notwithstanding some of the inane responses I get from my postings.

Now let's get back to the work at hand.

bobbyw24
02-13-2008, 05:57 PM
Here is one of my recent positive posts with which I agree completely. I will attempt to post only positive items here. I agree we could all use more positive words and encouragement here as we try to determine what our next steps for this movement are.


A Miraculous Success

I have been voting for the freedom candidate since 1980 (Ed Clark), including Ron Paul in ‘88. They all lost. And I guess having my candidate lose every year was not ENOUGH loss for me so I ran for congress myself on the Libertarian ticket. And lost. Hahahaha! Did you really think we could just waltz in and take over the country? Without a fight? Sorry, but turning a ship 180 degrees takes time, especially when lots of powerful people are fighting you.

For those of us who have been fighting for liberty for more than the last few months, Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign is a miraculous success. Almost overnight, a powerful Nationwide organization has formed around Ron Paul. It very well may propel him to the White House, but even if it doesn’t, the fight for liberty has been advanced dramatically - beyond anything I thought would happen in my lifetime - and will continue to grow and spread. We have reached critical mass now.

Our job is to educate our countrymen. Right now the best vehicle for that is the Ron Paul 2008 campaign. Even if RP wins the White House in 08, we will STILL have a huge job to do. In fact, our job will be the same either way - to educate our community and elect freedom-loving representatives. Having RP in the “bully pulpit” of the Presidency will be an enormous aid, but we will still be in a battle on the streets.

Quit if you must. Maybe it doesn’t matter much to you. Maybe this was just a lark for you. Maybe you don’t have children. Maybe you don’t care about our posterity. Maybe you will not be ashamed at handing over a bankrupt dictatorship to the next generation.

As for me, there is no place to go but onward with the fight.

kyleAF
02-13-2008, 06:24 PM
*Exactly*.

We all got in this mess because we somehow believed that POTUS is the leader.

WRONG!

POTUS is a public servant! So are the Senators and Representatives.


You should go over to that thread about what Alaskans did to get their resolution passed. And don't forget Heather_in_WI's anti-McCain resolution. Those are what we can do, and the more delegates we send to National Convention, regardless of who is the nominee, we get to dictate the platform and basically chain the nominee to Paul's message.

This is how Paul will win.

Yep. Every delegate at the convention gets 5 minutes of speaking time, under U.S. House of Representatives rules!!! Imagine if we send 150 delegates to the convention and everyone "yields their time" (HoR rules) to Dr. Paul...

He could deliver a treatise for hours to a captive GOP leadership audience!!!

Check the rules... you'll see I'm right.

(assuming we don't have a bunch of "truthers" stand up and start giving 5 minute spiels on WTC tower 7 :rolleyes: )

louisiana4liberty
02-13-2008, 06:38 PM
I think RP is looking out for the future of RP "Republicans" who will be running for offices all over the nation. This is where the next key successes will be found. RP lit the flame and his supporters will carry the torches to Congress. Do you really think RP "Independents" would have a better chance getting elected to Congress? I firmly believe we can take back the party a lot more easily as Republicans.;)

There are many seats that stand to be filled in upcoming Congressional elections.

CaliforniaGold
02-13-2008, 06:45 PM
I have been gone for a few days....and i come back to this?

I just watched Ron Paul's campaign update video. He doesn't sound like a man about to give up. He sounds like a man with a plan that he WAS keeping quiet. He said very cleary that a surprise could occur at the convention. He said clearly that there were two other candidates that information might come out about. Have you watched Survivor? Ever heard of flying under the radar? He is committed to winning and I am committed to believing he will do so.

He is playing chess while the other candidates are playing checkers...

Shhhh, let's all watch, listen and learn....the master chess player is laying out a strategy...

I hear the drums of victory in the future.

WilliamC
02-13-2008, 06:46 PM
WilliamC said:


So are you saying that we shouldn't vote for them because they have no chance to win? Isn't that what everyone says about Ron Paul? I don't think that is a good reason not to vote your conscience.

Besides, as other have pointed out, many of the people in this movement aren't Republicans. Some say "We should just take over local GOPs" but that doesn't work for the independents and democrats in this movement. Personally, I'd never set foot anywhere near my local GOP.

Let's take this movement where everyone in the movement can follow. That's third party, Libertarian or Constitution. The most important thing is that we stick together, and all vote as one so our influence can be felt.

I vote for third party candidates when there is no good Republican choice, which is often.

However I will be focusing my efforts on my local Republican Party since that is where Ron Paul has chosen to stay.

Of course others may not wish to stay in the Republican Party, and I certainly am not trying to say that someone who doesn't is somehow betraying the cause of the Constitution. Restoring it to once more being the supreme law of the land that is actually obeyed by our Federal politicians is going to be a long term struggle that needs to be fought on many fronts.

Again, good luck in getting any traction with third parties. If they do manage to start winning elections then I may reconsider working through them. But for now I will stay in the Republican Party as Ron Paul is doing. In my part of the Country I feel this is where I can do the most good in promoting individual rights and fighting collectivism.

Rhys
02-13-2008, 07:06 PM
The people who hijacked Ron Paul are the ones who said he betrayed us by staying republican. Ron Paul never ever ever ever said he wanted anything but. You just couldn't hear him anymore than the media could.

me3
02-13-2008, 07:24 PM
The main problem is that Paul's message just doesn't appeal to a lot of people. Libertarianism is dead. Paul did terribly in most places and may even lose his house seat. You can't just go up there and say that the solution is to do the exact opposite of what we've been doing for the past 70-80 years. That's what Paul tried to do. Paul wanted to stop giving aid to other countries, repeal all of our peace and trade treaties, take our troops out, abolish FDR's New Deal, abolish the IRS, abolish the Fed. These are things that have been around for a long time while the U.S. has prospered. Do you think people are gonna vote for the guy who says that if we do the opposite of the conventional wisdom for the past 70-80 years that everything will be ok? NO! The other main problem was the crazy 9/11 truthers and scum white supremacists supporting the campaign, and the amateur campaign staff.
Geez, I never thought YOU would sound so defeated.

Chin up friend.

fedup100
02-13-2008, 08:01 PM
This is looking more and more like the Ross Perot debacle. I believe Ron Paul has been threatened. He put on the brakes instantly and without warning, just like Perot.

I think his House seat is at risk and I believe his opponent is bought and paid for by the elite. He has smeared him with his Presidential platform? Now if you think this is odd, not at all. They will throw that race to Peden in order to finish Paul's Presidential run. Sean Hannity will jump all over it when they can report that Pauls home constituents didn't even buy his get out of irag stance. Hope they have a plan to monitor that race with a magnifying glass.

Paul is afraid to run third party.

beachmaster
02-13-2008, 08:05 PM
This is looking more and more like the Ross Perot debacle. I believe Ron Paul has been threatened. He put on the brakes instantly and without warning, just like Perot.

I think his House seat is at risk and I believe his opponent is bought and paid for by the elite. He has smeared him with his Presidential platform? Now if you think this is odd, not at all. They will throw that race to Peden in order to finish Paul's Presidential run. Sean Hannity will jump all over it when they can report that Pauls home constituents didn't even buy his get out of irag stance. Hope they have a plan to monitor that race with a magnifying glass.

Paul is afraid to run third party.

I think he's afraid for his family more than anything. He's got a lot of family.

WilliamC
02-13-2008, 08:11 PM
I think he's afraid for his family more than anything. He's got a lot of family.

I've had that same fear for a long time now.

fedup100
02-13-2008, 08:13 PM
By the way, I posted my rant which was very similar to this but in broken East Texas slang. I was beat up and called every name in the book. I guess my Texas version wasn't as eloquent. :D

I do not always agree with Mr. Martin. This time though I must tell all of you, we have no more time. Hope for America was more than just a slogan and in two years from now you will be moaning in agony as you witness the end of this wonderful Country.

Proemio
02-13-2008, 09:30 PM
I disagree. There is nothing to suggest that this was intentional. The people involved had no experience running a national presidential campaign and they made some bad strategic choices (IMO - so did the grassroots). They also were unprepared to take advantage of the explosion of support and funding that occurred.

Even if they had done everything right, winning the nomination still would have been an uphill battle.

Washington lost a lot of battles, but the tide ultimately turned and he won the war. The fight for the nomination was a series of battles, but the war is about more than winning the nomination and presidency this year. It's about restoring liberty and that war will continue long past November.

Bold, because the funereal tone on this thread is pissing me off.

We are now 8 and 1/2 months until elections. MacCain went from McWho to TheCain in one month - with some help, but...

There is absolutely no telling what events will come the way of this effort between now and then. I can't believe the impatience, although I should know better; instant gratification is the steady Hollywood/Soaps diet, and it shows.

The campaign is not to blame, tho that boat has been infiltrated from the get go. I tried to explain at least six months ago, that if "we" wait for them, we are toast. It has absolutely nothing to do with Ron Paul's eventual managerial competence as President, as some disrupters were quick to exploit; the two have completely different dynamics. In every message from Ron (except the last) there was at least one line where Ron virtually pleaded with his supporters to take charge. There is nothing else he can do, because the system is set up in a way that handlers have an inordinate amount of control. Even as President, he will depend on us to watch his back. I'm not going to rehash the details; there are a number of (ignored) old posts on that subject.

Point is, Ron Paul is a man - better than most - but he is not walking on water. He is a doctor, legislator and guide; again, more multi-talented than most. He is neither a politician (in the ugly sense) nor a general - he is 'simply' providing a rare and clear focus for those of us who have been battling the beast for decades. The generals are/were among us, but they tend to get shouted down or driven away by a chorus of nannies, party hacks and hangers-on, who are played like fiddles by a small army of agents for the establishment.

All the talk about Republican Party this and 3rd Party that is a joke. A joke for two reasons: one, it is precisely party politics and supposedly conventional electioneering that makes a run outside the established norms virtually impossible; it was never in the cards in my view. Two, how can liberty loving, independent individuals even contemplate to subscribe to group-think, as is required of such a construct.

The only way to overcome the strangle-hold of the establishment on the process, is to overwhelm it. The only way to overwhelm it is through revolution - preferrably a peaceful one. That requires a completely independent effort from all formal constructs; converging interests of millions - millions of individual flavors of liberty.

Bottom line: this is only over if WE quit - Ron will certainly be among the last to do so. Ruling out a 3rd party gets allot of 3rd party hacks turning on the man (yep, 3rd parties have hacks as well). They had high hopes to 'validate' their particular brand of collective on the back of this movement and its focus. And the best option - a truly independent Independent Run - is only possible once the Republican Party 'resigns' from Ron, not the other way around. Walking away now from something started in good faith would be "bad manners" (in the true sense of the term), seen as whining, and strategically stupid, since the establishment is more than ready for such an announcement (Bloomberg et al.). It's why they have been promoting the trap for months.

So, we have a little lull. Since lulls are inevitable, there is nothing wrong with having one now. Lulls help to clear the brain, to lick the wounds and to regain focus. There is every reason to get up again and keep on plugging away. It's not by coincidence that 68% of citizens responded to a recent poll on how best to 'fix' the economy with "Bring the troops home." Now, where the hell did these 'sheep' get such an idea from? 68 percent, not 3 to 9.99 - 68%. How little will it take to tip the scale? 8 and 1/2 months; an eternity to reach critical mass...

me3
02-13-2008, 09:33 PM
Beautiful post Proemio.

pacelli
02-13-2008, 09:34 PM
I've had that same fear for a long time now.

I've also had the same nagging thought. Especially in the debates-- almost like he had been threatened to avert a "I paid for this mic" moment.

merrimac
02-14-2008, 11:16 PM
I doubt "reforming" the Republican party is possible. Instead of treating us like an equal part of the party, they ignored us, disparaged us, called us crazies, nuts, and I'm too insulted to ever give this party any support. If you're an old-school Republican and are not insulted by how Ron Paul or his supporters were treated, that's your own fault. I've come to believe that the Republican party is determined to commit suicide. In fact, it's BEGGING to be put to death. So let it die.

Revolution9
02-14-2008, 11:43 PM
Bold, because the funereal tone on this thread is pissing me off.

We are now 8 and 1/2 months until elections. MacCain went from McWho to TheCain in one month - with some help, but...

There is absolutely no telling what events will come the way of this effort between now and then. I can't believe the impatience, although I should know better; instant gratification is the steady Hollywood/Soaps diet, and it shows.

The campaign is not to blame, tho that boat has been infiltrated from the get go. I tried to explain at least six months ago, that if "we" wait for them, we are toast. It has absolutely nothing to do with Ron Paul's eventual managerial competence as President, as some disrupters were quick to exploit; the two have completely different dynamics. In every message from Ron (except the last) there was at least one line where Ron virtually pleaded with his supporters to take charge. There is nothing else he can do, because the system is set up in a way that handlers have an inordinate amount of control. Even as President, he will depend on us to watch his back. I'm not going to rehash the details; there are a number of (ignored) old posts on that subject.

Point is, Ron Paul is a man - better than most - but he is not walking on water. He is a doctor, legislator and guide; again, more multi-talented than most. He is neither a politician (in the ugly sense) nor a general - he is 'simply' providing a rare and clear focus for those of us who have been battling the beast for decades. The generals are/were among us, but they tend to get shouted down or driven away by a chorus of nannies, party hacks and hangers-on, who are played like fiddles by a small army of agents for the establishment.

All the talk about Republican Party this and 3rd Party that is a joke. A joke for two reasons: one, it is precisely party politics and supposedly conventional electioneering that makes a run outside the established norms virtually impossible; it was never in the cards in my view. Two, how can liberty loving, independent individuals even contemplate to subscribe to group-think, as is required of such a construct.

The only way to overcome the strangle-hold of the establishment on the process, is to overwhelm it. The only way to overwhelm it is through revolution - preferrably a peaceful one. That requires a completely independent effort from all formal constructs; converging interests of millions - millions of individual flavors of liberty.

Bottom line: this is only over if WE quit - Ron will certainly be among the last to do so. Ruling out a 3rd party gets allot of 3rd party hacks turning on the man (yep, 3rd parties have hacks as well). They had high hopes to 'validate' their particular brand of collective on the back of this movement and its focus. And the best option - a truly independent Independent Run - is only possible once the Republican Party 'resigns' from Ron, not the other way around. Walking away now from something started in good faith would be "bad manners" (in the true sense of the term), seen as whining, and strategically stupid, since the establishment is more than ready for such an announcement (Bloomberg et al.). It's why they have been promoting the trap for months.

So, we have a little lull. Since lulls are inevitable, there is nothing wrong with having one now. Lulls help to clear the brain, to lick the wounds and to regain focus. There is every reason to get up again and keep on plugging away. It's not by coincidence that 68% of citizens responded to a recent poll on how best to 'fix' the economy with "Bring the troops home." Now, where the hell did these 'sheep' get such an idea from? 68 percent, not 3 to 9.99 - 68%. How little will it take to tip the scale? 8 and 1/2 months; an eternity to reach critical mass...


Absolutely brilliant analysis. Good humint analysis work Proemio. We have the best intel desk in the politcal business.

Best of Regards
Randy

Free McKilt
02-15-2008, 12:27 AM
3rd Party or Independent run is still our best choice. Perhaps when the economy collapses...

seeker1
02-15-2008, 01:28 PM
The people who hijacked Ron Paul are the ones who said he betrayed us by staying republican. Ron Paul never ever ever ever said he wanted anything but. You just couldn't hear him anymore than the media could.

Non-republicrats hijacked Ron Pauls campaign. Only the true supporters heard him?

"I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for--- our present situation." -Paraphrase of Rudy- he had such a way with words:cool:

belian78
02-15-2008, 01:58 PM
F U Raimondo.

You, the self appointed commentator of the revolutionary movement.

You couldn't shine Dr. Paul's shoes.

You, Mr. Raimondo have done ZERO for the anti war movement .

The anti war movement in this country is fully marginalized, fully discredited and so completely infiltrated by agents for the status quo they can't even agree on what day it is.

A five page synopsis on Dr. Paul?

You have it all figured out, Mr. Raimondo?

I have two draft aged children and friends with children who are IN WARS, Justin.

What have you done from your position as a "major commentator" for the anti war anti establishment movement in the US? I say nothing, but stir the pot.

Dr. Paul has done more in 11 months than anyone since Andrew GD Jackson and you have the nut to call him out?

On what?

10 terms in congress getting absolutely pissed on 24 hours a day fighting for your freedom so you can post your writing at your so called anti war sites?

You can't event stand in the same room as Dr. Paul let alone have your writing posted on Dr. Paul's site.

I disagree with this Raimondo person. I have been in the anti war movement since 196 f%$ing 8.

This is not a presidential campaign. This is all there is. If you need to win a presidential campaign then you have not been paying attention.

I don't need to apologize for Dr. Paul.

He did not want to run.

He did it to help all of us.

He did it to help those kids getting killed every damn day in he middle east.

He did it because because he is a decent man who has the best interest of all at heart.

He didn't do it to make some "follower" happy about being with the winner of some fixed screw job election, he did it to help you. You pay him back this way?

Knock yourself out.

Just think what you are going to tell your children when they ask you about this 20 years from now?

I come here and get told what to do by Justin Raimondo?

No thanks.

2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th... totally agree.

Lovecraftian4Paul
02-15-2008, 02:08 PM
I doubt "reforming" the Republican party is possible. Instead of treating us like an equal part of the party, they ignored us, disparaged us, called us crazies, nuts, and I'm too insulted to ever give this party any support. If you're an old-school Republican and are not insulted by how Ron Paul or his supporters were treated, that's your own fault. I've come to believe that the Republican party is determined to commit suicide. In fact, it's BEGGING to be put to death. So let it die.

Absolutely. We've realized from Iowa onward that the GOP rank and file is far more war mongering and neo-conservative than we realized. There are even a good many who realized Ron Paul was being treated unfairly by the neo-con establishment in the GOP and media. And did they recoil in horror? No! They laughed, clapped their hands, and screamed to omit Dr. Paul from debates all together or strip him off the ballot.

The GOP is not reformable with these kind of entrenched goons. The only way it will ever work is if there should come a day when liberty-minded people are about 2/3 of the party, which I severely doubt will ever dawn. Personally, I'll be happy to work for any Ron Paul Republicans who appear in my area, but no way in hell will I ever get involved with any level of the GOP apparatus. Especially this year, when they'll be going into overdrive by the summer, shilling people into volunteering for McInsane and lower level warmongers (for those of us unfortunate enough not to have Ron Paul Republicans in our area).

belian78
02-15-2008, 02:21 PM
Absolutely. We've realized from Iowa onward that the GOP rank and file is far more war mongering and neo-conservative than we realized. There are even a good many who realized Ron Paul was being treated unfairly by the neo-con establishment in the GOP and media. And did they recoil in horror? No! They laughed, clapped their hands, and screamed to omit Dr. Paul from debates all together or strip him off the ballot.

The GOP is not reformable with these kind of entrenched goons. The only way it will ever work is if there should come a day when liberty-minded people are about 2/3 of the party, which I severely doubt will ever dawn. Personally, I'll be happy to work for any Ron Paul Republicans who appear in my area, but no way in hell will I ever get involved with any level of the GOP apparatus. Especially this year, when they'll be going into overdrive by the summer, shilling people into volunteering for McInsane and lower level warmongers (for those of us unfortunate enough not to have Ron Paul Republicans in our area).

it's our job to see that this happens!!!!! This is our job.

Andrew76
02-15-2008, 02:24 PM
The only betrayal going on here is from Ron Paul "supporters" who've ditched the grassroots effort when they realized it wasn't going to be a cakewalk.

Cheers to the true supporters! This is not our campaign, it is Ron Paul's campaign for the presidency. Are you in or out?

burningfur
02-15-2008, 02:32 PM
3rd Party was never realistic.

Ron Paul has set the stage as Barry Goldwater did.

Look at Paulcongress.com

Besides, if Paul dropped the (R), he couldn't keep his seat in Congress and the media would relish as the only man who could create actual change in Washington would be marginalized like never before.



There is a good reason they (MSM) asked him every time whether or not he was going to run 3rd party.

They wanted him to slip up just once to destroy his campaign.