Why Ron Paul, Why?

[mrchubbs]

What is a good explanation for Ron Paul...


1 - Endorsing his supporters sending money to several Neo-conservative war mongering candidates on his Liberty PAC web site?

2 - Not endorsing a single Ron Paul Republican challenger to Neo-conservative war mongering Republican incumbents in the primaries?

3 - Giving a blanket endorsement of anyone but McBama, spreading his "clout" instead of focusing it on Baldwin or Barr to help them reach debate acceptance levels in the polls?

Putting aside my own love affair with Ron Paul the only answer I can come up with is that he plays party politics too, but that explanation doesn't sit well with me.

Put aside your love affair with Ron Paul for a few moments and tell me what do you honestly think?

[muzzled dogg]

man u talk weird

[berrybunches]

What is a good explanation for Ron Paul...


1 - Endorsing his supporters sending money to several Neo-conservative war mongering candidates on his Liberty PAC web site?

2 - Not endorsing a single Ron Paul Republican challenger to Neo-conservative war mongering Republican incumbents in the primaries?

3 - Giving a blanket endorsement of anyone but McBama, spreading his "clout" instead of focusing it on Baldwin or Barr to help them reach debate acceptance levels in the polls?

Putting aside my own love affair with Ron Paul the only answer I can come up with is that he plays party politics too, but that explanation doesn't sit well with me.

Put aside your love affair with Ron Paul for a few moments and tell me what do you honestly think?

1) Wasn't aware of that

2) He has endorsed many people who share his platform against neocon challengers.

3) He doesn't want to become a cult leader that demands we vote for someone specifically. Its about a message. Endorsing 1 3rd party candidate would not do anything. I like what he did ALOT.

But I agree he is not perfect. I am not a ron paul apologist.

[Highland]

huh

[ckhagen]

I can't answer 1 or 2 because I don't really have any real knowledge of the situation.

However, for number three... Not speaking for Ron, but one of the possibilities is this:
For those of us who have followed his wishes and deeply entrenched ourselves in the GOP to effect grassroots change from within... it may very well be disastrous for for us to have him throw his weight only behind candidates that were most likely to lure Republican voters. It would cause the party leadership to pull out the "he's trying to sabotage us" card (again). Although I've had a reasonably easy welcome into the committee, I've been interrogated a thousand times about whether or not he was going to run third party or IND or endorse a candidate. If he did, and it was only candidates on the Conservative side of the aisle, it would totally cause even worse backlash against those of us who are making progress. So, for that reason, I'm glad he spread the love to those who would attract more liberal voters. It leaves no question that he's just trying to change things, not sabotage the party.

[ladyjade3]

Baldwin was a great friend to him before the primaries, and is arguably equally close to him philosophically as Barr. Maybe, or probably, more so. And Baldwin was on the ground campaigning for him when Barr was nowhere to be seen. Fact. Maybe other politicians would be willing to piss on that after the fact, but Paul is a Statesman. He respects his friends.

He was trying to help Barr in the only way he really could, considering the above. Not good enough for Barr.

Some Barr people think that Paul's loyalty to Baldwin make problems for Paul, but I think it was Barr's disregard of Paul early on that make this tough on Paul. He's a lifetime member of the LP. This should be easy, no? Except for Barr. Paul has always been a man of principle before party, and the LP deserves no pass here.

What was Barr thinking? He had the most to gain from this press conference. If he didn't like it, he should have said so from the beginning. Why did he agree to show up in the first place? Just to embarrass him? The fact is, think what you will about the validity of the press conference, but it WAS WORTH THE PRESS CORPS' TIME. He filled the room that day. We are inundated with news reports of things (like lipstick on a pig???) that aren't worth the media's time. That's not the point.

I'm sick of Dr. Paul's "friends" letting him twist in the wind.

[Conza88]

man u talk weird

Hahah... !!!!

[Knightskye]

3) He doesn't want to become a cult leader that demands we vote for someone specifically. Its about a message.

A message of liberty and adherence to the Constitution. There's no authority for a carbon tax or universal healthcare. Nader's a good guy, but come on now.


1 - Endorsing his supporters sending money to several Neo-conservative war mongering candidates on his Liberty PAC web site?

2 - Not endorsing a single Ron Paul Republican challenger to Neo-conservative war mongering Republican incumbents in the primaries?

3 - Giving a blanket endorsement of anyone but McBama, spreading his "clout" instead of focusing it on Baldwin or Barr to help them reach debate acceptance levels in the polls?

Sometimes he does what's best for his political standing instead of the liberty movement.

But when voting in Congress, it's all Constitution, all the time.

[mrchubbs]

1) Wasn't aware of that

2) He has endorsed many people who share his platform against neocon challengers.

3) He doesn't want to become a cult leader that demands we vote for someone specifically. Its about a message. Endorsing 1 3rd party candidate would not do anything. I like what he did ALOT.

But I agree he is not perfect. I am not a ron paul apologist.

1 - Yes, he lists the following as Federal "Liberty" Candidates on his Liberty PAC web site:
Paul Broun
Roscoe Bartlett
Virgil Goode
Denny Rehberg
to name 4.
http://www.libertypac.net/html/federal.html

2 - Who did he endorse against a Republican incumbent in the primaries? He hasn't endorsed against a single one of his Republican colleagues in Congress, even when a liberty minded Republican was running against them. For that matter what are the names of the many people he has endorsed against neocon challengers outside of his latest announcement for the Presidential race? And are those that he endorsed truly liberty minded candidates like himself?

3 - I respectfully disagree, but you may be right. Unfortunately, we will now never know if his endorsement (or agreeing to run on the same ticket) would have put a candidate over the top so they could be in the debates. His action instead pretty much guaranteed no candidate will reach that level.

I adore his message but feel somehow a bit cheated that more could have been done to further the cause of liberty.

[Rangeley]

3 - Giving a blanket endorsement of anyone but McBama, spreading his "clout" instead of focusing it on Baldwin or Barr to help them reach debate acceptance levels in the polls?
He didn't give a blanket endorsement of anyone but McBama, or anyone at all in fact. What he did was highlight 4 key principles not being addressed by McCain or Obama, and acknowledge/bring together 4 candidates who were. He didn't endorse anyone, and didn't run himself, because the ultimate focus needs to be beyond the election. He is urging people to get involved and stay involved in the process.

How well Barr and Baldwin did was never going to be anything more then something that could be pointed to to say "see, this many people rejected the two party establishment and care about ____!" They weren't going to win. By bringing together 4 candidates, on the 4 areas of agreement there will be an even more compelling example of people from all across the spectrum who want to see foreign interventionism ended, national debt decreased, the fed ended, and civil liberties restored. It also brings a lot more people into the fold for these 4 key principles.

It's a long term plan - he isn't all about this election like Barr and his campaign are. Its why Barr's campaign is so mad about it. He wants to do anything he can to do as well as he can, while Paul is interested in forming something that is lasting and eventually bear fruit. Bringing together the 4 candidates like this does just that; endorsing just Barr, just Baldwin, just someone, would not.

[mrchubbs]

Baldwin was a great friend to him before the primaries, and is arguably equally close to him philosophically as Barr. Maybe, or probably, more so. And Baldwin was on the ground campaigning for him when Barr was nowhere to be seen. Fact. Maybe other politicians would be willing to piss on that after the fact, but Paul is a Statesman. He respects his friends.

He was trying to help Barr in the only way he really could, considering the above. Not good enough for Barr.

Some Barr people think that Paul's loyalty to Baldwin make problems for Paul, but I think it was Barr's disregard of Paul early on that make this tough on Paul. He's a lifetime member of the LP. This should be easy, no? Except for Barr. Paul has always been a man of principle before party, and the LP deserves no pass here.

What was Barr thinking? He had the most to gain from this press conference. If he didn't like it, he should have said so from the beginning. Why did he agree to show up in the first place? Just to embarrass him? The fact is, think what you will about the validity of the press conference, but it WAS WORTH THE PRESS CORPS' TIME. He filled the room that day. We are inundated with news reports of things (like lipstick on a pig???) that aren't worth the media's time. That's not the point.

I'm sick of Dr. Paul's "friends" letting him twist in the wind.

I'm with you on the Barr campaign's very poor decision and it being viewed as a snub to RP. I think Barr should fire his campaign manager and apologize to RP publicly, but their argument against appearing is not completely illogical.

I would have much preferred for Bob Barr to appear along side RP and the other candidates and profess his differences in a press conference following RP's presser. Russ Verney made a horrid decision and Barr allowed it.

[V3n]

1 - 3: Because Ron Paul has lived a long time and has seen many things. He has been in the political game for over 30 years, and he has learned how the game is played. He is not concerned with today or tomorrow, he is concerned with the next generation - he is concerned with the world his grandchildren will grow up in. His aim is not to affect this election, but to affect the future; and attacking the supply line of the Republicans and Democrats of today is the surest way to ensure a bright future for the next generation.

Our enemy is not each other in the 3rd party, it is the stranglehold of the Democrats and Republicans.

Rome was not built in a day, nor did it fall overnight.

[jabrownie]

What is a good explanation for Ron Paul...


1 - Endorsing his supporters sending money to several Neo-conservative war mongering candidates on his Liberty PAC web site?

2 - Not endorsing a single Ron Paul Republican challenger to Neo-conservative war mongering Republican incumbents in the primaries?

3 - Giving a blanket endorsement of anyone but McBama, spreading his "clout" instead of focusing it on Baldwin or Barr to help them reach debate acceptance levels in the polls?

Putting aside my own love affair with Ron Paul the only answer I can come up with is that he plays party politics too, but that explanation doesn't sit well with me.

Put aside your love affair with Ron Paul for a few moments and tell me what do you honestly think?

You want a discourse on potential explanations for Dr. Paul's actions? Alright, here's mine:

1) Great Question. Hadn't noticed it before, would like how we could support someone who doesn't agree with at least the 4 basic tenants just agreed to the other day. I looked up one of them, Virgil Goode, and the claim checks out. See here:
http://www.libertypac.net/html/federal.html
http://vcnv.org/why-i-m-against-the-war-and-why-i-go-to-virgil-goode-s-office-to-say-so

2) Not quite sure I follow this one. Didn't B.J. Lawson go against an incumbent republican in the primary, and didn't he have RP's support for it. I know there were quite a few liberty candidates who RP supported, certainly some of them were running against Republican incumbants.

3) There is no such thing as a 'debate acceptance level'. It's like a unicorn, a mythical creation. The standards used to judge who is 'worthy' to be in a debate are amorphous and can be changed without explanation or reason. One example of it was the 1996 effort by Ross Perot.

So, Ron Paul's actions; reasonable or not?
I think he's looking at it from 1) a larger issues first perspective, 2) a ease of argument perspective, and 3) a numbers perspective. Not certain if I agree that those are the best way to view the situation, but they might be.

1) All four groups can agree that the current system is broken and leading us into a massive catastrophy which will enslave or destroy us all and everything we hold dear. The four groups disagree on what should replace it, but an open debate on that issue after the duopoly is brought down is preferable to remaining divided and perishing.

2) For us to be successful we must reach out to others and get them to stand with us. No other way around it, these are elections, they take numbers to win. How do we best reach out to the public, with an argument of well-developed nuanced positions about a dozen different topics...Or do we ask them if they are fed up with congress and with the two parties, and try to paint them as being one and the same, same crap different day? Which one is more dumbed down and easier for the average person to digest, understand, and agree with? Which one can be used to reach out to a wider base of public support?

3) Pure numbers game of growth. If I go out and speak to a 100 people, quite a few will think that Congress and politicians suck. (Congress = 9% favoribility rating right now). I could probably get quite a few of them to consider the option of saying screw the politicians, but only if I can give them something that they might find agreeable to them. Having more options at that point would be a good thing. But wait, you say, that's helping bad people like socialists and theocrats. To a point, yes, it's helping them and us. Hold your horses for one second though and look at this math:

Option A: I talk to a lot of people, 100 think Congress sucks.
I get 25 to agree with me that the LP is for them. Great.
75 don't agree with certain points of the LP and therefore knowing nothing about any other choice, they stick with the Republocrats.

End result: I've grown a little bit (25 new members), but the Rep/Dem are still too strong and I get smacked around and around. This has been the LP results for decades.

Option B: I talk to a lot of people, 100 think Congress sucks. A member of the Greens, Constitutionalists, and an Independant do the same.
I get 25 to agree with me that the LP is for them. Great.
75 don't agree, but then they check out the other third parties. 25 go Green, 25 go Constitutionalist, 25 go Independant. Same results for all the others.

End result: We grow a lot (100 new members), the Rep/Dems are cut in half and comparied to the large number of new third party members are now vulnerable in many areas. The political discourse changes. All the other third parties are also stronger. Now instead of trying to fight a monolith, we have debates about policy with the socialists, the theocrats and all the rest of them and the LP wins b/c then we can discuss and debate well-reasoned arguments of liberty and freedom on a nearly equal playing field.


Put all of it together and there is one strategy that has been tried before but hasn't worked, and then you've got a really out of the box idea by Dr. Paul that could actually do something if we could get this bickering to stop.

[silverbullet85]

1) The four tenants from the other day aren't a litmus test for Ron Paul's support. There simply an area of agreement between Ron Paul and the third party candidates that don't get enough attention. Broun might be wrong on the war issue, but he's one of the best across-the-board advocates of liberty in Congress. Virgil Goode, for example, is wrong on quite a few issues, but a quick search shows that he's a staunch opponent of the NAU. So there ya go. In Washington, you have to work with people who disagree with you on some issues... especially if you're Ron Paul. Not everyone can agree with him on the issues to the extent that Baldwin and Barr do...

2) Kinda hard to do that and still get along...

3) I wish he'd have done something with a bit more force... endorse Barr, or Baldwin, or both... or announce a nationally televised debate... there was reason to be a bit upset there...

[mrchubbs]

2) Not quite sure I follow this one. Didn't B.J. Lawson go against an incumbent republican in the primary, and didn't he have RP's support for it. I know there were quite a few liberty candidates who RP supported, certainly some of them were running against Republican incumbants.


Thanks a lot for posting your number 3 thoughts... very well thought out.


On #2... Lawson did not run against an incumbent republican. The incumbent is a Democrat.

When Vern McKinley's campaign sought a Ron Paul endorsement he was told "Ron Paul is not endorsing challengers to incumbent Republicans at this time" or something like that. I waited and checked and he has yet to do so to this day unless you count John McCain, but where the real battles are (local/Congress) he just hasn't done it. I guess he is worried about some kind of retribution from his co-Congress people. Maybe the worry is that they will never support a bill he proposes if he had previously endorsed against them. In any case it seems to go against his principles. (especially in McKinley's case who was running against war loving big spender Frank Wolf).

Then you add that to the list of candidates on the Libery PAC site and things don't look too good.

[revolutionary8]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbD5LGQavDI

And as we proceed,
To Mosh through this desert storm,
In these closing statements, if they should argue
Let us beg to differ
As we set aside our differences
And assemble our own army
To disarm this Weapon of Mass Destruction
That we call our President, for the present
And Mosh for the future of our next generation
To speak and be heard
Mr. President, Mr. Senator
Do you guy's hear us...hear us...


btw- Ron Paul endorsed Liberty. That's it. Get it Yet? I can only pray some day y'all do.

[spacehabitats]

I can't answer 1 or 2 because I don't really have any real knowledge of the situation.

However, for number three... Not speaking for Ron, but one of the possibilities is this:
For those of us who have followed his wishes and deeply entrenched ourselves in the GOP to effect grassroots change from within... it may very well be disastrous for for us to have him throw his weight only behind candidates that were most likely to lure Republican voters. It would cause the party leadership to pull out the "he's trying to sabotage us" card (again). Although I've had a reasonably easy welcome into the committee, I've been interrogated a thousand times about whether or not he was going to run third party or IND or endorse a candidate. If he did, and it was only candidates on the Conservative side of the aisle, it would totally cause even worse backlash against those of us who are making progress. So, for that reason, I'm glad he spread the love to those who would attract more liberal voters. It leaves no question that he's just trying to change things, not sabotage the party.

Ditto.

[ARealConservative]

man u talk weird

the irony

[ARealConservative]

Baldwin was a great friend to him before the primaries, and is arguably equally close to him philosophically as Barr. Maybe, or probably, more so. And Baldwin was on the ground campaigning for him when Barr was nowhere to be seen. Fact. Maybe other politicians would be willing to piss on that after the fact, but Paul is a Statesman. He respects his friends.

He was trying to help Barr in the only way he really could, considering the above. Not good enough for Barr.

Some Barr people think that Paul's loyalty to Baldwin make problems for Paul, but I think it was Barr's disregard of Paul early on that make this tough on Paul. He's a lifetime member of the LP. This should be easy, no? Except for Barr. Paul has always been a man of principle before party, and the LP deserves no pass here.

What was Barr thinking? He had the most to gain from this press conference. If he didn't like it, he should have said so from the beginning. Why did he agree to show up in the first place? Just to embarrass him? The fact is, think what you will about the validity of the press conference, but it WAS WORTH THE PRESS CORPS' TIME. He filled the room that day. We are inundated with news reports of things (like lipstick on a pig???) that aren't worth the media's time. That's not the point.

I'm sick of Dr. Paul's "friends" letting him twist in the wind.

Deserves no pass? This is idiotic reasoning. Barr is running for office still, and him getting votes is good for our movement.

So yes, he does deserve a pass. The C4L is proving their lack of worth by allowing this to fester and even worse; encouraging it.

[torchbearer]

Definitely reptilian plot.

[constituent]

fail.

[liberteebell]

LadyJade said:


I'm sick of Dr. Paul's "friends" letting him twist in the wind.

Yeah, me too. Just goes to show how principled those "friends" are. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Rangeley said:


He didn't give a blanket endorsement of anyone but McBama, or anyone at all in fact. What he did was highlight 4 key principles not being addressed by McCain or Obama, and acknowledge/bring together 4 candidates who were. He didn't endorse anyone, and didn't run himself, because the ultimate focus needs to be beyond the election. He is urging people to get involved and stay involved in the process.

How well Barr and Baldwin did was never going to be anything more then something that could be pointed to to say "see, this many people rejected the two party establishment and care about ____!" They weren't going to win. By bringing together 4 candidates, on the 4 areas of agreement there will be an even more compelling example of people from all across the spectrum who want to see foreign interventionism ended, national debt decreased, the fed ended, and civil liberties restored. It also brings a lot more people into the fold for these 4 key principles.

It's a long term plan - he isn't all about this election like Barr and his campaign are. Its why Barr's campaign is so mad about it. He wants to do anything he can to do as well as he can, while Paul is interested in forming something that is lasting and eventually bear fruit. Bringing together the 4 candidates like this does just that; endorsing just Barr, just Baldwin, just someone, would not.

+2008

Any time these 4 areas of agreement are brought to the forefront, I'm happy. Ending the fed? Who else is talking about this!?!?!?! It was once just Ron Paul all by his lonesome. The areas of disagreement are waaaaay less important than the areas of agreement.

[Scotso]

I do have to question his support of my Congressman, Virgil Goode. I understand they're friends, but the man is an elitist prick. His comments about the new (and only) Muslim in Congress were extremely racist and bigoted. He is NOT a champion of liberty.

[Roxi]

maybe hes like.... god or something and this is one of those "no matter what i put you through, you must keep your faith in me, and you will be good enough for heaven"

right :D























/satire

[FindLiberty]

What is a good explanation for Ron Paul...

1 - Endorsing his supporters sending money to several Neo-conservative war mongering candidates on his Liberty PAC web site?

2 - Not endorsing a single Ron Paul Republican challenger to Neo-conservative war mongering Republican incumbents in the primaries?

3 - Giving a blanket endorsement of anyone but McBama, spreading his "clout" instead of focusing it on Baldwin or Barr to help them reach debate acceptance levels in the polls?

Putting aside my own love affair with Ron Paul the only answer I can come up with is that he plays party politics too, but that explanation doesn't sit well with me.

Put aside your love affair with Ron Paul for a few moments and tell me what do you honestly think?

I think I smell the rotting corpse of a dead elephant, and I don't like it one bit.

Still love the message of Liberty Ron Paul offers (offered) us...
So what's (who's) next?
Pick ONE candidate for POTUS, and let's roll!

[smudboy]

He didn't give a blanket endorsement of anyone but McBama, or anyone at all in fact. What he did was highlight 4 key principles not being addressed by McCain or Obama, and acknowledge/bring together 4 candidates who were. He didn't endorse anyone, and didn't run himself, because the ultimate focus needs to be beyond the election. He is urging people to get involved and stay involved in the process.


By saying "don't vote for the 2 of the 6," how is he not giving a blanket endorsement to the remaining 4? He talked about non-voters, but that's useless. As Bob Barr put it, he's telling us to scatter votes to the "four winds."

C4L will continue regardless of McBama. By endorsing or going 3rd party, he could've made a very clear electorate message to America. Or, at least in our little Groupthink, the C4Ler's wouldn't be confused, and there would've been the chance of victory. I bet C4L would go nuts with their "Ron Paul 4 President" signs or ersatz Ron Paul signs.

Arguably, Ron Paul can only endorse...Ron Paul.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I have to also put part of the blame on Chuck Baldwin. If Chuck Baldwin wanted to truly keep the movement together, he would NOT have agreed to run against BARR in the Consitution Party , which is it little party with not nearly the clout as the LP. Yeah Yeah the Constitution Party claims to be the third largest party in the USA, but that is smoke and mirrors...they have lots of affiliates that work under their umbrella and have their OWN party platforms. There should have been some sort of strategic move well ahead of time as to who the movement would be supporting if Ron Paul dropped out, which I was fairly sure he would do after the primaries were over. When Baldwin got into the presidential race, which I consider ridiculous because he has ABSOLUTELY NO experience in politics whatsoever, it watered down the movement. He should have held fast, let the LP get as much leverage as they could, and Baldwin should have worked on running for state representative to assist Ron Paul in congress. I am no longer supporting Barr, but this was a fight between the CP and LP over the Ron Paul supporters . BLAH. It got us exactly NOWHERE. Tones

[Thomas_Paine]

What is a good explanation for Ron Paul...


1 - Endorsing his supporters sending money to several Neo-conservative war mongering candidates on his Liberty PAC web site?

2 - Not endorsing a single Ron Paul Republican challenger to Neo-conservative war mongering Republican incumbents in the primaries?

3 - Giving a blanket endorsement of anyone but McBama, spreading his "clout" instead of focusing it on Baldwin or Barr to help them reach debate acceptance levels in the polls?

Putting aside my own love affair with Ron Paul the only answer I can come up with is that he plays party politics too, but that explanation doesn't sit well with me.

Put aside your love affair with Ron Paul for a few moments and tell me what do you honestly think?

Ron Paul is under attack from the enemies of liberty