PDA

View Full Version : Ron paul 2012




rockandrollsouls
11-09-2008, 01:27 AM
The owner of all 2012 threats. Ron Paul 2012 FTW. America F-YEAH!

Austin
11-09-2008, 03:04 PM
I believe (no source) that he said he doesn't plan on running in 2012. His age will be a major factor as well.

Driftar
11-09-2008, 05:21 PM
I love Dr. Paul, but honestly, even though he is healthy, i think a lot of americans look at a canidates physical appearence, thus we get Obama-mania, and Edwards and Romney doing so well. (Rudy got around this with his 911 rhetoric, but that didn't last long once the primaries hit!)

The_Orlonater
11-09-2008, 06:01 PM
Not to sound rude, but his age might be a matter. Look at how they treated McCain on that matter. Ageism and Racism is in the way of liberty.

Kludge
11-09-2008, 06:03 PM
1-3 non-authoritarian Representatives in Congress 2012! (that includes the one we'll hopefully pick up in 2010!)

nate895
11-09-2008, 06:05 PM
1-3 non-authoritarian Representatives in Congress 2012!

Have you even read my draft campaign proposal for President? It includes many more than 1-3 in 2012. I intend on drafting Congressional candidates as well, with an eye for 20 seats in the House (hopefully we can 15), and 5 in the Senate (hopefully we can win 1-3) in 2010. This will boost our draft candidate's political capital, and the GOP base will be ecstatic since we were the backbone of their Congressional efforts.

Kludge
11-09-2008, 06:14 PM
Have you even read my draft campaign proposal for President? It includes many more than 1-3 in 2012. I intend on drafting Congressional candidates as well, with an eye for 20 seats in the House (hopefully we can 15), and 5 in the Senate (hopefully we can win 1-3) in 2010. This will boost our draft candidate's political capital, and the GOP base will be ecstatic since we were the backbone of their Congressional efforts.

We weren't able to secure one new seat this year. More than five is completely unrealistic, especially if people are going to be supporting a presidential run again in the next cycle.

We don't have the resources.

nate895
11-09-2008, 06:27 PM
We weren't able to secure one new seat this year. More than five is completely unrealistic, especially if people are going to be supporting a presidential run again in the next cycle.

We don't have the resources.

We have the resources, it is just we weren't able to get them. We raised $35,000,000 over a year for Dr. Paul, and much of that time he was unknown, and his support didn't reach its zenith until after the race was lost. People fell of from the movement because it lacked a leader and the only thing that focuses a movement is someone who is fighting for the top job. If we can tap $40,000,000 each year for the next four years, split between Congress and the Presidency, with the draft committee (which would be funding both until an official Presidential campaign was setup) leading the way, we could spend 1 million on each House seat (focusing on 20-30), and $1-5 million on each Senate race depending on state size. That means we would still have (at minimum) $25,000,000 left to blow on President after two years. But, in this time we would of course be spending money to increase our donor base, so we would most assuredly wind up with $50-60 million a year base due to the increase in support for the movement.

Kludge
11-09-2008, 06:36 PM
We have the resources, it is just we weren't able to get them. We raised $35,000,000 over a year for Dr. Paul, and much of that time he was unknown, and his support didn't reach its zenith until after the race was lost. People fell of from the movement because it lacked a leader and the only thing that focuses a movement is someone who is fighting for the top job. If we can tap $40,000,000 each year for the next four years, split between Congress and the Presidency, with the draft committee (which would be funding both until an official Presidential campaign was setup) leading the way, we could spend 1 million on each House seat (focusing on 20-30), and $1-5 million on each Senate race depending on state size. That means we would still have (at minimum) $25,000,000 left to blow on President after two years. But, in this time we would of course be spending money to increase our donor base, so we would most assuredly wind up with $50-60 million a year base due to the increase in support for the movement.

$600,000 wasn't enough for one of the strongest liberty candidates we've ever had (BJ received only 35% of the vote, IIRC). If you're planning to have a legal organization, that means you're probably going to be a PAC (and then why not just support C4L?) and going to have donation limits. If you're not planning on handling the donations, then there's no point of existing (and if you are... -- again, C4L already exists).

It should also be noted that much of that funding came from having a leader, as you mentioned before. Ron Paul was the focus point. Ron Paul brought in that money. To believe we're going to get people to donate $20-30 million to CONGRESSIONAL races is unrealistic.

For true liberty candidates, I don't believe we raised more than $5,000,000 this year which was an incredibly strong year for libertarian-leaning candidates. Our best bet, IMO, is to pool all of our resources in a couple or few congressional races for a secure victory in at least one.

nate895
11-09-2008, 06:54 PM
$600,000 wasn't enough for one of the strongest liberty candidates we've ever had (BJ received only 35% of the vote, IIRC). If you're planning to have a legal organization, that means you're probably going to be a PAC (and then why not just support C4L?) and going to have donation limits. If you're not planning on handling the donations, then there's no point of existing (and if you are... -- again, C4L already exists).

It should also be noted that much of that funding came from having a leader, as you mentioned before. Ron Paul was the focus point. Ron Paul brought in that money. To believe we're going to get people to donate $20-30 million to CONGRESSIONAL races is unrealistic.

For true liberty candidates, I don't believe we raised more than $5,000,000 this year which was an incredibly strong year for libertarian-leaning candidates. Our best bet, IMO, is to pool all of our resources in a couple or few congressional races for a secure victory in at least one.

BJ is a bad example since he ran in a Democratic district (and it has only gotten stronger since many liberals are moving into the area) in a Democratic year.

That is why the money is being collected under a guise of a Draft Campaign, with the intent to strengthen our candidate's position among the base of GOP voters by getting seats in Congress. The reason why we cannot simply align with CFL is that it isn't a PAC and cannot endorse candidates, the best it can do is issue advocacy. The draft campaign will be able to reunite Ron Paul's base, and garner the money under the pretense of strengthening our candidate's position upon announcing that he will run, and winning Congressional and Senate seats will do just that.