Nolan Chart Op-Ed: Why Ron Paul Must Run for Texas Governor

[Knightskye]

http://www.nolanchart.com/article5501.html

You guys want to keep Hutchinson out of there.

Why not put Ron Paul in there?

A disadvantage would be that he would be out of Congress, and there wouldn't be that lone voice calling for a non-interventionist foreign policy, civil liberties, and lower taxes. Or try to shepherd neocons together and teach them how to be constitutional. But he'd be in charge of a state.

[thasre]

Well, if he ran for governor, I'd rather see him stay governor and show the world that libertarian-folk are in to get the job done right, rather than using the governorship as a prop for a 2012 run (when he'd likely be too old to be seriously competitive anyway, as much as I hate to say it). That being said, I'd certainly donate to his campaign if he decided to run for governor. One voice in Congress isn't as profound as the head of the executive branch of a state, and as part of the Republican Governor's Association (I think that's what it's called) it would be impossible for other Republican governors to ignore him altogether, and who knows?, they might actually learn something!

[wizardwatson]

This may not be a bad idea, with Ron Paul as governor, secession might be possible.

[ShowMeLiberty]

This may not be a bad idea, with Ron Paul as governor, secession might be possible.

+1

I'd move to Texas in a heartbeat if Ron Paul was governor.

[lodge939]

He'd veto every budget and then legislature would ram it through.

[revolutionist]

Barry Goldwater Jr Governor of Arizona, and Ron Paul Governor of Texas.... wow, free state project 2010 come on over.

That's like an orgasm for Free Staters. There might be a mass exodus from New Hampshire to Texas and Arizona.

[roho76]

I'm there.

[newyearsrevolution08]

I think being a governor is a great idea, it shows he can manage a state and he could actually put some of those liberty efforts into ACTUAL use.

All we need is 50 Ron Pauls, well a few more would be great but 50 governors and I would be smiling, we could step away from the fed one state at a time.....

[muzzled dogg]

what about senate?

[tonyr1988]

As much as I'd love to see Ron Paul as a governor or Senator (or President!), I'm really doubtful of him actually winning the positions.

Then again, it's not my position to make the decision - I'm sure they're figuring out the odds of winning these races, and I'm sure he'll make the right choice.

[AJ Antimony]

Ummm, what happened last time Ron Paul ran for a statewide office? The establishment threw everything against him and not only did he not even win the primary, but he lost his House seat.

The best thing to do is to let Ron stay in his unmovable House seat and find other candidates to run for bigger offices. This is the prime example of why winning locally should be the first priority. Because when candidates emerge for bigger offices, they almost always come from smaller offices.

First you run for school board. Then you run for city councilman. Then you run for state legislature. Then you run for Congress. Then you run for Senate/Governor. Then you run for President.

It's very hard to recruit non-politicians for political positions and have them win, even when they are major party candidates. I bet if any of our liberty candidates this year were former state legislators, then they might have had greater chance of winning.

Experience/credibility (holding some office) wins elections. Going from citizen to Congressman is not impossible, but it is very hard to do and not the most efficient way to field liberty candidates.

[thasre]

Ummm, what happened last time Ron Paul ran for a statewide office? The establishment threw everything against him and not only did he not even win the primary, but he lost his House seat.

[...]

Experience/credibility (holding some office) wins elections. Going from citizen to Congressman is not impossible, but it is very hard to do and not the most efficient way to field liberty candidates.

The thing is, he has a national support system that would make it rather difficult for the Texas Republicans to throw the book at him. He'd have the resources and national identity at this point to seek the office competitively, even if his chances weren't high. He has the experience/credibility at this point to make a serious go for it if he chooses to.

I think it's also worth noting that it might make it *easier* to field liberty candidates in lower offices if they see someone like Paul run a serious campaign for higher office.

[RPTXState]

Ummm, what happened last time Ron Paul ran for a statewide office? The establishment threw everything against him and not only did he not even win the primary, but he lost his House seat.

He didn't "lose" his house seat, he declined to run for reelection. Texas also has rules than you can run for more than one office at once. In theory, he could run for Governor and House at the same time and, assuming he won both, choose which office he wanted.

[Peace&Freedom]

Whether Paul should run or not, this situation fits the criteria I've mentioned for months as to WHAT races we should look for to run Paulite candidates. That criteria is:

-Find an open seat, or one where the incumbent is CLEARLY vulnerable (as in a politician retiring by choice, or plagued by a Ted Stevens or Spitzer-level scandal).
-Run a Paul candidate for the nomination of the major party the area actually leans (i.e., run a Republican BJ Lawson type person in a Republican district, instead of one that has voted Democrat the last five cycles).
-Run a candidate who can raise the actual funds to win, based on established historical data (for a house seat, that means $400k or more, for a statewide seat that's at least $2 million or more)
-Ensure the candidate has expected credibility factors (previously elected or personally distinguished, as in being a celebrity, veteran/war hero, businessman, professor,etc) and effective base of support.

Clearly, Paul at this point in hs career can compete in an open seat situation for Senate or the Governorship, Texas is a GOP state, he can raise the funds, and has both the experience and base to succeed. If Paul doesn't run for it, maybe there's at least one Paulite in TX that can fill the gap who fits the winning criteria above.

[Kotin]

If Ron Paul ran for Governor, there is much he could do..

like pardon all non violent drug offenders and tax evaders that reside in Texas..

then he could legalize industrial hemp and secure the Texas borders..

Ron Paul in charge of the Republic of Texas, not to mention the Texas National Guard?! I'll Take it.

[Knightskye]

Barry Goldwater Jr Governor of Arizona, and Ron Paul Governor of Texas.... wow, free state project 2010 come on over.

Ham, Put Sanford's face in your signature instead of Ron Paul's.
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A55248

He's a neocon. And he wants to attack Canada:

"It's time to cut out empty rhetoric. Now's the time to cut the budget. America needs a haircut. And the federal budget needs a shave."

What's on top of America? Canada. Canada's our hat. Where's he gonna put it when he gives America a haircut? Huh?


what about senate?

From Congress to Congress. Hmm.

If he could find a Republican to replace him in the House, or a Libertarian/Constitution if he's willing to endorse one, then that would be okay. I'd rather see Ron Paul with veto power instead of filibuster, though.


This may not be a bad idea, with Ron Paul as governor, secession might be possible.

He might run into trouble with the Supreme Court over that.


+1

I'd move to Texas in a heartbeat if Ron Paul was governor.

You and me both. :D


He'd veto every budget and then legislature would ram it through.

Guess what? Republicans have the majority in the legislature. And Republicans like a lot of Ron Paul's domestic policy.

I think he could do well.

[Starclopsofish]

Man... if Ron Paul ran for Governor, I'd quit school here in Arkansas and campaign non-stop in my hometown (Texarkana). If Ron Paul had control of the Texas National Guard, we'd have a fighting chance if Washington suspended the Constitution and tried to impose martial law.

[Matt Collins]

my hometown (Texarkana).I drove through there at 1am once. First time I had ever been to Texas.

[Matt Collins]

Can anyone who lives there actually talk about the political atmosphere in Texas? If he wan, would he have a chance to win? How much money does it take to win? Would he be able to beat Rick Perry?

[Imperial]

I live in Ron Paul's district.

I think he would have a chance, but it is EXTREMELY risky. If he ran for governor and lost his seat in congress, the entire movement would be derailed. I myself have seen in my area much disgruntlement with Paul alongside general support and strong support. He is like Gary Johnson was with New Mexico back as governor; some love him, others despise him. At least here.

We saw at convention he was scorned by the Texas GOP. Hutchinson may run for governor; the name recognition there can counter Paul's own. Besides that, we already have a few people we can run for governor. Kinky Friedman is the first that comes to mind, and I believe I heard word of another.

If Paul were to run for governor, he should first sit back and wait to see the competition. Myself, I would prefer another run for Senate. Both are statewide races, and both will be open. However, stepping back and looking at what friends and/or competition is brewing would be an effective way to get ready. In the meantime, he could begin mobilizing a run for house and if necessary transfer it into a statewide run. Paul can remain in place as necessary, or if he felt an opportunity of a lifetime run for senate or governor.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

If he ran for governor and lost his seat in congress, the entire movement would be derailed.How so? Not to discredit Paul's efforts, but has he done that has had any major impact as a representative? Other than questioning Bernanke, which, while valuable, obviously isn't leading anywhere, I don't see anything.

Governorship would give him the power to actually do things, rather than just represent them. I'd much, much rather see him in the governor's office than the oval office.

[Matt Collins]

Good point. I think Kinky might siphon votes from Ron.

[thasre]

If Paul were to run for governor, he should first sit back and wait to see the competition. Myself, I would prefer another run for Senate. Both are statewide races, and both will be open. However, stepping back and looking at what friends and/or competition is brewing would be an effective way to get ready. In the meantime, he could begin mobilizing a run for house and if necessary transfer it into a statewide run. Paul can remain in place as necessary, or if he felt an opportunity of a lifetime run for senate or governor.

Wait, so there will be an open Senate seat from Texas in 2010? If that's so, I can imagine that he would do more service as a Senator than as a Governor, since his whole thing is more about the overreach of federal legislation than it is about Texas state issues...

[Imperial]

I meant if he ran for governor and lost while losing his house seat the movement would be completely derailed- with the former being quite plausible, especially consider his senate run back in 82.

Can he run for house and governor or house and senate at the same time as he did for president?

[Matt Collins]

I meant if he ran for governor and lost while losing his house seat the movement would be completely derailed- with the former being quite plausible, especially consider his senate run back in 82.Well by then it'kll be about time for him to retire, right? I hope he doesn't pull a Strom Thurman on us... :p

[Imperial]

2010? I want to see Ron Paul in office til about 2018 or 2020 in the house if he never moves up.

[New York For Paul]

Hutchinson and her chief of staff Mark Short are both liberal to moderate. We need a real conservative who can help funnel Texas money to other conservatives.

Time to take them down.

[Knightskye]

Good point. I think Kinky might siphon votes from Ron.

Psh. :p

[tangent4ronpaul]

Paul easily wins his district election after election - but he LOST the presidential vote for the state of TX. Why would Gov be different?

As for that office, Penny Langford was running an exploratory campaign to run for TX Gov. She may have given up, as the web site isn't resolving for me today...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=147600

For those that don't know, Penny was Paul's campaign manager for many, many years. She quit early in the presidential campaign largely because she was very unhappy with some of Paul's staff picks for the PCC. As should be obvious now - she was right about her misgivings.

-t

[Imperial]

http://joshua-hebert.blogspot.com/2008/06/texas-governors-race-2010-part-1.html

A nice summary of possible contenders for the Texas governorship, although someone had to mention Penny in comments.

They also seemed to be working off of a fight for the Republican nomination. So, it is still incomplete.

[Knightskye]

Paul easily wins his district election after election - but he LOST the presidential vote for the state of TX. Why would Gov be different?

Because he wouldn't be President.

Republicans disagreed strongly with Paul's foreign policy. That wouldn't be a problem if he were Governor.

[dr. hfn]

he would definitely win with our support

[Matt Collins]

he would definitely win with our supportDon't bet on it. He didn't take Texas in the primary. I don't know enough about TX politics to comment, but I am willing to bet they can play dirty down there. There is a reason that LBJ was from the same state that JFK was assassinated in.

[Kotin]

Don't bet on it. He didn't take Texas in the primary. I don't know enough about TX politics to comment, but I am willing to bet they can play dirty down there. There is a reason that LBJ was from the same state that JFK was assassinated in.

Ron could win..


here in Texas, his domestic policy is very respected and admired.


I have no doubt if he put his mind on the governorship, than he could claim it.

[Knightskye]

Don't bet on it. He didn't take Texas in the primary. I don't know enough about TX politics to comment, but I am willing to bet they can play dirty down there. There is a reason that LBJ was from the same state that JFK was assassinated in.

For President, no.

For Congress, he got over 70% of the vote. Why? Because they agree on his domestic policy.

Ron Paul could also turn his run into something about term limits. He's been in Congress for 20 years.

[haaaylee]

Can anyone who lives there actually talk about the political atmosphere in Texas? If he wan, would he have a chance to win? How much money does it take to win? Would he be able to beat Rick Perry?


Austin is the Blue city in the Red State. But, we were also the largest Ron Paul Meetup Group. I'm sure you could get us fighting again in no time. Then there is Ron's district, where 70% of the voters love him. .. I think this is possible.


It's a good point that he didn't get Texas 'cos of his foreign policy. Or that he didn't get much because of that. That is not relevant for this race. That could be the best reason to pick governor over senate.

[IPSecure]

A couple of days ago, the media showed Kay Bailey (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/1203_408dnpolhutch.2d91385f.html) had setup a exploratory committee... she already has millions to run...

If Dr. Paul ran, worst case it would continue to "Spread The Message!"

[Matt Collins]

If Dr. Paul ran, worst case it would continue to "Spread The Message!"I believe that "Spread the message" campaigns are destructive to the movement in the regard that they tend to demoralize the base of supporters loss after loss. If there is actually a win here and there then it becomes much more palatable and energetic.

[IPSecure]

I believe that "Spread the message" campaigns are destructive to the movement in the regard that they tend to demoralize the base of supporters loss after loss. If there is actually a win here and there then it becomes much more palatable and energetic.

Good point on not winning...

I believe Dr. Paul can win, especially with all of the world-wide support.

He would destroy anyone in a honest debate.

[Matt Collins]

He would destroy anyone in a honest debate.What makes you think they would let the debate be "honest"? Remember, this is Texas politics we are talking about....

[american.swan]

There's a lot of pros and cons to this idea. If Texans aren't too pleased with Obama, then I think there's a good chance another GOP will win the Texas Governor....so that leaves us with a serious fight for the GOP nomination.

If WE, the grassroots, had a fairly good grasp of Texas local gop activity and membership then I think Paul would win hands down. But right now we don't know what the local GOP members think of Paul. If we knew, then he should run.

SO I say, get some Ron Paul people into all the gop offices across the state and find out what Paul's local chances are. THEN decide on a run or not.

If Paul wins, I would be far more excited about Governor Paul then US House member Paul.

[Knightskye]

At least a Governor Paul exploratory committee.

Listen to that - "Governor Paul." :D