PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul for President in 2012




Gin
11-25-2008, 08:51 PM
Ron Paul for President in 2012

Now, more than ever. Here’s why.


When Ron Paul accepted the idea that, intended by our forefathers or not, we were a nation locked into a two party system and one had better accept that idea or be hopelessly marginalized, he guaranteed that his neo-libertarian ideas would be heard on a national stage. In 2008 he shunned the idea of doing the third party thing, entered the Republican Party presidential race and won a whole new generation of devotees.


Oh, there were purist critics to be sure, old friends of his on the paranoid right. How can you submit to the two party system? They were outraged at this compromise, this constitutional carnality. But before they could grieve too long over the loss of Brother Paul, he skyrocketed to incredible, cult like, popularity and things they had been saying and advocating for years were suddenly racing along the wireless highways of Al Gore’s marvelous invention.


By the way, many of those critics were there in Minneapolis, at his Campaign for Liberty convention, (Ron Paul has a big heart,) selling their books, and admitting to Ron Paul groupies at their tables that, “Yes, he is quite a guy.” And inwardly rolling their eyes and muttering under their breathes to their wives, “I could have done this years ago but I have way too much integrity.


And their obedient wives were thinking, “Yeah, that’s why we only earned $30,000 last year off your dwindling mailing list of idiots. Thank God, for Ron Paul. Now, at least, we are selling some of your 1960’s ‘classics.’ We may actually be able to get all those boxes out of our garage and park the car in there.


The fact is, by running for the GOP nomination in 2008, Ron Paul compromised nothing. Unless you think Jesus compromised when he said, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.


Sure, he has to be sensitive to sacrificing principle to win when that is the very reason people support him and the very reason they are angry at Democrats and Republicans. But the fact is that Ron Paul has lifted the whole, aging, stifling, outdated Neanderthal right wing out of the ditch and up onto dry ground and hitched it to a populist, neo-libertine wagon train. And he has done all of this single handedly, on his broad generous, courageous shoulders. And he has done it without breaking the China.


Oh, there is much, much more. He has woven a slender thread through the crimson cloth of Evangelical Christians and the pink cloth of Gay America, making one garment out of a people who have decided that they never really wanted or needed power, just the guarantee that government would stay out of their lives and not intrude.
Who would have thought that this was politically possible?

He has gathered the hurt and wounded families of America who have suffered the extremes of our glorious “War on Crime,” which has become almost Soviet in its unintended consequences.


It is an amazingly diverse and complicated political fabric, with great demographic possibilities.


Still, the question remains, what did it all accomplish? Were the national debates the high watermark? What happened to our new Paulista congressmen and school board members and the remaking of the GOP?

The political reality is this, just as Ron Paul accepted the fact that he had to run in a two party system, he now must accept the fact that he cannot oversee the remaking of the GOP as a coach on the sidelines. Surely the lesson of 2008 made that clear. He has to get in the game. He has to play quarterback. He has to run for president. Again.


The fact is that a successful run for president is the only way to reform the GOP and the only way to take control of the party and the only way to get new congressmen elected. People will only get off the ground if they are shooting at the moon. They need the inspiration of a big dream.


Well, you say, the conditions were right in 2008. We had an unpopular war in Iraq and an unpopular president. And Ron Paul’s moment was great theatre. In one of my earlier blogs I compared it to the little boy who cried, “The Emperor has no clothes.” Ron Paul’s arguments were breathtaking. He was reading the collective minds of millions and saying publicly what they were barely able to admit to themselves, let alone to a spouse or a friend. It came as relief to find that these instinctive feelings, these unconscious worries, rested on a bedrock of principle that someone had been tending and fussing over for years. And when the debates ended, 32 million, grateful, dollars came pouring into the Ron Paul Campaign.


But to relegate the Ron Paul phenomenon to a lucky confluence of events, to say it cannot happen again, is to say it was only a parlor trick and never was an argument based on principles. It is to deny ourselves.


Indeed, the one big, frightening collective thought that has come to the Paulista nation in recent months is the reality of all that he and others have been warning us about. All those things they have been saying about the Federal Reserve and the house of cards of this global world economy are now upon us.
If Ron Paul cannot get a political head of steam going in this environment then who can? And if not now, when the daily news confirms their prescience, then when would they ever be able to do it?

We who believe in the original American idea, or even some remote version of it, or ever believe in a free markeplace, must rally now, or forever resign from public life. What will we tell our grandchildren? We didn’t try because we didn’t think we could win? Shouldn’t the American people be given that choice? Shouldn’t the media be forced to confront it as well? Remember, our currently serving lame duck president is a “conservative Republican.” And he willingly “socialized” the American banking system to buy a few good days on the stock market for the Republican nominee.


After being warned about all of this for years, it is still chilling to see it all disappear so quickly, like bath water down the drain. The fact is that Ron Paul must run for president again. He must.


Note: Is he too old? Hell yes, but I will talk to that on Wednesday. And how could he possibly win? I will address that on Thursday or maybe next week. I just got home from an around the world speaking tour, gotta get a nap in before trying to save America.


Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

* Ron Paul – Political Maverick and Revolutionist - Opening Republican and …
* The Problem with Ron Paul’s Thinking.

* Ron Paul’s Best Advice Ever
* Libertarians Read, Right? Then Read This

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/ron-paul-for-president-in-2012/

ItsTime
11-25-2008, 08:53 PM
What dont you get about the fact that he does not want to be president?

Sematary
11-25-2008, 08:54 PM
No. He'll be too old and would never win an election. We need a new standard bearer. And it's not Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura.

ClayTrainor
11-25-2008, 09:08 PM
I think Ron may still be in good shape in another 4 years. I don't think he's completely ruled out another run yet, has he?

He has until next year to decide, according to Benton.

JoshLowry
11-25-2008, 09:09 PM
What dont you get about the fact that he does not want to be president?

wat?

He'd wake up more people than anyone else in 2012.

ItsTime
11-25-2008, 09:17 PM
wat?

He'd wake up more people than anyone else in 2012.

I agree. I would rather see him stumping for someone, lets face it he is old, he has fought his whole life to see this happen, let us take the reins and run with this.

If he decided to run again I would support him 100% but I dont think he wants to.

SouthGeorgia61
11-25-2008, 09:25 PM
Ron could win in 2012 because there is no way anyone could deny how right he was on the economy. Jesse could also win as an independent if Ron doesn't run or loses the Republican nomination. I don't know why a lot of people here are opposed to Ventura, he is a 100% free thinker who wants the best for his country and is not as "liberal" as people make him out to be.

heavenlyboy34
11-25-2008, 09:25 PM
Voting Fourth Party Part 2: A Solution for Ron Paul Supporters


by Sandra Hamilton (SandraHamilton@mail.org)
by Sandra Hamilton



http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=58&campaignid=48&zoneid=5&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Forig8%2Fham ilton5.html&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcustom%3Fhl% 3Den%26cof%3DL%253Ahttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.lewrockw ell.com%252Flewroc1a.gif%253BLH%253A93%253BLW%253A 500%253B%26domains%3Dlewrockwell.com%26q%3D2+party %26btnG%3DSearch%26sitesearch%3Dlewrockwell.com&cb=d973cbfe83

I recently wrote an article titled Voting Fourth Party (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hamilton4.html). In it I made a suggestion for people that were not content to pick just any ole third-party candidate. I stated that if they did not like any of the candidates or what they stood for, they could instead write in the name of the person they DID want to be President. (For many of us that would be Dr. Ron Paul.) Alternatively, none of the above is also a good choice.
Sadly, in many states, these write-in votes can not be counted for the candidate of your choice unless that person registers in advance as a write-in candidate. Alternatively, in some states you cannot write in anyone, others prevent you from writing in a candidate who lost in a primary even if they did register, and in a few lucky places all write-ins are counted. Here is a link (http://writein2008.blogspot.com/search/label/Delaware) that will tell you how your state does it. Please verify with your Secretary of State as the information may have changed.
I received a ton of mail on the topic (thank you to all that wrote to me, I learned something from each and every one of you). I am writing this follow-up because I would like to explain my position more fully based on some of the comments I received.
Many people wrote in to say that because their state will not count write-in votes at all, my position was foolish. I will address that concern.
I am suggesting voting as a write-in PRECISELY because it will not be counted. This holds true especially in the states that throw those votes in the trash. By taking this action, we expose the sham that is a supposedly democratic society. We force the state to take a notably undemocratic action: throwing a vote in the trash.
The other alternative is to vote for any third-party candidate willy-nilly. I will not vote for someone I dislike because then all I am doing is sending the message that I approve of that person and their politics. By voting third party, I am not sending the message that I disliked the other candidates. Choosing a third-party candidate is a wise course of action if you do like that person, but if you do not, you will only get more of the above. After all, you voiced your approval.
Another course of action suggested was to not vote at all because to do so is to participate in an illegitimate system. I am not unsympathetic to that argument. However, instead of not voting I choose instead to make a statement – I voted but the State actually stole my vote and threw it in the garbage. Rightly or wrongly, a non-vote is usually seen as apathy and that is not the message I want to send. I do not disagree with that approach, but I am more of an activist. I want to force the state to take an action against me. I want them to show their hand.
Rather than staying home, by voting as a write-in I am saying, I did not like any of your candidates. Imagine if we all did it? Then where would they be? How would they legitimize the theft? How would they claim that the people had a choice?
Imagine if the 49% or more who do not vote all instead wrote in a name. Imagine seeing that McCain got 25% of the vote, Obama received 25% and 49% voted for "other." Wouldn’t that be a stronger message?
The government grabs our children as early as possible and teaches them their version of history; they teach them their version of democracy. They pretend you have a choice so that you will not complain. After all, you voted for a candidate, right? You had your democratic moment. Well, I do not recognize "your money or your life" as a choice. I choose instead to vote the way I want and to make the state take the action of tearing up my vote. Then I can proudly say, I did vote, but the state stopped me because it was too frightened of my ability to choose, so this mess is your fault.
If you agree to play in a rigged game, how can you complain when you are swindled? You chose to participate. Well, this game is as rigged as it gets. I will not play. However, rather than staying home, I choose to make the state show one of its cards. Again, imagine if we all did it? The game would collapse. It needs willing participants to give it the air of legitimacy it needs. Without that, well, the people might see that they really do not have any choice in this supposedly representative Republic and the most basic right, the right to vote, is finally seen as an illusion.
Many states such as Texas, where your write-in vote will be "ignored," (as told to me by the Secretary of State’s office) are really saying: You do not have a choice here; dissenters are unwelcome. We refuse to recognize that anyone is unhappy. This is akin to the way those that march against Bush’s policies are shuffled into a "free speech zone" blocks away so the President never has to see that anyone is unhappy with his policies. We must fight these assaults on our freedom of expression.
Someone has to start saying the Emperor has no clothes. Insanity is repeating the same mistakes expecting different results.
I will end with an email sent to the Secretary of State’s office in Texas. Feel free to copy it if your state also ignores all write-ins unless the person has registered. First, email to make sure you understand their position. If they clarify that the write-in votes will not be counted, will be ignored, or otherwise thrown in the trash unless that person has properly registered, then send them this and cc a bunch of newspaper reporters in your state:
To whom it may concern:
Just so I have this clear. If a person chooses to write in a candidate that did not declare, or register, those votes will be ignored, and that person's right to make any statement in this Presidential election will be taken away from them? Even people who vote for Mickey Mouse are making a statement. But you are going to silence all of those voices? Have I got it correct?
Only those that recognize the fallacy of the "choices" presented to us will be allowed to vote? The rest of us, who are not happy with our choices are better off staying at home? Is that really what you are telling me? You are removing the right to vote for "other"?
While, it is clear that the Bush Administration has removed many of our Constitutional rights, I did not know the right to vote was among them.
This makes me very sad. What happened to America? Where did it go?
Please tell me – for a person who abhors the choices presented to her – how I am supposed to say so? If I must pick a person on the ballot then any vote I make will only be counted as an affirmative vote for the "lesser of several evils" choice I make. That means I still have to vote for evil. I do not want to vote for evil.
Under this system, you are telling the disgruntled to go away. Please hide in the closet. We will only recognize the people who are happy with the process. Any dissent must be silenced. Either you will like the choices given to you or you will remain quiet. We cannot hear from anyone who is not content. Would you call that the American way of doing things?
I beg you to reconsider ignoring these votes completely. These people have something to say. They are saying – we are unhappy. Please hear us. Those who are registered in a party can say "I don't like the person the party picked" and the party can hear them: But not if their vote is ignored.
What good is free speech if we are only allowed to say what we want in our own closet? These "other" votes are a statement. Please don't silence democracy.
Please report these votes in total. Let the people hear how many are unhappy. Let the parties hear how many they have failed to reach. Let their voices be heard. Or are you telling them all to stay home? Do you really want to make apathy the intelligent choice? Right now it is pretty stupid to go to the polls if you do not like the choices: So much for getting out the vote. I guess only "certain" people are allowed to speak.
Perhaps if the American public really understood how fixed the game is, they might start to complain. A girl can dream can’t she?
Peace.

September 17, 2008

Feelgood
11-26-2008, 05:41 PM
I think Ron may still be in good shape in another 4 years. I don't think he's completely ruled out another run yet, has he?

He has until next year to decide, according to Benton.

Yes he has already stated he will not be running again.

nate895
11-26-2008, 05:44 PM
Yes he has already stated he will not be running again.

Benton has stated that he hasn't ruled out another run, and that the will make the decision by mid-2009.

brandon
11-26-2008, 06:39 PM
I agree. I would rather see him stumping for someone, lets face it he is old, he has fought his whole life to see this happen, let us take the reins and run with this.

If he decided to run again I would support him 100% but I dont think he wants to.

There is not a single person who is in the position to "take the reins" and run for president in 2012 besides Ron Paul. No one else has the credibility Paul has.

zach
11-26-2008, 06:58 PM
How about if he says, "I will run for the Presidential candidacy for 2012," then we fully support him, make sure his campaign is run to actually win a presidency, etc. If he states that he won't, then we'll find someone who can fill his shoes to a close point - voting record and all. There needs to be good communication between a campaign and its grassroots if the two expect a successful win.

That's what I think, at least.

DXDoug
12-11-2008, 07:12 PM
:p totally agree.. ready to put ron paul 2012 on my car !