PDA

View Full Version : Johnson, Goldwater, Napolitano, Paul 2012




justinc.1089
10-03-2009, 09:26 PM
Why don't we try to get all 4 of them to run?

Think about it. These are some likely candidates excluding the four above:

Palin
Pawlenty
Romney
Huckabee
Jindall
Gingrich
Sanford (maybe)

I would say out of those 5 or 6 will run, or do well and be viable, so if we had 4 candidates running we would have nearly half of all the candidates on the stage.

Its something to think about. It would be hard to marginalize all 4 of them.

rp08orbust
10-03-2009, 10:16 PM
Or they'd take the mic time that Ron Paul got during the debates in 2007 and divide that by 4.

But seriously, this is worth considering.

justinc.1089
10-03-2009, 10:59 PM
Or they'd take the mic time that Ron Paul got during the debates in 2007 and divide that by 4.

But seriously, this is worth considering.

Yeah but I don't think that would matter too much since they would all be saying mostly the same stuff.

And they would be there for each other in debates. They could all laugh at the other candidates when they say stuff like staying in Iraq for 100 years lol!

They could talk about stuff not authorized by the Constitution and then one of our guys could say something like...

"I don't think I have ever heard that the Constitution authorizes that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd ideas promoted by people that claimed the Constitution authorized their absurd ideas when it really does not. I would ask the Neo-con to withdraw his comment and explain that he really didn't mean it..."

with the other three laughing the entire time lol.

Elwar
10-05-2009, 07:16 AM
I believe the more liberty candidates the better. It makes it more mainstream than just having one "oddball" that the others can gang up on without feeling threatened.

The front runner neo-con will be the one that works hard in 2010 to help other Republican candidates the most. The insiders tend to award those candidates that get other Republicans elected. I'm thinking Romney will be our main competition in 2012, and having a former governor who -hasn't- instituted universal health care in his state will be the perfect candidate to put up against him.

tangent4ronpaul
10-30-2009, 10:47 AM
Romney - hmmm... well, as the liberty movement has an advantage in terms of supporters, the bad news is that Mormons vote as a block and will support a member of their church over any other candidate. They make up 1.7% of the population. The good news is that most live in Utah and thier concentration is more spread out, otherwise.

Napolitano does not seem to have any ambitions for a presidential bid, but he would make a fantastic VP pick. He and Paul complement each other. He's better if given longer blocks of time to talk, rather then just sound bites. As a VP pick or just friendly - he will be more valuable if he gets a more solid time slot on FOX.

Independents are the fastest growing block out there, and I think we could win over most of them. That's not going to help a lot in the Primaries, unless we can get them to switch party to Republican.

A GB endorsement would be golden, but FOX seems to be pushing Palin. That means recriuting her as a VP pick or even going Paul as a VP on her ticket could be a winner. Initially, getting FOX viewers on board would be a huge advantage. That means tea party / 912 people. They get up to 4M viewers a night, 2/3rds + are R's and I's that like the freedom message, the rest are D's that wnat to know what they are going to say next and want to get outraged.

Just my 2 cents...

-t

klamath
10-30-2009, 11:05 AM
About the worse idea I have seen. Divide RP's $35 Million up between 4 candidates and watch a real neocon walk away with the nomination.

I am starting to wonder about what the real objective is here? Are there more Chandler Jenkins on here than I thought?

ronpaulhawaii
10-30-2009, 12:00 PM
About the worse idea I have seen. Divide RP's $35 Million up between 4 candidates and watch a real neocon walk away with the nomination.

I am starting to wonder about what the real objective is here? Are there more Chandler Jenkins on here than I thought?

Sheesh, you certainly have a bee up your bonnet today. ;) I see little wrong with having these discussions now; calmly, respectfully, rationally.

How would having some early candidates, before the big money starts, before the voting starts, just for a few debates, hurt? What if a strategy like that was carefully planned to avoid/minimize the doomsday scenarios being thrown around?

Should RP decide to run he will have my full, unwavering support. The platform and vehicle he represents is unique in American history and I am blessed to be a part of it. That said, I think the idea of exploring different strategies, on maximizing the effectiveness of upcoming events, is the right thing to do.

Meatwasp
10-30-2009, 12:10 PM
Sheesh, you certainly have a bee up your bonnet today. ;) I see little wrong with having these discussions now; calmly, respectfully, rationally.

How would having some early candidates, before the big money starts, before the voting starts, just for a few debates, hurt? What if a strategy like that was carefully planned to avoid/minimize the doomsday scenarios being thrown around?

Should RP decide to run he will have my full, unwavering support. The platform and vehicle he represents is unique in American history and I am blessed to be a part of it. That said, I think the idea of exploring different strategies, on maximizing the effectiveness of upcoming events, is the right thing to do.

My problem is with all the other candidates blabbing about the same things Paul has been saying for years will defiantly water down his message. He started it why give the others the same platform.
This is just my 2 cents.

Meatwasp
10-30-2009, 12:14 PM
Paul is unique let him not stand in anyones shadow.

tajitj
10-30-2009, 12:16 PM
Now I could support those guys, but when you talk about Bachmann, or Demint, who some one here speak very highly of we have a problem.

Meatwasp
10-30-2009, 12:33 PM
Another saying is "who that stands alone stands best.

tangent4ronpaul
10-30-2009, 12:55 PM
Paul is unique let him not stand in anyones shadow.

In the campaign we saw Huck change his possitions, start stealing Ron's talking points and obviously hanging on his every word in debates. That was priceless.

Now the media talking heads are esposing his possitions and the lemming that watch them take them as talking points - spreading them far and wide in posting, e-mails and conversations.

The wildfire is beginning...

-t

johnrocks
10-30-2009, 12:58 PM
I think the more liberty candidates ,the better, as long as they stick to the message and not feud among themselves.

Meatwasp
10-30-2009, 02:01 PM
I think the more liberty candidates ,the better, as long as they stick to the message and not feud among themselves.

Yeah right. I can see Ron waving his arms trying to put a point across and one other clown steals his thunder. People who never heard Ron talk will not recognise that the other clown are just repeating what Ron said for years. I am beginning to feel like we are being infiltrated with neocoms trying to destroy Rons chances. Ronald Reagan ran alone and won.

Elwar
10-30-2009, 02:23 PM
The neo-cons ran several candidates and won.

What if everyone in the beginning had said "Rudy's the best neo-con, anyone running against him is just trying to divide the pro-war/big government agenda". They would've been disappointed when the other candidates dropped out and it was just Rudy vs Paul in the debates. They would've lost bad, and we'd be saying President Paul right now.

ronpaulhawaii
10-30-2009, 02:26 PM
My problem is with all the other candidates blabbing about the same things Paul has been saying for years will defiantly water down his message. He started it why give the others the same platform.
This is just my 2 cents.

We have always suffered infiltrations, can't do much about that but carry on as rationally as possible.

I notice that no one is addressing the strategic aspect I keep raising... If this was coordinated, with strategic withdrawals, I fail to see the downside in the early race...

I, also, fail to see why a few candidates saying the same thing will "water down" the message. In fact, it should strengthen it.

IMHO - as long as we go into the actual primaries around a single candidate, I can see win-win...

Meatwasp
10-30-2009, 02:31 PM
Sorry I don't. But at least I put my thoughts down as I honestly see them. I may be the minority but I can take the heat. Ithink.Ha!

klamath
10-30-2009, 02:39 PM
Sheesh, you certainly have a bee up your bonnet today. ;) I see little wrong with having these discussions now; calmly, respectfully, rationally.

How would having some early candidates, before the big money starts, before the voting starts, just for a few debates, hurt? What if a strategy like that was carefully planned to avoid/minimize the doomsday scenarios being thrown around?

Should RP decide to run he will have my full, unwavering support. The platform and vehicle he represents is unique in American history and I am blessed to be a part of it. That said, I think the idea of exploring different strategies, on maximizing the effectiveness of upcoming events, is the right thing to do.

As I have stated if the candidates are only in the debates but not the first primaries that could be a good thing but I don't see that happening.
I figure a little passion now will save a lot of passion later. I didn't get nearly a passionate as others during the campaign and didn't get involved in the mass hords to shread anyone that said the slightest thing against RP or even questioned his chances. I however know that is still there and if there is a deliberate attempt to pit GJ against RP the real divisions will be then.
I have been letting this movement to pit GJ against RP ride off my back for a while but it is getting louder. It is time to show some strong opposition to it so those that are pushing it don't get the idea it will be a cakewalk.

klamath
10-30-2009, 02:43 PM
We have always suffered infiltrations, can't do much about that but carry on as rationally as possible.

I notice that no one is addressing the strategic aspect I keep raising... If this was coordinated, with strategic withdrawals, I fail to see the downside in the early race...

I, also, fail to see why a few candidates saying the same thing will "water down" the message. In fact, it should strengthen it.

IMHO - as long as we go into the actual primaries around a single candidate, I can see win-win...

I agree here but how many candidates have dropped out before the primaries in the past? Once they get that thrill of the campaign in their blood they stick to it through the first primaries.