If Ron Paul runs in 2012...

[LittleLightShining]

does anyone here really think that he would water down his message to win?

Or for that matter that he should?

[klamath]

..

[LittleLightShining]

I thought it wasn't about politicians? More than half of the people on here don't even agree with many of RP's positions yourself included.

I'm confused. Was that an answer to the post?

[MRoCkEd]

does anyone here really think that he would water down his message to win?

Or for that matter that he should?
No and No.
He is never going to be elected president, so he should run again with the goal of waking up as many people as possible.

[Kludge]

No. He´s extremely old. 2012 will probably be his last chance to significantly build on the momentum he and others created in 2008 and prior. He´s been gearing up for this on MSM for months, separating himself from the GOP. I think he may even run independent. :eek:

[rp08orbust]

He is never going to be elected president

As Ron Paul said to George Stephanopolous, would you bet your last dollar on that?

[RATM99]

He has to run. If not then what would be our choices? Obama, the GOP or the TEA-O-CONS? Big governemnt, War, Less Liberty, and More Debt. Paul has to run just on principle alone. We need him to run. If not him then who?

[klamath]

..

[jmdrake]

does anyone here really think that he would water down his message to win?

Or for that matter that he should?

That wouldn't be politically smart. Ron has too much of a record (good one in my opinion) to change it.

[pacelli]

does anyone here really think that he would water down his message to win?

Or for that matter that he should?

If he runs in 2012, I think Ron should beef up his message even more than he did in 2008. The reason I feel this way is because he was running an educational campaign in 2008. If he actually runs to win in 2012, he is going to have to beef up the message and stop playing Mr. Nice Guy. He will need to attack the other candidates and expose their flaws.

[winston_blade]

No. He´s extremely old. 2012 will probably be his last chance to significantly build on the momentum he and others created in 2008 and prior. He´s been gearing up for this on MSM for months, separating himself from the GOP. I think he may even run independent. :eek:

Hmmm....I highly doubt that. He realizes that it wouldn't do anything.

[rp08orbust]

If he runs in 2012, I think Ron should beef up his message even more than he did in 2008. The reason I feel this way is because he was running an educational campaign in 2008. If he actually runs to win in 2012, he is going to have to beef up the message and stop playing Mr. Nice Guy. He will need to attack the other candidates and expose their flaws.

Which brings us back to the Palin endrosement of Rand that makes attacking her a little complicated for the Paul family.

[RM918]

Which brings us back to the Palin endrosement of Rand that makes attacking her a little complicated for the Paul family.

Somehow I doubt if the necessity arises after Rand's election that they'll care very much.

[LittleLightShining]

No and No.
He is never going to be elected president, so he should run again with the goal of waking up as many people as possible.

Ok... let me get this straight...

A presidential campaign should only be embarked upon by Ron Paul for the purpose of education? See, this is what I thought C4L was for-- education. Why wait 2 more years to educate?

I honestly don't think that Ron would run again for education. If he runs again he'd run to win-- if he could get a competent campaign team to help him.

[pacelli]

As Ron Paul said to George Stephanopolous, would you bet your last dollar on that?

Some of us already did.

[rp08orbust]

Some of us already did.

You bet your last dollar that he would win, not that he wouldn't.

[klamath]

..

[pacelli]

You bet your last dollar that he would win, not that he wouldn't.

End result is still the same for me, ain't it?

[jmdrake]

Because everyone has a different idea of "compromising principles" It can't be answered unless there is agreement on "compromising principles".

Not true. Ron Paul laid out key principles in the 3rd party press conference. While this is a floor, not a ceiling, there was broad consensus within this movement on these principles.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ron-Paul-Press-Conference-by-Kevin-Zeese-080910-177.html
Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

[klamath]

..

[LittleLightShining]

Yes RP has his idea of principles but when the question is asked of the members here on their opinion of whether RP will compromise his principles you get THEIR ideas of what "compromising principles" is not RPs. As I stated earlier it is considered compromising principles to have any association with those that don't agree with all your principles, by many on these forums. By that standard RP is compromising his principles all over the place, ie supporting Rand, Bachmann, McClintock all of which hold position contra to RP's positions on MAJOR points. So to the people that scream NO comprimosing principles where is the line? There isn't any, only individual choices.

I don't define compromising principles by association with others who do not share those principles. Compromising a position to appeal to a bigger tent would be.

[TruthisTreason]

does anyone here really think that he would water down his message to win?

Or for that matter that he should?

No....

But, he will be marginalized due to all of the stands he has taken over the years. No way Ron Paul can overcome being a "fringe" candidate. Just look at what they are doing to Rand ... using things Ron says. No way Ron Paul can take the GOP nomination, in my eyes.


I don't think Ron will water down his message.... he couldn't... too much is out there already. He'll have to defend all the positions he's taken, instead of run on a controlled platform.

If Ron Paul could run just on economic and monetary issues he would win hands down, but that won't happen.

I hope he does run just for the shock and educational factor, but I don't think he has a chance in hell at getting the GOP nomination. :o

[ctiger2]

Ron needs to run and just let it all hang out. He needs to rail against the Fed and IRS and War and Wasteful Spending and Debt and Govt Lies. People are thirsting for the truth and I think they're ready to finally hear it. The time will be right when his campaign kicks off a year from now. Worst case scenario is he wakes up millions more and loses.

Ron Paul / Jim Traficant would be my dream ticket.

[jmdrake]

Yes RP has his idea of principles but when the question is asked of the members here on their opinion of whether RP will compromise his principles you get THEIR ideas of what "compromising principles" is not RPs. As I stated earlier it is considered compromising principles to have any association with those that don't agree with all your principles, by many on these forums. By that standard RP is compromising his principles all over the place, ie supporting Rand, Bachmann, McClintock all of which hold position contra to RP's positions on MAJOR points. So to the people that scream NO comprimosing principles where is the line? There isn't any, only individual choices.

Really? I haven't seen that. That certainly hasn't happened in this thread. I've seen certain candidates criticized for seeming to stray from the principles stated. To avoid "stirring the pot", let's look at a candidate that that was rejected by the movement as a whole, Ken Buck. His position of "staying in Afghanistan for 10 years" arguably clashed with the position of:

The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East..

Ken Buck's position did not clash with the C4L survey if you assume that pushing for a "declaration of war after the fact" or taking the position that "declarations of war will be required from here on out" covers the question "Will you oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war?"

This isn't as complicated as people want to make it.

[Austin]

No and No.
He is never going to be elected president, so he should run again with the goal of waking up as many people as possible.
I came here to post just that.

[LittleLightShining]

I came here to post just that.

Can't say this surprises me at all. I guess if the Rothfeld/C4L acolytes say Ron can't win we should just send all our money to Rand and Tate and cross our fingers :rolleyes:

[Libertytree]

"Ron needs to run and just let it all hang out. He needs to rail against the Fed and IRS and War and Wasteful Spending and Debt and Govt Lies. People are thirsting for the truth and I think they're ready to finally hear it. The time will be right when his campaign kicks off a year from now. Worst case scenario is he wakes up millions more and loses.

Ron Paul / Jim Traficant would be my dream ticket. "

I've been thinking the exact same thing. How many more terms in Congress does Ron have in him? He has to be tired of all the BS! He hopefully will pass the torch onto Rand, completing that circle sota speak. Why not go for broke? I think/hope he hears the patriots in this country calling him into service one last time (his wife stated that very thing in a vid I saw a couple weeks ago).

If he has no intention of protecting his congressional seat then he is free to run a no holds barred campaign, lay it ALL on the line and at the very least go out with a clear mind that he didn't run just to wake a few more folks up but ran to win for the sake of the country.

[Flash]

does anyone here really think that he would water down his message to win?

Or for that matter that he should?



I think he will if he really thinks he has a shot at winning he will tone it down a lot. But you have to also take into consideration how just about EVERY mainstream talk radio & tv host was anti-Ron Paul. The media has a huge influence in deciding who gets the GOP nomination, and if the Conservative media is against Paul that could be a big problem.

[constituent]

If Ron Paul... frankly I don't care to speculate.

When Gary Johnson's campaign gets rolling, that'll be a good thing. If Ron Paul's campaign gets rolling, that'll be a good thing too. Neither will receive too much of my time or attention, but that's not to say I won't be supportive to an extent.

[SwordOfShannarah]

I don't think he should compromise on anything. I also don't think we should judge his campaign on whether he won or not, but rather on all the progress that has been made because of the effort. The entire liberty candidate movement that is spawning tens and soon hundreds of liberty oriented candidates owes a huge debt to the Ron Paul 2008 campaign, and much more. I think we should stick behind him and make even more progress this time around.

[klamath]

..

[pahs1994]

I doubt he will run. He should endorse someone very early on so there is no splintering though

[jmdrake]

Bullet points are being posted of Rand's statement of "Palin could make a good president" as compromising principles.
People have stated that to even accept a Palin's endorcement is compromising.
You bring up CFL and yes the whole organization was condemed because of the buck semi endorsment even though the principles of CFL are against the wars in the middle east. RP endorsed Bachmann who has stated a nuclear strike should not be taken off the table against Iran. Schiff who was a RP's advisor believes in the unquestioning support of Israel and a preemptive war against Iran.
Politicians are condemed and called neocons or socialists because of who they endorse on these forums all the frigging time.

The Rand Paul statement on Palin wasn't the only bullet point.

Preemptive nuclear strikes against Iran go against the principles I linked to.

I hadn't heard of Bachmann's position or Ron Paul's endorsement of her, but if what you say is true, that is a compromise of the positions he (Ron Paul) laid out.

As for accepting the Palin endorsement, as you can see those of us who said there were possible negative future repercussions of that were clearly right. Of course some people are so straightjacketted in their thinking that they believe if you point out a negative you're "condemning" someone or saying "they shouldn't do that". I'm not sure why people want to make everything so black and white.

I've seen far more people simply raise concerns than I have people calling liberty candidates "neocons" or "socialists". But I suppose we both may have selection bias. How about this? Those who have concerns avoid the "neocon" and "socialist" label and the other side avoid the "purist" or "naive" or "you just want to lose" label?

Now back to Ken Buck. It's easy to give someone that (most) of us made up our minds about 2 years ago a "pass" on principles. But what happens when the politician is new to everybody like Buck? And how far from the principles of the original movement (note not the principles of the C4L questionnaire) can a candidate stray before it's ok to say "enough is enough"? Yes there is a danger of not ever getting anybody elected. And there's also a danger in backing candidates that have strayed so far off message that it's difficult to still call them "liberty candidates". I'm not suggesting any liberty candidate has gone that far. But is there a limit? Do principles matter at all?

[klamath]

..

[pacelli]

Can't say this surprises me at all. I guess if the Rothfeld/C4L acolytes say Ron can't win we should just send all our money to Rand and Tate and cross our fingers :rolleyes:

Those that want Ron to run another educational campaign for the 2012 election better start planning on 2 things:

1) How they are going to engage in activism without relying on the promotion of moneybombs

and

2) who they are going to vote for in the general election.

[Dreamofunity]

No and No.
He is never going to be elected president, so he should run again with the goal of waking up as many people as possible.


No. He´s extremely old. 2012 will probably be his last chance to significantly build on the momentum he and others created in 2008 and prior. He´s been gearing up for this on MSM for months, separating himself from the GOP. I think he may even run independent. :eek:

These, especially the old part.

[low preference guy]

If Ron Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination, we should have Sheriff Mack run as an independent.

[fatjohn]

No. He´s extremely old. 2012 will probably be his last chance to significantly build on the momentum he and others created in 2008 and prior. He´s been gearing up for this on MSM for months, separating himself from the GOP. I think he may even run independent. :eek:

Here are the chances for passing away during first year in office for the oldest presidents compared to Ron Paul. (+ indicates that inauguration happened before data, - means it happened after. So it is likely that the chances are higher then the actual number and lower respectively)

http://understandinguncertainty.org/node/210

Harrison : +5.5
Paul : -5.3
Buchanan: 4.8
Reagan: 4.7
Taylor: 4.1
Jackson: +3.5
Adams: +3.3
Eisenhower: 2.8
H. W. Bush: 2.7
Truman: 2.6
Ford: 2.2