Carol Paul - Ron will run if the people need him.

[Phantom]

radiofriendly (http://www.dailypaul.com/user/2567) posted a short video over at the DailyPaul.com (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/135642#comment-1448000) where Carol Paul was asked if Ron Paul was going to run for President in 2012 and she replied, "If the country was in a crisis period and the people needed someone with the knowledge that Ron Paul has, HE WOULD DO IT".

So there you have it, from a very close Ron Paul source. Ron will run if we need him and need him we do. The world financial crisis we are all experiencing now is only going to get worse and we will need to call on Ron Paul.

Run Ron, Run! The people need you.

Here is the video - Carol Paul about 2012: (6:15)
YouTube - Carol Paul + Kelley Ashby Paul + Rand Paul Rally Interviews Lousiville Kentucky | YAL @ IU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPbkwgYQcqg)

[phill4paul]

Country in crisis.... Check.

In need of an individual knowledgeable in economics... Check.

Ron Paul 2012!

[MelissaCato]

Ron Paul 2012 !!

[Elwar]

He will run.

http://www.TheRonPaulTeaParty.com

He will win.

[RM918]

I really wish we didn't need him to do it, no-one deserves a rest more than Ron, but the need is clear.

[MelissaCato]

Hope Judge Andrew Napolitano is his veep. :D:D:D

[johnrocks]

We need you Ron!!!

[Chester Copperpot]

I really wish we didn't need him to do it, no-one deserves a rest more than Ron, but the need is clear.

Thats very true

[Cowlesy]

He will run.

[WorldonaString]

He will run.

and he will win.

[Phantom]

RM918
I really wish we didn't need him to do it, no-one deserves a rest more than Ron, but the need is clear.

I couldn't agree more RM. Even Carol said "it takes a lot out of him". But the need is great and Ron will see that too and make his announcment to run.

[Bruno]

run, Ron, run!

[TruckinMike]

and he will win.

Neo-con leadership would rather have Obama win. His views are more in line with their agenda. == However, Newt and the boys do not have a firm grip on the tea partiers. Its possible for a Paul win, but only if we can capture the minds of the neo-con tea party attendees.

TMike

[MsDoodahs]

I do not want Ron to run again.

I admit, I am selfish.

[TruckinMike]

I do not want Ron to run again.

I admit, I am selfish.

I would say that was more selfless than selfish.

TMike

[Bruno]

I do not want Ron to run again.

I admit, I am selfish.

http://i46.tinypic.com/of6991.jpg

[cheapseats]

He will run.

I would ask the obvious question. WHY DOESN'T HE ANNOUNCE IT?

What is gained by coyness like "I really haven't given it any thought"? Which he DID say in an interview, and which is BLATANTLY less than Truthful.

What is gained by giving "his people" less time to persuade the many, many, many Doubting Thomases that DO exist beyond the confines of a Ron Paul Board?

An announcement that he WILL seek the Presidency will spare his Devotees considerable infighting, and free them up from Hypotheticals to buckle down on Tangibles. Conversely, if he will NOT run, or if he will not be popularly EMBRACED, the more time Die Hard Ron Paulers have to reach consensus on an alternative candidate, the better.

Am I off the mark in suggesting that Ron Paul's INDECISIVENESS about a presidential run prevents his IMPASSIONED SUPPORTERS from jumping on the oh-so-logical VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT bandwagon?

[brandon]

He will run and he will win.

/thread

[Imaginos]

We ARE in crisis and we need Ron Paul now more than ever.
I am sorry Ron but you have to run!!!
We need you desperately and we don't have any alternative.
There's no one we can count on when it comes to defending liberty, freedom, sound monetary policy, and constitution.
Please Ron, fight for us one more time.
This time, it'll be different.
We'll fight with everything we got as well because now we know how grave danger we are in.

[cheapseats]

We need you desperately and we don't have any alternative.

Sooo, once again, everything rides on One Man?

[cheapseats]

He will run and he will win.

/thread

You sound thoroughly confident.

Can YOU shed any light on his HESITANCY to announce?

[jmdrake]

Ron will be 77 in 2012. Young enough for one last run. Rand will run in 2016 (assuming Ron doesn't win in 2012).

[Bruno]

You sound thoroughly confident.

Can YOU shed any light on his HESITANCY to announce?

Its called TIMING

Can YOU shed any light on his HESITANCY to denounce? :)

[brandon]

You sound thoroughly confident.

Can YOU shed any light on his HESITANCY to announce?

Can YOU shed any light on the fact that there are currently zero announced republican candidates?

[jmdrake]

You sound thoroughly confident.

Can YOU shed any light on his HESITANCY to announce?

As someone else pointed out, nobody announces this early. But also if Rand announced before this primary season was up, funding for liberty candidates would dry up. Everyone would be saving up to to donate to Ron. He definitely won't announce until after all of the primaries, and probably not until after the Nov. general election.

[Krugerrand]

http://i46.tinypic.com/of6991.jpg

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Ms D is in RP's district.

[james1906]

Candidates don't usually announce until the midterm elections are over.

[MyLibertyStuff]

He has to run!

[Elle]

As much as I would like to see Dr. Paul as POTUS, I don't want it at the expense of it completely draining him. I'd rather he be able to enjoy his family. Dr. Paul has opened my eyes to what is really going on more than any President ever could. I think it is up to the rest of us that believe in him to carry the torch that he ignited.

[Bruno]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Ms D is in RP's district.

got it, thanks! :)

[KCIndy]

I don't see him announcing until January '11 or after. It only makes sense to wait until after the elections this fall.

If (IF!) that's the case, then we have approximately 28-30 weeks to prepare.

Everyone should get a can, jar, or piggy bank and try to drop $10 per week into it. Give up your Starbucks coffee twice a week, or brown bag your lunch, cut back on whatever bad habit you've been meaning to give up, and try to stuff at least ten bucks into that jar every week.

By the time January '11 rolls around, everyone who does this could have $250 to $300 to contribute to a Ron Paul moneybomb! :D

[MsDoodahs]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Ms D is in RP's district.

No, in the neighboring district.

Michael McCaul is my critter.

[cheapseats]

Can YOU shed any light on the fact that there are currently zero announced republican candidates?

Maybe 'cuz, if it's gonna take another 6-8 years for the economy to "bounce" back from Depression, like it took more than a decade AND a World War to achieve "correction" of the LAST Depression, Old Guard Republicans would like another term of fallout to fall on someone other than themselves?

[Mahkato]

I suggest that everyone just keeps working as if he's NOT going to run. If he does run, good. If he doesn't run, well, that'll be okay too. As long as you keep working.

[cheapseats]

Ron will be 77 in 2012. Young enough for one last run. Rand will run in 2016 (assuming Ron doesn't win in 2012).

Would you consider 77 young if it were an Opposition Candidate touting so many years of Experience?

[cheapseats]

Its called TIMING

TIMING IS EVERYTHING, we've all heard it said. PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE. Look before you leap. Err on the side of caution. Be careful what you wish for. Easy does it.

We have ALSO heard it said:

HE WHO HESITATES IS LOST.

THE EARLY BIRD CATCHES THE WORM.

SEIZE THE MOMENT.

THERE'S NO TIME LIKE THE PRESENT.

TODAY IS THE FIRST DAY OF THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.

GAMBLE BIG, WIN BIG.

PISS, OR GET OFF THE POT.

Different schools of thought, yes?

How has PLAYING IT SAFE been workin' out for us so far?




Can YOU shed any light on his HESITANCY to denounce? :)

Hedging his bets?

[cheapseats]

Ron will be 77 in 2012. Young enough for one last run. Rand will run in 2016 (assuming Ron doesn't win in 2012).

Setting aside that Rand Paul is not yet a Senator -- again, focus on yer OPPOSITION, i.e. from whence Criticism will come -- are y'all generally satisfied that one term as Senator establishes readiness to be Chief Executive Officer and Commander in Chief?

[jmdrake]

Would you consider 77 young if it were an Opposition Candidate touting so many years of Experience?

And the opposition candidate was in as good physical and mental shape as Ron is? Certainly. Attacking a candidate based on age is stupid. Last time that happened Ronald Reagan made a joke of it. He won by a landslide. And sure Ron is older now than Reagan was then, but his health is at least as good. Plus do you like to be the campaign strategist who had to try to turn this into an attack ad? Throw me in that briar patch!

[jmdrake]

Setting aside that Rand Paul is not yet a Senator -- again, focus on yer OPPOSITION, i.e. from whence Criticism will come -- are y'all generally satisfied that one term as Senator establishes readiness to be Chief Executive Officer and Commander in Chief?

A. The precedence has already been set with Obama.
B. The dems were ready to anoint John Edwards as VP (one heartbeat away from the presidency) with only one term.
C. If you're thinking about Gary Johnson, he's going to get killed on the abortion issue.
D. I'm not one of those saying "Rand can run in 2012".

[cheapseats]

As someone else pointed out, nobody announces this early.

Y'all need to make a decision whether yer playin' BY THE BOOK or charting a NEW GAME PLAN.

But playing BY the book when it suits your purpose (say, when you WANT your candidates to be on TV), then REJECTING the rules (say, when you applaud your candidate CANCELING a TV appearance after a previous appearance went awry) speaks neither to Principles NOR Effectiveness.




But also if Rand announced before this primary season was up, funding for liberty candidates would dry up. Everyone would be saving up to to donate to Ron. He definitely won't announce until after all of the primaries, and probably not until after the Nov. general election.

Maybe it's time to scrutinize the MONEY-SLASH-MOSH-PIT between Republican Candidates and Liberty Candidates? I cannot for the life of me figger out Republican Party Loyalty at THIS juncture.

[cheapseats]

A. The precedence has already been set with Obama.


Howz THAT workin' out for us?

[Bruno]

TIMING IS EVERYTHING, we've all heard it said. PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE. Look before you leap. Err on the side of caution. Be careful what you wish for. Easy does it.

We have ALSO heard it said:

HE WHO HESITATES IS LOST.

THE EARLY BIRD CATCHES THE WORM.

SEIZE THE MOMENT.

THERE'S NO TIME LIKE THE PRESENT.

TODAY IS THE FIRST DAY OF THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.

GAMBLE BIG, WIN BIG.

Different schools of thought, yes?

How has PLAYING IT SAFE been workin' out for us so far?





Hedging his bets?


Here's a few more for ya:

TIME WILL TELL

GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE

[cheapseats]

And sure Ron is older now than Reagan was then, but his health is at least as good. Plus do you like to be the campaign strategist who had to try to turn this into an attack ad? Throw me in that briar patch!

Are you of the opinion that the Opposition Strategerists who sling mud and ooze innuendo are the Front Men? Or do you think the low blows are delivered stealthily, by "rogues" from whom Opposition Leaders can oh-so-politely distance themselves?

[cheapseats]

Here's a few more for ya:

TIME WILL TELL

Judgment Day, if not sooner.




GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE

Almost an American MOTTO, that one. Powerless Resignation.

“As well might you leave the fairies to plough your land or the idle winds to sow it, as sit down and wait for freedom.” - Thomas Davis

[jmdrake]

Y'all need to make a decision whether yer playin' BY THE BOOK or charting a NEW GAME PLAN.

But playing BY the book when it suits your purpose (say, when you WANT your candidates to be on TV), then REJECTING the rules (say, when you applaud your candidate CANCELING a TV appearance after a previous appearance went awry) speaks neither to Principles NOR Effectiveness.


Y'all? Who's this "y'all" you're talking about? :rolleyes:

As for not "playing by the rules" are there some FEC violations that I don't know about? Because last time I checked there was not law about canceling a TV appearance. Speaking only for myself (I'm not going around speaking for "y'all") I understand the political wisdom of the campaign talking a breather for second. People seem to forget that Rand is not running in a national election at this point. He doesn't have to be on national media to win. And winning in KY is more important than playing by some imaginary "rule". Going on MTP and taking more questions on the CRA does nothing to move the ball forward on the ground in KY. Now if he drops significantly (say being only 10 points ahead) then maybe you can talk about what "rules" have been broken.



Maybe it's time to scrutinize the MONEY-SLASH-MOSH-PIT between Republican Candidates and Liberty Candidates? I cannot for the life of me figger out Republican Party Loyalty at THIS juncture.

I'm not sure what your question is. But my point is that Ron (and I see I mistyped in the earlier post) will drain money from Rand, Peter Schiff, Adam Kokesh and every other liberty candidate if he announces now. For the record I'm defining "liberty candidate" as someone who has a subforum at RPF and/or has been endorsed by Ron Paul. (Yes there are some others, but you have to cut the line off somewhere). It's really simple. If Ron were to announce today the next Rand/Peter/Kokesh/Harris/Lawson etc moneybomb would be significantly less because people would be saving up to donate for Ron. Understand now?

[jmdrake]

Howz THAT workin' out for us?

No worse than it would be if "experienced" Hillary Clinton had been elected or "experienced" Joe Biden. In fact if anything Obama has been too successful.

[jmdrake]

Are you of the opinion that the Opposition Strategerists who sling mud and ooze innuendo are the Front Men? Or do you think the low blows are delivered stealthily, by "rogues" from whom Opposition Leaders can oh-so-politely distance themselves?

It doesn't matter if they sling mud out front or if they sling it from a distance. Any campaign that tried to make an issue of a candidates advanced age would stand to lose more votes than they would gain.

[Bruno]

Judgment Day, if not sooner.





Almost an American MOTTO, that one. Powerless Resignation.

“As well might you leave the fairies to plough your land or the idle winds to sow it, as sit down and wait for freedom.” - Thomas Davis

Considering we can't MAKE Ron announce he will run, what are the other options?

[pcosmar]

Judgment Day, if not sooner.





Almost an American MOTTO, that one. Powerless Resignation.

“As well might you leave the fairies to plough your land or the idle winds to sow it, as sit down and wait for freedom.” - Thomas Davis

It may seem so. But not really.
I hope Ron will choose to run. If so he will announce in his own time.

As far as the rest of "us" (yourself included) we all do what we can.
Most here are committed to peaceful change. As am I. I will pursue all peaceful means, but am not confidant of results.
Some wish for more direct action.
That may come. But speaking of it openly is both dangerous and unwise.
For now I will do what we can Peacefully and through the political processes.
I believe we have already delayed the NWO progress. Delay may be the best we can do.
Time will tell. ;)

[RCA]

This country has been in a semi-crisis for 30 years. I think she means when the "sheeple" think we're in a crisis. If that's what she means, I think we still have a long way to go before that happens.

[Elwar]

I suggest that everyone just keeps working as if he's NOT going to run. If he does run, good. If he doesn't run, well, that'll be okay too. As long as you keep working.

I suggest everyone work as if he IS going to run. If he doesn't run, transfer the groundwork you did to the liberty candidate who does run. If he does run, then you're 30 weeks ahead of all of the other candidate's supporters.

[cheapseats]

Y'all? Who's this "y'all" you're talking about? :rolleyes:

Roll your eyes all you want. If you think Ron Paulers don't succumb to GROUP THINK, yer either not paying attention or yer biased...in the manner of a Group Thinker.




As for not "playing by the rules" are there some FEC violations that I don't know about? Because last time I checked there was not law about canceling a TV appearance. Speaking only for myself (I'm not going around speaking for "y'all") I understand the political wisdom of the campaign talking a breather for second.

If Rand Paul canceling Meet The Press on the heels of his Rachel Maddow BLUNDER speaks to a guileless breather, you are DEFINITELY one of y'all.




People seem to forget that Rand is not running in a national election at this point.

Which begs the question of why so much of LIBERTY Forest's time, attention, money, organizational effort and emotional commitment are expended on ONE candidate in ONE OF FIFTY states.

Pretend Rand Paul wins in Kentucky AND Peter Schiff wins in Connecticut (and Ratzinger resigns) AND Ron Paul is President. Do we imagine that SANE, RESTRAINED LEGISLATION will suddenly slide through Congress like a warm knife through butter?




He doesn't have to be on national media to win. And winning in KY is more important than playing by some imaginary "rule".


Then why go on National Media in the first place? Does it still come as a surprise to Libertarians when Mainstream Media Whores publicly BUSHWHACK them? Are the Media Bullies breaking the RUUUULES?





I'm not sure what your question is. But my point is that Ron (and I see I mistyped in the earlier post) will drain money from Rand, Peter Schiff, Adam Kokesh and every other liberty candidate if he announces now.

Then "we" have a whole different problem, don't we? Are you suggesting that, if Ron Paul will grace us with a presidential bid, people will realize we don't NEED other Liberty Candidates? Ron Paul, like Messiahs before him, can float the boat himself?




For the record I'm defining "liberty candidate" as someone who has a subforum at RPF and/or has been endorsed by Ron Paul. (Yes there are some others, but you have to cut the line off somewhere). It's really simple.

It's really simple that Liberty Candidates recognized by Liberty Forest are those candidates with subforums on Liberty Forest. It is LESS clear what leapfrogs a candidate to subforum status.




If Ron were to announce today the next Rand/Peter/Kokesh/Harris/Lawson etc moneybomb would be significantly less because people would be saving up to donate for Ron. Understand now?

Clear as mud.

[MelissaCato]

I don't see him announcing until January '11 or after. It only makes sense to wait until after the elections this fall.

If (IF!) that's the case, then we have approximately 28-30 weeks to prepare.

Everyone should get a can, jar, or piggy bank and try to drop $10 per week into it. Give up your Starbucks coffee twice a week, or brown bag your lunch, cut back on whatever bad habit you've been meaning to give up, and try to stuff at least ten bucks into that jar every week.

By the time January '11 rolls around, everyone who does this could have $250 to $300 to contribute to a Ron Paul moneybomb! :D

Great idea. We could make history again on a Ron Paul money bomb. :D:D:D

[cheapseats]

It doesn't matter if they sling mud out front or if they sling it from a distance. Any campaign that tried to make an issue of a candidates advanced age would stand to lose more votes than they would gain.

Sooo, YOU are in possession of political savvy that eludes ENTRENCHED RULING ELITE?

They'll play the Kook Card. They'll play the Ralph Nader Repeat Loser card. And -- I am not here to argue this point, heed the warning or disregard it -- ESPECIALLY IF Y'ALL HIDE FROM THE RACISM CHARGE, they will play the Anti Semite card.

The closer to the election they upset his apple cart, LIKE RACHEL MADDOW JUST DID TO RAND PAUL, the LESS likely that a "liberty-leaning" candidate will prevail.

[cheapseats]

Some wish for more direct action.
That may come. But speaking of it openly is both dangerous and unwise.

Yes, well. Speaking "secretly" is not so secret as the Secretive imagine, or we wouldn't be treated to a steady stream of "busts" featuring FBI/ATFE/CIA/DHS plants. MsDoodah would not feel the need to issue warning of "Dilution and Misdirection" Techniques.

I've MET a few of the Bobbers & Weavers, thank you very much. While duly impressed by their Skillz and Hardware, I am DISTINCTLY of the impression that they mean to save only themselves and "their Kind."



For now I will do what we can Peacefully and through the political processes.
I believe we have already delayed the NWO progress.

You can delay a root canal or an appendectomy, too. For awhile.




Delay may be the best we can do.
Time will tell. ;)

Powerless Resignation.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I am not going to cry if Ron decided to run instead of grow old and be happy but I don't think it says much of the Ron Paul revolution if we need him to run. In some ways I think Dr. Paul only ever wanted people to come together and take the torch.

How come the Ron Paul revolution hasn't drafted a new DoI articulating the grievances and been working to get those grievances rectified or working on getting states to ratify a new constitution?

How come the Ron Paul revolution hasn't given serious consideration to geographical organization en masse?

How come the Ron Paul revolution hasn't created any national media companies to spread the message?

How come the Ron Paul revolution does not have a private club with a private barter and trade network using sound currency?

How come there hasn't been any serious discussion about anything other than a couple electoral candidates whose two votes are not going to effect any change in the grand scheme of things unless it is a gridlock issue?

[dannno]

Well this is kind of nice to see first thing in the morning.

[yokna7]

president Paul = greatest shit ever

[cheapseats]

president Paul = greatest shit ever

THAT oughtta play in Peoria.

[pcosmar]

Delay may be the best we can do.
Time will tell.


Powerless Resignation.

Perhaps so.
I believe that a One World Government is very likely inevitable. Though I hope to delay it as long as possible.
I vow to resist it in any and all ways possible. Peacefully for now.
I honestly expect to be a casualty of this.

Other than bashing everyone , What do you propose? What is your "better" plan?
Suggestions?

[Cowlesy]

Well this is kind of nice to see first thing in the morning.

:)

[cheapseats]

I honestly expect to be a casualty of this.

We are ALL Casualties, one way or another.



Other than bashing everyone ,

BASHING PEOPLE is a favorite pastime around here, if they ain't LOCKSTEP. That I GIVE better than I get falls under SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.



What do you propose? What is your "better" plan?
Suggestions?

I do, indeed, have some suggestions, and I do mean to run 'em up the flagpole. But having been around the block in this joint, I know to brave the RESILIENCE TO CRITICISM waters before testing the deep end of RECEPTIVITY TO CHANGE.

[jmdrake]

Roll your eyes all you want. If you think Ron Paulers don't succumb to GROUP THINK, yer either not paying attention or yer biased...in the manner of a Group Thinker.


Let's see. Either you are a Ron Pauler or you aren't. If you aren't then what are you doing here? If you are then are you not yourself counter proof of "group think"? People have been openly critical of Rand since the questions over Gitmo (myself included). But deciding not to go on MTP is a non issue.




If Rand Paul canceling Meet The Press on the heels of his Rachel Maddow BLUNDER speaks to a guileless breather, you are DEFINITELY one of y'all.


Well if "y'all" represents people who care about principles but don't give a rip about stupid side issues like whether or not Rand went on a particular TV show then yes, I'm part of "y'all". Your mistake is thinking that "assuming the campaign might know what it's doing when it's 25 points AHEAD in the polls" is somehow "groupthink". Really, "y'all" (as in people like yourself) have it backwards. You want to give the campaign hell because you don't like a particular stance on an issue? Fine. You want to give it hell over campaign strategy when all of the signs show it's still WINNING? Why? :confused:



Which begs the question of why so much of LIBERTY Forest's time, attention, money, organizational effort and emotional commitment are expended on ONE candidate in ONE OF FIFTY states.


Cause this will be the first real big win the CFL has had. You have to start somewhere. Also this is the free market at work. Nobody (with any authority anyway) has said "Only support Rand Paul". There have been money bombs for candidates I've never even heard of (and some who realistically don't stand a chance).



Pretend Rand Paul wins in Kentucky AND Peter Schiff wins in Connecticut (and Ratzinger resigns) AND Ron Paul is President. Do we imagine that SANE, RESTRAINED LEGISLATION will suddenly slide through Congress like a warm knife through butter?


I imagine that should Rand win (and he will win) that it will be that much easier for other candidates to win next go round. In fact I don't just imagine that. I'm certain of it. And a couple of wins will go a lot further than 100 "near misses".



Then why go on National Media in the first place? Does it still come as a surprise to Libertarians when Mainstream Media Whores publicly BUSHWHACK them? Are the Media Bullies breaking the RUUUULES?


I never said they were breaking the rules. Why do you keep attacking positions I have never taken? Rand went on the national media because he (wrongly) assumed he wouldn't be attacked like he was since he got a free ride during the primaries. I've said multiple times before this (like when some folks were making uninformed comments like "Rand is so much better of a candidate then Medina") that Rand hadn't been tested yet and eventually he would. Fine. The media did what I expected they would do. And the Rand campaign made a strategic decision to back away from the MSM for a bit. Either it's a good strategic decision or it isn't. But there is no freaking "rule" about this. Are you complaining because you honestly think this will significantly hurt Rand in KENTUCKY? Or do you have some other agenda? Really, what's your point?




Then "we" have a whole different problem, don't we? Are you suggesting that, if Ron Paul will grace us with a presidential bid, people will realize we don't NEED other Liberty Candidates? Ron Paul, like Messiahs before him, can float the boat himself?


Not at all. I'm pointing out the obvious that people have a limited supply of money and they would donate some to Ron's presidential campaign now (if they had it) or save up to donate. Really, it's elementary school level math we're talking about. It's not that hard.

If Gary Johnson were to announce he was running for president some people might divert money to his candidacy now too. The presidency is (by definition) a much bigger race. It's going to cost a lot more money. The only reason to announce this early would be to start the fund raising sooner. And starting the fund raising sooner would necessarily hurt other campaigns that need the money now.




It's really simple that Liberty Candidates recognized by Liberty Forest are those candidates with subforums on Liberty Forest. It is LESS clear what leapfrogs a candidate to subforum status.


Enough people bug the admins about setting up a subforum. That's what happened for John Dennis. Is there some candidate that you want to have a subforum for? :confused:

[Carole]

I think he is waiting to see if some other younger qualified, electable individual steps forward so that he will not have to run. He does not want to be President. He would rather support some other competent person. :)

If that person does not appear, then he will reluctantly run again because we are in desparate need of good Constitutional leadership.

[specsaregood]

I think Carol Paul would make a terrific "first lady". Thats about all I have to say on the subject.

[Old Ducker]

Not to state the obvious, but the worse things go for this country, domestically and abroad, the better his chances.

[paulitics]

Ron Paul understands the issues more than any of the other potential liberty candidates. He is the only one that makes the head of the snake, the FED, the focal point of his platform.
He is also the best when it comes to explaining noninterventionism, neoconism, and the military industrial complex.

I just can't get behind GJ until his starts talking about these issues with passion. He needs to put pot on the back burner, until we get out of this crisis. There are dozens of more pressing issues he can be talking about.

[cheapseats]

Not to state the obvious, but the worse things go for this country, domestically and abroad, the better his chances.

Is it not true that when America is AT WAR, as we so often ARE, Americans generally reelect the sitting President? When we flirt with a replacement, isn't there usually a Theatrically Escalated Warfront or a Dramatically Foiled Attack that scares us back into line?

STAY THE COURSE, eh?

[cheapseats]

Let's see. Either you are a Ron Pauler or you aren't. If you aren't then what are you doing here?


I am here because I STRIDENTLY support Sovereignty for America and Freedom for Americans. But yeah, in the spirit of PRINCIPLES OVER PERSONALITIES, reverence for FLAWED INDIVIDUAL HUMANS -- ESPECIALLY in politics -- does make me kinda puke.

Would you rather CONTINUE preaching to the choir?

[Old Ducker]

Is it not true that when America is AT WAR, as we so often ARE, Americans generally reelect the sitting President? When we flirt with a replacement, isn't there usually a Theatrically Escalated Warfront or a Dramatically Foiled Attack that scares us back into line?

STAY THE COURSE, eh?

Sure, if people support the wars. Both Eisenhower and Nixon were elected to end unpopular wars. Even Roosevelt promised lied about keeping us out of the war in europe.

[MelissaWV]

Is it not true that when America is AT WAR, as we so often ARE, Americans generally reelect the sitting President? When we flirt with a replacement, isn't there usually a Theatrically Escalated Warfront or a Dramatically Foiled Attack that scares us back into line?

STAY THE COURSE, eh?

The trouble with this idea is that Obama was "elected to end the wars." It was part of his campaign song & dance routine. Whether people will hold him accountable for the fact that we are still at war on several fronts, expending lives and resources, and are still open for business at Guantanamo... well... that remains to be seen.

[cheapseats]

Sure, if people support the wars. Both Eisenhower and Nixon were elected to end unpopular wars. Even Roosevelt promised lied about keeping us out of the war in europe.

It's not about how many people "support" the wars. Ask around. Lip service GALORE about NOT supporting the wars. Plural. And yet, there we linger.

It's about how many people can be scared into thinking they need Protection. It boggles the mind, but the Kidnapped DO sometimes stay with the Kidnapper even when they could bolt, yes?

The entire PANTHEON of supposedly principled people -- from Libertarian Tough Guys to Little Old Ladies -- do themselves, their country and posterity an epic disservice by not loudly and sustainedly banging the ANTI WAR drums.

[cheapseats]

The trouble with this idea is that Obama was "elected to end the wars." It was part of his campaign song & dance routine. Whether people will hold him accountable for the fact that we are still at war on several fronts, expending lives and resources, and are still open for business at Guantanamo... well... that remains to be seen.

No, it DOESN'T remain to be seen. Dude didn't "just" escalate the war in Afghanistan, in the spirit of Sleazy Sportsmanship, he ordered a surge en route to collect a Nobel Peace Prize, to commence concurrent with Olympic Opening Ceremonies.

People expressed more interest in the "excessively dangerous" bobsled ride.

Anyone know our Death Toll? Any guesses on THEIRS?

[jmdrake]

I am here because I STRIDENTLY support Sovereignty for America and Freedom for Americans. But yeah, in the spirit of PRINCIPLES OVER PERSONALITIES, reverence for FLAWED INDIVIDUAL HUMANS -- ESPECIALLY in politics -- does make me kinda puke.

Would you rather CONTINUE preaching to the choir?

Can you please explain what principle is violated by Rand not going on Meet The Press? Was a property right violated? The just war theory? The non aggression principle? The right to bear arms? The bill of rights? Some other part of the constitution? Really, cause I'm just not feeling you. As far as "reverence for flawed individual humans", I pointed out Rand's gaffs before that was the "in thing" for people to do. But not going on MTP at this moment simply seems like the prudent thing to do. If Rand suddenly drops 20 points in the poll and in some survey shows not going on MTP was a factor then you can come back and say "I told you so". Otherwise you're just making noise from what I see. (Again, if there is some great "principle" that I'm missing please spell it out.)

[jmdrake]

Is it not true that when America is AT WAR, as we so often ARE, Americans generally reelect the sitting President? When we flirt with a replacement, isn't there usually a Theatrically Escalated Warfront or a Dramatically Foiled Attack that scares us back into line?

STAY THE COURSE, eh?

That didn't work out so well for LBJ.

[tangent4ronpaul]

radiofriendly (http://www.dailypaul.com/user/2567) posted a short video over at the DailyPaul.com (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/135642#comment-1448000) where Carol Paul was asked if Ron Paul was going to run for President in 2012 and she replied, "If the country was in a crisis period and the people needed someone with the knowledge that Ron Paul has, HE WOULD DO IT".

So there you have it, from a very close Ron Paul source. Ron will run if we need him and need him we do. The world financial crisis we are all experiencing now is only going to get worse and we will need to call on Ron Paul.
| YAL @ IU[/url]

w00t!

So lets get a private planning sub-forum up and start doing money bombs NOW!

-t

[BuddyRey]

Run, Ron, Run!

[free1]

Run!

[Bman]

Carol Paul - Ron will run if the people need him.

Do we ever!

[Paul Revered]

Great news!

[libertythor]

He virtually ties Obama in a head to head matchup! Run Paul run!

[Xenophage]

I sincerely hope someone else will take up the mantle that Ron has earned over the past several decades. He deserves a break. He deserves retirement.

The Ron Paul presidential campaign was the most significant presidential campaign in my lifetime, and the only campaign during the last election cycle to do anything positive for the country. The remnants of all that campaign energy and money became the Tea Parties, and now we're electing our candidates nationally. We've changed people's minds, made our voices heard, and I believe the swelling of the tide is still just beginning.

Ron Paul made America and Americans better. He's my hero and has done more than I imagined possible, and I will not be disappointed if he does not run again.

[free1]

He was so right with everything he said in the debates. Everyone heard but no one believed it.

There's no way they will pass up voting for Ron this time!

WE NEED YOU RON!!!

[belian78]

THAT oughtta play in Peoria.

I live in Peoria, and if Ron were to run, and if he were to be elected, I'd be saying that every day my feet hit the floor in the morning. :D