Ron Needs to Walk off the Stage Next Time.

[yeshuaisiam]

He needs to explain the media bias and that "This is the supposed to be the Republican party debate, but here everybody is advocating to allow torture, more war, more debt, and forget that my campaign has received more donations from active duty military than everybody on this stage combined. It is obvious that the media is biased in promoting these unconstitutional ideas by unfair microphone time, and I will not be a part of this unfair and biased propaganda laced debate".

Then simply walk off and hopefully all supporters present will start chanting "Freedom - Ron Paul - Freedom - Ron Paul - Constitution - Ron Paul - Revolution - Ron Paul - No IRS - Ron Paul - He's the best - Ron Paul" (that chant that many are familiar with)
OR
"THE MEDIA IS BIASED, THE MEDIA IS BIASED"

Then the entire group walk out.

If he doesn't they will silence him just like in 08 and he won't win. That's the reality. We can have all the freaking money bombs in the world and its not going to help if they keep freaking silencing him. Money doesn't vote, people do. People NEED to see his leadership and bravery or else we'll lose Iowa, then New Hampshire. WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME.

He's got to make a stand and he has to STAND OUT & STAND UP to this. If they rip him up in the media for it, so what - they are doing it anyway.

I personally just about can't stand it anymore. I get an email the next day "We need 500k because Ron Paul was blacked out".... Though I love it and want to donate, I know what is going to happen if he doesn't STAND OUT & UP to them. That's why the money bombs are so low because most RP supporters know that throwing money at a problem isn't going to fix it.

If he doesn't stand out in the next several weeks its all over. A few commercials and mailers aren't going to do it. He's got to make a stand and FIGHT for his well deserved presidential office. If its not his style and he doesn't we'll lose. You can't just "keep doing what we are doing".

It's TIME to MAKE A STAND. I think most of us agree we have reached the LINE IN THE SAND and after that is the point of no return (losing primaries). It is MANDATORY he makes a stand if he wants to win.

So that's my rant & suggestion, I hope that somebody in the campaign browses these forums. We'll all support Ron Paul's walk off because we are ALL sick of it.

[UtahApocalypse]

I use to be against this. I use to think it was political suicide.

I was wrong

This is what Ron Paul MUST do. If not Ron Paul then his supporters. Even at this point if it costs the election it is time to stand up and let the media know they will not successfully have another televised debate until they announce true fair rules. They also would have to give the debate over to a unbiased, outside, non-news host.

I think the next debate we need to

"occupy debates"

[FreeTraveler]

I use to be against this. I use to think it was political suicide.

I was wrong

This is what Ron Paul MUST do. If not Ron Paul then his supporters. Even at this point if it costs the election it is time to stand up and let the media know they will not successfully have another televised debate until they announce true fair rules. They also would have to give the debate over to a unbiased, outside, non-news host.

I think the next debate we need to

"occupy debates"
Yeah, I'm leaning that way now too.

[69360]

I see your point, but I think they would exclude him from future debates if he did. If he is top 3 in IA and NH and they keep this up msm is going to lose a lot of credibility.

[yeshuaisiam]

I see your point, but I think they would exclude him from future debates if he did. If he is top 3 in IA and NH and they keep this up msm is going to lose a lot of credibility.

With respect to what you are saying.....

Future debate time until IA would be what 3 full minutes? He NEEDS to MAKE A STAND.

[rideurlightning]

I agree. This campaign isn't about doing conventional things - it's about being bold. Ron needs to give the next outlet a huge slap in the face.

[runamuck]

I fear if he walks off, he won't get an invite to any future debates. You can look at that anyway you like I guess, since he only gets like 1 minute anyway.

[sailingaway]

Let Ron be Ron. What if he misses the perfect question? Making a scene just gives them excuse to marginalize him. They do now, but have no excuse.

[yeshuaisiam]

Also these things aren't debates! The ONLY THING DEBATED is who mows Mitt Romney's lawn!

These are question sessions. The media will most likely loop the video many times and he'll be invited to speak on the event numerous times. It will be way more *FREE* airtime with good 5-10 minute interviews if he does it. In 2008 RP was blacked out, and that didn't get us very far (to get to the presidency anyway). I personally believe as a LONG TIME SUPPORTER and have nearly bankrupted my energy and finances promoting him that he NEEDS to MAKE A STAND before IA.

[69360]

Walking out will get one big day in the news cycle. That's it. Then it'll be forgotten and he might be excluded in the future.

[yeshuaisiam]

Walking out will get one big day in the news cycle. That's it. Then it'll be forgotten and he might be excluded in the future.

Do you think that if he stays in future debates he'll actually get airtime anyway? Just more quick questions, 90 seconds in 1 hour, and it'll be back to Perry, Romney, and Cain.... That's all debates are. Quick question sessions.

I can't imagine they ever give the top 4 in polls "FAIR DEBATE TIME". 15 minutes each in an hour.

This is the same as 2008. Silencing him before the primaries (as always). Then he loses. If he can make a stand PERHAPS then he can pull off a primary & the media won't know what the heck to do because then their lie is called and the world will see they were bluffing.

[UtahApocalypse]

Ron Paul needs to just take the mic. He needs to not answer the questions but callout the media on this bias bullshit. If they ask another candidate another question before going through ALL (not just Ron Paul) the candidates he needs to say "Moderator you did not ask (candidate) a question this round)" He needs to take a stand. He should probably even reach out to the others that are being back doored as much as us. If they don't give fair time, or cut his mic then we start a human mic at the debate.

I rather risk the next debate being the last we are ever invited too then keep getting less then 1$ of the time at these media shows.

[69360]

Do you think that if he stays in future debates he'll actually get airtime anyway? Just more quick questions, 90 seconds in 1 hour, and it'll be back to Perry, Romney, and Cain.... That's all debates are. Quick question sessions.

I can't imagine they ever give the top 4 in polls "FAIR DEBATE TIME". 15 minutes each in an hour.

This is the same as 2008. Silencing him before the primaries (as always). Then he loses. If he can make a stand PERHAPS then he can pull off a primary & the media won't know what the heck to do because then their lie is called and the world will see they were bluffing.

It's not a good strategy. The 24 hour news cycle is just too fast. A few minutes on national TV is better than no minutes.

[ninepointfive]

worst idea ever. i agree with your sentiments, however.

[yeshuaisiam]

For those who disagree, what do you think is a good solution?
If he keeps doing what he is doing he gets 90 seconds in an hour... That won't elect him.

Many of his supporters including me WANT to give him more money but see it as hopeless because he DOES NOT MAKE A STAND and will have no chance otherwise.
You can't get elected with 90 seconds in a GOP debate.

At the very least he needs to ask the moderator "why is the media so biased and unfair with microphone time?".

[klamath]

Actually I support this at the last debate before Iowa unless he has made a poll run. If not then it would be the perfect time to walk off, and make a scene and get that 24 news cycle.

[UtahApocalypse]

I am steeling the following from another thread, and poster from here:


Even though I strongly disagree with Santorum's foreign policy views, I want him to try to convince me that I'm wrong. I don't agree with some of Huntsmann ideas or Bachmann's, but I really want them to have time to express their views, so we can decide who's the better candidate. I don't want the MSM to choose Romney for me. If Romney is the best, he should have to prove this in a fair battle. And it's simply not fair him getting 30% of the time, and others getting 5%.

Ron Paul needs to take that stance. He needs to even call up Huntsman, Bachmann, Santorum, and Newt and give them a chance to stand together against the media bias.

[yeshuaisiam]

Actually I support this at the last debate before Iowa unless he has made a poll run. If not then it would be the perfect time to walk off, and make a scene and get that 24 news cycle.

That would be PERFECT TIMING!

[Kimmie]

That would be PERFECT TIMING!

I support this walking off a debate before IA. I would really like to see Ron Paul walks off the stage after 1 hour into the debate and he has not gotten any time from the moderator. I would really like to see Ron Paul prepare a short exit speech about the media bias and then take his stand that he simply won't tolerate this disrespect. Then his supporters walk out too. The only reason this season's GOP debate ratings is so high is because Ron Paul is among the candidates debating. I tell you what. I would never have watched these debates if ROn Paul is not among them. NONE of the other candidates have any intelligent things to say about any issues. If the debate ratings go down because Ron Paul is not among them, they may be pressured to change their strategy.

[ninepointfive]

For those who disagree, what do you think is a good solution?
If he keeps doing what he is doing he gets 90 seconds in an hour... That won't elect him.

Many of his supporters including me WANT to give him more money but see it as hopeless because he DOES NOT MAKE A STAND and will have no chance otherwise.
You can't get elected with 90 seconds in a GOP debate.

At the very least he needs to ask the moderator "why is the media so biased and unfair with microphone time?".

I'm open to do something, however if he leaves the stage, won't be invited back to other debates. It will also be seen as a sign of weakness.

I suggest he become more assertive.

[ChrisDixon]

Not a chance in hell. If Paul walks off the stage, the campaign is over. He will stop getting invites to future debates, Republicans will start calling him a sore loser and a cry baby, and he will get much more negative attention. I'd prefer no attention to negative attention. Let Ron be Ron and take the high road. Things are going fine, the media is only exposing themselves.

[UtahApocalypse]

For everyone saying that this would kill the campaign:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE

[TomtheTinker]

I think it maybe just be time for the grassroots to put away our manors and go hardcore on them.

[sailingaway]

They OFTEN leave questions to Ron to the end, but often he hits a grandslam -- at the end.

It makes no sense for him to walk off. Let's take out the energy in winning the race, phone from home, promoting the money bombs including the one STILL GOING ON TODAY.

Winning will show them, much better than walking off a debate stage would.

[Tod]

I am steeling the following from another thread, and poster from here:



Ron Paul needs to take that stance. He needs to even call up Huntsman, Bachmann, Santorum, and Newt and give them a chance to stand together against the media bias.

It would be a lot better if half of the candidates all left the stage together in protest. Now THAT would gain some attention and reduce the possibility that a single candidate would be singled out as a "sore loser".

It should start out with a candidate refusing to answer a question because some of the other candidates are not getting reasonable speaking time. Any protest by the moderators and there should be a speech about media bias (when the moderators try to cut off the speech, the other candidates jump in to cut off the moderator, saying "Let him finish, he's speaking for me too")

The CANDIDATES need to control the debate, not the media. The CANDIDATES need to LEAD THE PROCESS. SHOW that they are LEADERS, not sheeple who will do what the media tells them.

It would be most effective as a coordinated effort by at least 3 candidates, the more the better. I suspect we could count on Bachmann, Santorum, maybe Huntsman, and Paul to all speak up. If Newt will join, fine, but I wouldn't cry if he were left out.

This could be coordinated with supporters too, so that the place ends up half empty if the moderators don't comply. This needs to be a major moment in this campaign.

[ChrisDixon]

For everyone saying that this would kill the campaign:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE

That is a completely different scenario. Reagan wasn't be ignored, he was upset because other candidates were being left out. He took a stand and invited the other candidates to a debate his campaign funded. Bush didn't like it and the moderators tried to shut him down.

And Reagan didn't walk out of that debate, the other candidates did. The debate went on as Reagan vs. Bush.

[UtahApocalypse]

It would be a lot better if half of the candidates all left the stage together in protest. Now THAT would gain some attention and reduce the possibility that a single candidate would be singled out as a "sore loser".

It should start out with a candidate refusing to answer a question because some of the other candidates are not getting reasonable speaking time. Any protest by the moderators and there should be a speech about media bias (when the moderators try to cut off the speech, the other candidates jump in to cut off the moderator, saying "Let him finish, he's speaking for me too")

The CANDIDATES need to control the debate, not the media. The CANDIDATES need to LEAD THE PROCESS. SHOW that they are LEADERS, not sheeple who will do what the media tells them.

It would be most effective as a coordinated effort by at least 3 candidates, the more the better. I suspect we could count on Bachmann, Santorum, maybe Huntsman, and Paul to all speak up. If Newt will join, fine, but I wouldn't cry if he were left out.

This could be coordinated with supporters too, so that the place ends up half empty if the moderators don't comply. This needs to be a major moment in this campaign.

This ^^

[Tod]

That is a completely different scenario. Reagan wasn't be ignored, he was upset because other candidates were being left out. He took a stand and invited the other candidates to a debate his campaign funded. Bush didn't like it and the moderators tried to shut him down.

And Reagan didn't walk out of that debate, the other candidates did. The debate went on as Reagan vs. Bush.

That's what we need....a debate CONTROLLED by the candidates. We need the CANDIDATES to show LEADERSHIP.

[airborne373]

Suck it up, folks!


This war will never be over, it is the timeless struggle.

[Crystallas]

The media will spin a walk-off as the candidate(s) quitting the election. Then they would ignore that too! It doesn't work with today's media. Sorry.

[Tod]

Not a chance in hell. If Paul walks off the stage, the campaign is over. He will stop getting invites to future debates, Republicans will start calling him a sore loser and a cry baby, and he will get much more negative attention. I'd prefer no attention to negative attention. Let Ron be Ron and take the high road. Things are going fine, the media is only exposing themselves.

There needs to be SOME MAJOR CHANGE IN THE SITUATION if we expect to really WIN this. It needs to be thought out and done in such a way that the above possible drawbacks are avoided. A gamble is needed: make or break. Now is the time. Either Paul will come through as a leader or he won't. If he can't, maybe he doesn't deserve to be the President. After all the President is first and foremost a leader. A leader LEADS.

[Pizzo]

I would love to see several several servicemen in uniform interrupt the debate by walking on stage and walking past all the other candidates, stop to shake Ron's hand, then walk off. Not sure if they would get in trouble for that though.

[rutgerscamdenYAL]

Walking off the stage could be one of the dumbest things he could do. The media probably wouldn't even report on it.

[hueylong]

Political Suicide.

[Johnnymac]

He might not be invited to another debate if he walks out

[AmberH]

The media would have just said Ron was tired and his old fragile legs needed a break from standing. Or they would have said his old bladder needed to be relieved and he couldn't hold it anymore.

Walking off stage wouldn't have turned out good.

[SwordOfLiberty+4]

There are answers. Walking off is way too risky. And if it happened, Newt would profit from it somehow by attacking the media in his next question (in support of Ron, but calculated to benefit Newt).

Anyway, how about we plant the seeds for a debate moderated by some high-profile names? The only problem would be to get many candidates to participate. John Stewart comes to mind... I'm drawing a blank on others right now... NOT Glenn Beck! Howard Stern would be cool - but that would cause some candidates to not participate.

The crux of the idea would be to have such 'big names' moderating, that it would inherently be a big event and hard to skip (as a candidate and as a viewer).

[willwash]

That's a clear UCMJ violation. You cannot wear a military uniform to any event supporting a particular policy, party or candidate. To perform the below action would be a clear example of using one's status as a servicemember to advance the candidacy of Ron Paul. You can't do that. We can donate, we can attend rallies (in civilian clothing), etc, but only in exercise of our rights as regular citizens.


I would love to see several several servicemen in uniform interrupt the debate by walking on stage and walking past all the other candidates, stop to shake Ron's hand, then walk off. Not sure if they would get in trouble for that though.

[Liberty4life]

What would be more effective is for him to just turn his back when ask a question. A walkoff would label him as a crybaby. Faux news would love that.

On a side note I been thinking of something that would get attention, why not try a signs across America event, where sign wavers line up holding their signs.
Possibly do it on a statewide level first like before debates, then if successful let it spread across the country, we do have the grassroots for this.

[Tod]

If the candidates are excluded from debates, hold their own like Reagan did. Stream it if that is the only way to get the thing out there.

You guys afraid of a protest sound like employees afraid of losing their jobs when a push to form a union is underway. Timid, fearful, paralyzed at what their masters might do.

If the candidates don't do a mass strike, there could at least be a mass effort on the part of the attendees: when a question is asked that should have gone to an ignored candidate, before the reply the whole crowd boos incessantly until the moderator capitulates and/or they all get kicked out (OCCUPY?) sit there in protest booing while security tries to drag hundreds of people out of the auditorium? Basically shut down the debate.

[Tina]

Let Ron be Ron. What if he misses the perfect question? Making a scene just gives them excuse to marginalize him. They do now, but have no excuse.

I agree. The media would just spin it to make Ron look bad. He should not walk off the stage.

[ChrisDixon]

There needs to be SOME MAJOR CHANGE IN THE SITUATION if we expect to really WIN this. It needs to be thought out and done in such a way that the above possible drawbacks are avoided. A gamble is needed: make or break. Now is the time. Either Paul will come through as a leader or he won't. If he can't, maybe he doesn't deserve to be the President. After all the President is first and foremost a leader. A leader LEADS.

What Ron needs to do is take control of his own attention. He seems to just passively accept his lack of airtime on stage. And by this, I do not mean he should be angry. Getting mad will just feed the idea that he's just a crazy old man. After he finally gets a question, maybe he should crack a joke like "Can I answer the last five questions you didn't ask me?" Paul needs to have a jab at the media, but do so where he looks more clever than angry.

Bottom line though: walking out is political suicide. He walks off that stage in the middle of a debate, we've lost.

Ron needs to continue to do what Ron does best: Take the high road.

[Tod]

Let Ron be Ron. What if he misses the perfect question? Making a scene just gives them excuse to marginalize him. They do now, but have no excuse.

That is like an employee facing the choice of participating in the push to form a union at an abusive company saying, "What if they are planning on offering me a big promotion and pay raise today? If I join in, I might miss it!"

[ChrisDixon]

That is like an employee facing the choice of participating in the push to form a union at an abusive company saying, "What if they are planning on offering me a big promotion and pay raise today? If I join in, I might miss it!"

What happens if you don't go with the flow instead of working the system to your favor?

You get fired.

[Tod]

Here is Tom Woods' take:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCuOPW2_yx4

[Tod]

Note that Tom Woods is in agreement that something BOLD does need to happen or we won't win this.

[Tod]

What happens if you don't go with the flow instead of working the system to your favor?

You get fired.

No risk, no reward.

[milo10]

For those who disagree, what do you think is a good solution?
If he keeps doing what he is doing he gets 90 seconds in an hour... That won't elect him.

Many of his supporters including me WANT to give him more money but see it as hopeless because he DOES NOT MAKE A STAND and will have no chance otherwise.
You can't get elected with 90 seconds in a GOP debate.

Why doesn't he do a one-on-one debate with Michelle Bachmann? If a news outlet or C-Span or something would carry it.

Michelle feels marginalized as well. She has a lot of credibility with some conservatives, as she was polling very well unto Perry stepped in. The two of them get along IRL. Michelle is a nut, but I don't think she's an empty vessel like Romney, Cain, or Gingrich...she actually believes what she saying, though of course she is nowhere near as principled as Ron. She is not stupid, though she makes the occasional gaffe, so it would be a fairly interesting exchange. OTOH, she's not a particularly clever political talker like Newt is. Ron will basically destroy her in the debates.

I think it would be a good avenue for Ron to get his message across to the Teocons. Michelle is not treated well in the MSM, for the most part, so this actually a nice gesture on Ron's part. He's taking her seriously enough to debate her. The conservatives who support or once supported her will have to respect that. Outside of foreign policy, I think they would have a lot of agreement on the stage.

The only question is who would cover it. I don't know much about that. But I do think it would get a lot more viewers than expected, which has to be a tiny wakeup to the MSM.

Oh, and it's also a big FU to the media doing the debates. And pretty damn newsworthy.

If you want to shake up the field, you have to start thinking like this.

[RIPLEYMOM]

It is time for a bold move, and if it does not make a difference, we still control the outcome of this election.

[Tod]

It is time for a bold move, and if it does not make a difference, we still control the outcome of this election.

True to an extent. At the moment we supposedly are able to ensure that Obama wins. What we REALLY need is to ensure that PAUL wins. We aren't there yet, I don't think, and I think will take a bold move to get us there.

[ChrisDixon]

No risk, no reward.

Yes, but risk is not synonymous with recklessness. You remember when Jon Huntsman boycotted the Nevada debate? Nobody noticed. There is no reward in trying to undermine the debate.

But there is much reward to be found in taking control of the debate.

[nobody's_hero]

It could have the potential to be either very epic, or very detrimental.

This stuff is live. Ron Paul could drop a bomb of truth and shame that they could not halt in time.

I think that Ron Paul might not get invited to any more debates if he did this, though, so he needs to make it count to the point that he doesn't need to be in debates anymore afterwards. For that, it would have to be so powerful to the point that Americans just say to themselves, "Fuck it, I'm supporting Ron Paul."