Replace Failed Strategy Now!

[progressiveforpaul]

Time to abandon a failed strategy: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/02/switch-strategy-now.html

[onlyrp]

what failed strategy, only defeatists say there's a failed strategy.

[Edward]

"It is time to replace the current strategy with a coalition strategy." You might want to explain what a "coalition strategy" entails. Promising a cabinet full of Democrats is not a winning strategy to get the GOP nom.

[progressiveforpaul]

Here is more detail: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/11/choice-for-libertarians.html

"It is time to replace the current strategy with a coalition strategy." You might want to explain what a "coalition strategy" entails. Promising a cabinet full of Democrats is not a winning strategy to get the GOP nom.

[Pericles]

National security fearmongering is having an effect. The campaign needs to articulate a security message that voters can agree is effective at maintaing security of the country. The current message isn't getting there.

[FrankRep]

But let's imagine what would happen if Ron Paul did go explicitly coalition. Promising a coalition cabinet and vowing to put half of savings from spending reductions into block grants for the states based solely on state populations would cause a huge stir in a media environment looking for a new story. Everyone is convince the drama is over and the nominee is decided.

Are you asking for Ron Paul to violate the Constitution?

Go Away.

[AdamT]

The clearest signal that Ron Paul can give us that this is an acceptable deal is to name a running mate like Bernie Sanders...

Ughhhhhh....

[FrankRep]

The clearest signal that Ron Paul can give us that this is an acceptable deal is to name a running mate like Bernie Sanders...


http://potshot.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/facepalm_picard_riker.jpg?w=645

[onlyrp]

http://potshot.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/facepalm_picard_riker.jpg?w=645

+rep

[NidStyles]

What failed Strategy?

[Seraphim]

NOT selling out his principles is the strategy. It's a winning strategy. Maybe not last year, maybe not this year, but FOREVER MORE.

If you can't wrap your head around that at this point, are you sure you're in the right place?

Ron Paul no longer stands alone. He's got a peaceful army with bigger minds and bigger hearts then all of the coalition sissies combined. We will continue to grow, we continue to get more poweful. Join us, embrace our peaceful solutions, or go away - we're not interested in selling out. Period. End of story.

[Mark37snj]

The only people who can claim its a failed strategy is those who know exactly how many Ron Paul delegates we have. From what I have heard it looks like we are winning. The GOP Establishment taught us last time that votes won't help us, so the campaign came up with a new winning strategy.

[kuckfeynes]

The ideology of Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kusinich implicitly demands big government.
Just because they appear to be honest, genuine people does not change this basic irreconcilable fact.
Plus the mere mention of these people would be a non-starter for most Republicans.

[ryanmkeisling]

NOT selling out his principles is the strategy. It's a winning strategy. Maybe not last year, maybe not this year, but FOREVER MORE.

If you can't wrap your head around that at this point, are you sure you're in the right place?

Ron Paul no longer stands alone. He's got a peaceful army with bigger minds and bigger hearts then all of the coalition sissies combined. We will continue to grow, we continue to get more poweful. Join us, embrace our peaceful solutions, or go away - we're not interested in selling out. Period. End of story.

This^^^ + rep.

[progressiveforpaul]

...suggested that Ron Paul abandon his principles. If you read this you will see that what I am talking about does not violate libertarian principles but actually advances them: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/11/choice-for-libertarians.html

If you believe that any compromise with progressives is a violation of libertarian principles, then you have to say that Ron Paul has violated his libertarian principles by supporting the continuation for entitlements for those above the age of 25. If he were to demand a strict libertarian solution to the "problem" of entitlements, he would advocate returning all funds to those who contributed them and then promptly shutting down social security, medicare, and medicaid.

What I have called for is to send half of all money saved from reductions in spending back to the states according to their respective populations, allowing them to use the money as they see fit and requiring only that they report online how they used the money. That is a very modest proposal that still greatly reduces the size of the federal government and federal debt and is based on the transition plan put forth by Ron Paul himself.

The obstinacy which refuses to face numerical political reality, fails to distinguish tactical compromise from compromised principles, and defends a losing strategy will set the libertarian cause back rather than move it forward.

On another note. I would suggest that Ron Paul merely announce that he will form a coalition government with progressives and unlike most other politicians, we will take his word for it. When he does this prominent progressives will have to come forward and support him or else be exposed as the establishment Democratic Party propagandists. He can announce his running mate after the primaries and caucuses have ended.

And besides all this...the alternative to embracing a coalition strategy is allowing Obama 2 or Romney 1.

[Pericles]

What failed Strategy?

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that we want more than 20% of the votes in the Republican primaries.

One way to do that might be to better articulate our policies, so that those who currently think we are ignorant of reality are better informed as to what RP's policies really are, and how they will maintain the security of the US and promote individual liberty, which will lead to increased prosperity and security.

[FrankRep]

Never have I ever suggested that Ron Paul abandon his principles.

Yes, you have. Ron Paul's principles are based on the Constitution and you want him to throw all that away so he's appear more attractive to the Big Government progressives.

[jmdrake]

One comment from the blog that is worthwhile.

I would suggest that the campaign also start specifying the phrase "Commerce Clause" and what it means as essentially unchecked federal authority. Because most people see the Civil Rights Act, (.e.g.) as a *good* thing and can't understand why they should vote for someone who voted against it. Conversely few people seem to understand that the corruption of the Constitution represents the legal basis for all the intrusive things they think are *bad*.

I know it doesn't fit well into a sound bite but it's not like Ron Paul has ever been shy about explaining things.

[jmdrake]

Yes, you have. Ron Paul's principles are based on the Constitution and you want him to throw all that away so he's appear more attractive to the Big Government progressives.

Well to be fair I don't see anything particularly unconstitutional in this blog post. Unless you're against block grants under some non delegation doctrine theory. That said, I'd prefer cutting out the middle man and giving the money back to the people (i.e. cut taxes). And having Bernie Sanders as a running mate isn't unconstitutional, it's just stupid.

[bolil]

It would be good for us, if Ron Paul capitulated and went "coalition"... It would be better for America... however he is not going to do that. Look our guy is our guy precisely because he is NOT going to pander. This race is filled with politicians: Obama, Mittens, Newt-a-loot, Froths. We support the only statesman on the stage. Please don't expect him to copy their methods when, in aggregate, he has moved the dialogue farther in his direction than any MSM cares to report.

[progressiveforpaul]

Could you be more specific...cut and paste the comment or post where you accuse me of calling on Paul or anyone else to violate principles?

Yes, you have. Ron Paul's principles are based on the Constitution and you want him to throw all that away so he's appear more attractive to the Big Government progressives.

[progressiveforpaul]

jmdrake, what if we phased out the middle man in the second term? Would you be willing to live with it for 4 years?


Well to be fair I don't see anything particularly unconstitutional in this blog post. Unless you're against block grants under some non delegation doctrine theory. That said, I'd prefer cutting out the middle man and giving the money back to the people (i.e. cut taxes). And having Bernie Sanders as a running mate isn't unconstitutional, it's just stupid.

[onlyrp]

Could you be more specific...cut and paste the comment or post where you accuse me of calling on Paul or anyone else to violate principles?

Frankrep doesn't lie, he can copy and paste JBS articles to prove he is right and you have to prove he is wrong.

[progressiveforpaul]

What precisely in my proposal requires capitulation or pandering or compromise of principles? Please name it because I have spent a great deal of time listening and reading to libertarians to make the proposal I am putting forward acceptable. I am wanting it to be perfected so when the campaign finally decides it cannot win the primary or have any significant influence on the GOP nominee, it can have a fall back strategy that will work.

It would be good for us, if Ron Paul capitulated and went "coalition"... It would be better for America... however he is not going to do that. Look our guy is our guy precisely because he is NOT going to pander. This race is filled with politicians: Obama, Mittens, Newt-a-loot, Froths. We support the only statesman on the stage. Please don't expect him to copy their methods when, in aggregate, he has moved the dialogue farther in his direction than any MSM cares to report.

[progressiveforpaul]

JBS? That's not my blog... ur pulling my leg...clue me in. I have not been able to find a way to prove a negative.

Frankrep doesn't lie, he can copy and paste JBS articles to prove he is right and you have to prove he is wrong.

[progressiveforpaul]

JBS? That's not my blog... ur pulling my leg...clue me in. I have not been able to find a way to prove a negative.

Frankrep doesn't lie, he can copy and paste JBS articles to prove he is right and you have to prove he is wrong.

[Revolution9]

Back to your mischief again. Replace your failed strategy..now!

HTH
Rev9

[Revolution9]

What precisely in my proposal requires capitulation or pandering or compromise of principles?

Explain Dennis and Bernie. FFS Dennis is not anti-war. He would just create a Department of Peace with a frikkin' Secretary of Kumbaya to argue ineffectually with the Dept of Casual Destruction over just how much dough should be delved out for the avengelistic industrial outreach and cultural acquisition programs.. How is THAT libertarian or conservative. Bernie. Pure wishy washed. The only thing steadfast is his wavering. The thing is, they do not violate your principles but a read of RP's platform does not conform with your philosophy nor people you want to hitch to his wagon for a free ride on his reputation. Let me be clear. Ron is the General here. Yer a frikkin' civilian armchair quarterback for the other team who thinks this is a game and not what it is. Why any of your biased nonsense should be considered is beyond my ken to fathom. But knock yourself out. You will get it one day if you keep running the thought experiments though your skull and eventually defeat the memetic virus currently providing momentum to your philosophical and strategic constructs. Start with the prime principle. You have control of your being..just barely. WTF should you wish to garner control over another if you can barely manage yourself. Now extend that prime axiomatic principle outwards into the various areas of anyones life. This is a base for liberty. Bernie nor Dennis understand this. They are managers. I have worked for managers. They are slothful and get in the way of real progress and work getting done on the final goal of the project. Plus they suck up funds the real workers should be getting.

Rev9

[pacelli]

Let me be clear. Ron is the General here. Yer a frikkin' civilian armchair quarterback for the other team who thinks this is a game and not what it is. Why any of your biased nonsense should be considered is beyond my ken to fathom. But knock yourself out.

*
Rev9

+1..... +2.... +1776.....