Ron Paul 2012: No End in Sight

[kathy88]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/04/ron-paul-2012-campaign-roadies



In part that's because Paul's campaign, relative to that of every other candidate, including the President's, is a seriously nebulous affair. There are roughly a dozen Ron Paul-centric super-PACs in various stages of activity. There are unaffiliated sites, like the Daily Paul, dedicated entirely to the congressman's messagel; slick video sharing sites; and merchandise emporia, none of which have any formal connection whatsoever to the campaign. Shutting down that kind of operation isn't as simple as flicking a switch.

[luctor-et-emergo]

And that's when you know it's no longer 'just a campaign' but a 'significant movement'.

Have a nice day all.

[WilliamC]

Leaderless resistance is leaderless.

Ron Paul is our current champion, but it's not really about him, it's about us.

Freedom Brings Us Together.

[sailingaway]

Leaderless resistance is leaderless.

Ron Paul is our current champion, but it's not really about him, it's about us.

Freedom Brings Us Together.

It isn't really about him, but we may need to grow our own to have his like again, in my lifetime.

[Tyler_Durden]

It isn't really about him, but we may need to grow our own to have his like again, in my lifetime.

When people ask me why I still support him since "he can't win", I go into the brokered convention spill before ending it with "It's not about the Man. It's about the Message."

[John F Kennedy III]

It isn't really about him, but we may need to grow our own to have his like again, in my lifetime.

Rand.

[dancjm]

Revolutions don't work to election timetables.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

last paragraph in the article:

Despite all Paul has done to advance Dennis' political career and the End-the-Fed, End-the-Wars views they share, the San Francisco GOPer acknowledges there's a danger in placing too much of a premium on the success of one candidate. As Dennis puts it: "This can't just be a one-person thing. Then it just turns into a cult."

I think Ron understands this better than anyone and is one of the main reasons that he really doesn't want to run 3rd party. He realizes that at some point he must push his movement out of the nest and let it learn to fly on its own.

I also think that he understands better than anyone that if he doesn't get the nomination, then endorsing Gary Johnson or a Rand-like conservative would be a FAR LESS effective means of promoting his ideas than multi-endorsing the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, AND Independent Nader AND the Greens who all united at Ron's press conference in 2008 and signed off on Ron's 4 most important issues (militarism/foreign policy, privacy/civil liberties, the fed, balanced budget).

Therefore, the best and most consistent thing that we should do is get the 3rd parties to announce RIGHT NOW that they're going to run a Ron Paul-like Fusion Ticket anyway with a Ron Paul-like figure heading the ticket and Nader as VP. Judge Nap is the only person that I can think of who could do this. Maybe Gary Johnson. And this would put pressure on the Repubs to nominate Ron way more than anything else we could do.

This will never happen of course because it would require way too many people to suddenly acquire way too much imagination all in the next few weeks. So, if Ron doesn't get the nomination, his best option will be another promotion of his ideas via a coalition of the 3rd parties. This will enhance rather than detract from his endorsements of excellent down ticket candidates such as Dennis, Karen Kwiatkowski, and John Forsythe.

[69360]

It isn't really about him, but we may need to grow our own to have his like again, in my lifetime.

We have Rand. Rand is just as good as his dad.

Those who don't think so will never be satisfied.

[John F Kennedy III]

We have Rand. Rand is just as good as his dad.

Those who don't think so will never be satisfied.

This.

[G-Wohl]

Rand.

I really wish we could get a secular thinker as Ron Paul's replacement. It's RP's social views that really discourage members of the left from supporting us.

[69360]

I really wish we could get a secular thinker as Ron Paul's replacement. It's RP's social views that really discourage members of the left from supporting us.

I think it's more their belief in social welfare.

[jmdrake]

We have Rand. Rand is just as good as his dad.

Those who don't think so will never be satisfied.

Rand is working under cover. Enough said.

[G-Wohl]

I think it's more their belief in social welfare.

The number of Democrats (who vote) relying on social welfare is rather low, and in my experience such individuals are willing to concede not prolonging these social welfare programs if it means a sincere end to militarism and attacking civil liberties.

They are *not* willing to concede their vote to a guy who does not pledge to protect a woman's right to elective medical procedures. Moving forward, our revolution needs to have pro-choice, non-religious leaders like Peter Schiff paving the way.

[Ivash]

The number of Democrats (who vote) relying on social welfare is rather low, and in my experience such individuals are willing to concede not prolonging these social welfare programs if it means a sincere end to militarism and attacking civil liberties.

They are *not* willing to concede their vote to a guy who does not pledge to protect a woman's right to elective medical procedures. Moving forward, our revolution needs to have pro-choice, non-religious leaders like Peter Schiff paving the way.

Did you miss the stir that Paul Ryan's budget recent set up among Democrats? Many absolutely hate the idea of ending welfare. Anyways the nation is still pretty overwhelmingly religious, so its a bad idea to go for a non-religious leader atm.

[JS4Pat]

We have Rand. Rand is just as good as his dad.

Those who don't think so will never be satisfied.

Ahhh - I don't agree with that at all.

IMO - Rand has not shown himself to be as good as his Dad. (Foreign Policy and Endorsing Mitch McConnell - 2 obvious examples)

And I most certainly WILL BE satisfied as other liberty minded candidates step up to the plate.

I view this as a movement - not a one man show - but Ron Paul is far and away the best "leader" we have going for us right now.

[kylejack]

This was a pretty good article that details the two different sides of the debate of what Ron should do next.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Why do they always have to make even good articles suck halfway into the damn thing?


But Ron Paul, hemorrhaging money, losing super-PAC support, last in the delegate count (more on that in a second), and generally finding his electoral prospects DOA


Campestre and others insist that Paul is actually second in the delegate count, well ahead of Santorum and Gingrich, and within striking distance of Romney. (Here's one supporter explaining how Paul actually has 380 delegates, 172 more than Santorum and just 123 fewer than Romney). That's not supported by results out of places like North Dakota, where Romney cleaned up in the delegate tally despite a third-place finish at the caucus.

Article wasn't as good as some people made it out to be.