People angry at Doug Wead?

[Butchie]

With all the anger/speculation going around I've seen some knocking Doug Wead. Unless I missed something he seems like he's been a great spokesman for the campaign. I realize he may have just been a hired gun but even so I thought he was a great speaker everytime they put the mic in front of him, why are people bashing him, he did his job?

[brushfire]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL5pFUi7-lY

[anewvoice]

Yeah, that facebook call is not going to go well.

[sailingaway]

My feeling since he at AMES said the 'best thing about electing Ron is you get Rand too...' was that while he supported Ron he really found Rand more to his taste. His background is with conventional conservative evangelical campaigns. He seemed very ready to talk about the future of the movement being in 'the son also rises' etc while our grass roots were dominating conventions, etc. He just didn't seem as focused on Ron as Rand to me, and never seemed to quite 'get' Ron in my view. That is not to say he is an evil guy, and there were specific points where he was very helpful, but I wish we had seen more of Gary Howard.

[coffeewithchess]

With all the anger/speculation going around I've seen some knocking Doug Wead. Unless I missed something he seems like he's been a great spokesman for the campaign. I realize he may have just been a hired gun but even so I thought he was a great speaker everytime they put the mic in front of him, why are people bashing him, he did his job?

I think that some people got upset, when he wrote a blog post that was titled something like, "Rick Santorum Supporters Attack Ron Paul Supporters" in just the last 3-weeks, and tried to blame what happened in Louisiana all on Rick Santorum supporters, and excusing Mitt Romney from everything.
" And today we are getting a clearer pictures of what happened. This time, it is not the Romney people, indeed they were trying to make peace, understanding that breaking bones is not the way to unite the party. It was local and national Rick Santorum people behind the chaos.

The Santorum people, running the Louisiana State GOP Convention, hired off duty police to do their bidding. Knowing they were outnumbered by duly elected Ron Paul delegates, who had won their elections at precinct, county and district conventions, and knowing that they would immediately be voted out of their positions, the Santorum people decided to manhandle the state convention and make a win with brute force.

The Santorum team rationalized this because of their 49% primary win last March 24. Didn’t this give them the right to run the convention? They decided it did."

That seemed speculation, other than Rick Santorum winning Louisiana, to many people and just trying to defend/excuse Mitt Romney from anything that happened. He didn't name one person, Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney supporter, that I'm aware of that was actually "behind the chaos".
So, you have the official campaign helping Romney win in states like Michigan. You have the official campaign never trying to beat Romney in the first one-on-one state that was given to them. You have the official campaign never attacking just Romney.
Then, when Ron Paul supporters get attacked/assaulted/arrested in Louisiana, you have an official campaign staffer come out and try to use that as a way to blame another candidate/his supporters, instead of the GOP at large.

Now, you have Rand Paul going on national tv lying in his endorsement, and dragging Ron Paul supporters into it by mentioning things like "my dad's supporters" and "issues important to them". At this point, don't expect some Ron Paul supporters to be very happy with any "campaign official", because they should all be viewed with skepticism, and as using a movement to get paychecks at this point.
Especially considering the official campaign has now used its official webpage in an effort to defend Rand Paul's endorsement twice so far.

Oh, and let's not forget the interview Doug Wead gave months ago, when asked if this was really about "Rand" (something along those lines), his answer was pretty much, "Yea".

[CPUd]

Some of the griping towards Doug is not at Doug Wead, but another Doug who is a staffer for Rand.

[cajuncocoa]

I may be late in learning this, but is everyone else here aware that Doug Wead was a "Special Assistant" to Bush 41?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Wead

[CPUd]

Yeah, he was relatively close with their family. Not Lee Atwater close, though. More in the context of historical advice. 'If I do this, what will history say?', or 'has ___ ever happened?'

[sailingaway]

I may be late in learning this, but is everyone else here aware that Doug Wead was a "Special Assistant" to Bush 41?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Wead

Yeah, and was dropped from favor by saying some stuff out of school, apparently. That was pretty well known, here.

[papitosabe]

well, I heard some people were even bashing Carol. So that just goes to show you.

[BestVirginia]

I may be late in learning this, but is everyone else here aware that Doug Wead was a "Special Assistant" to Bush 41?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Wead

I didn't know that. Was I supposed to gasp?

[cajuncocoa]

That makes him not the best choice for "special advisor" to the campaign then....IMO.

[MrDauven]

He himself has said in many interviews that he used to be an ex Bush supporter who learned from Ron Paul and came to the message of liberty.
It has happened with many of the Ron Paul people. Many have been Bush or Obama supporters, are we going to discredit all of them too as fakers?
Doug Wead is a good guy, do not hate him for being what most on here have been themselves.

[alucard13mmfmj]

I rather have Doug on our side than on the enemy's side. We would've been toast a long time ago if we didn't have Doug be our spokesman at the beginning. I don't see Doug do anything wrong that is a detriment. He might get the facts wrong from time to time, but we all do. We always don't know all the facts. Like right now... we are just speculating stuff for the last week about Rand and etc etc.

Yeah... bashing Carol is a new low.

[ronpaulfollower999]

well, I heard some people were even bashing Carol. So that just goes to show you.

No one was bashing Carol.

[Crotale]

People are angry with everyone and everything now. People are angry with eachother. We need to stop the fracturing. Each of us needs to take a deep breath and think of how one can divert one's energy towards more constructive efforts. Even if it means leaving the political arena and focusing on educational/media/other liberty campaigns (like the Free State Project, writing a blog, or promoting the Mises Institute).

[V3n]

No one was bashing Carol.

www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?380068-People-attack-Carol-Paul-for-speaking-Truth.-Some-of-you-should-be-ashamed.

Her facebook became prey to the hate swarm after the endorsement.

[ronpaulfollower999]

www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?380068-People-attack-Carol-Paul-for-speaking-Truth.-Some-of-you-should-be-ashamed.

Her facebook became prey to the hate swarm after the endorsement.

I don't see any bashing in that picture.

[V3n]

I don't see any bashing in that picture.

I report, you decide? :o

I'm sure that's the thread papitosabe was referring to at least in 'hearing' she was getting bashed.

[torchbearer]

I think that some people got upset, when he wrote a blog post that was titled something like, "Rick Santorum Supporters Attack Ron Paul Supporters" in just the last 3-weeks, and tried to blame what happened in Louisiana all on Rick Santorum supporters, and excusing Mitt Romney from everything.
" And today we are getting a clearer pictures of what happened. This time, it is not the Romney people, indeed they were trying to make peace, understanding that breaking bones is not the way to unite the party. It was local and national Rick Santorum people behind the chaos.

The Santorum people, running the Louisiana State GOP Convention, hired off duty police to do their bidding. Knowing they were outnumbered by duly elected Ron Paul delegates, who had won their elections at precinct, county and district conventions, and knowing that they would immediately be voted out of their positions, the Santorum people decided to manhandle the state convention and make a win with brute force.

The Santorum team rationalized this because of their 49% primary win last March 24. Didn’t this give them the right to run the convention? They decided it did."

That seemed speculation, other than Rick Santorum winning Louisiana, to many people and just trying to defend/excuse Mitt Romney from anything that happened. He didn't name one person, Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney supporter, that I'm aware of that was actually "behind the chaos".
So, you have the official campaign helping Romney win in states like Michigan. You have the official campaign never trying to beat Romney in the first one-on-one state that was given to them. You have the official campaign never attacking just Romney.
Then, when Ron Paul supporters get attacked/assaulted/arrested in Louisiana, you have an official campaign staffer come out and try to use that as a way to blame another candidate/his supporters, instead of the GOP at large.

Now, you have Rand Paul going on national tv lying in his endorsement, and dragging Ron Paul supporters into it by mentioning things like "my dad's supporters" and "issues important to them". At this point, don't expect some Ron Paul supporters to be very happy with any "campaign official", because they should all be viewed with skepticism, and as using a movement to get paychecks at this point.
Especially considering the official campaign has now used its official webpage in an effort to defend Rand Paul's endorsement twice so far.

Oh, and let's not forget the interview Doug Wead gave months ago, when asked if this was really about "Rand" (something along those lines), his answer was pretty much, "Yea".

in Louisiana, it was supporters of santorum, not romney, that caused the violence.

[AJ Antimony]

Well, there's a lot of idiots on these boards who apparently hate the idea of winning and would prefer to be 3rd party losers.

[MarcusI]

One should not forget that the Romney campaign chair in Lousiana said that the legitimate Paul delegates should go to Tampa, so you can't blame Romney for the LA situation.

[LibertyEagle]

That makes him not the best choice for "special advisor" to the campaign then....IMO.

I think the idea was to have him help Ron prep for debates. I don't think Ron ever let him, or anybody else, for that matter, and it showed. Unfortunately.

[LibertyEagle]

He himself has said in many interviews that he used to be an ex Bush supporter who learned from Ron Paul and came to the message of liberty.
It has happened with many of the Ron Paul people. Many have been Bush or Obama supporters, are we going to discredit all of them too as fakers?
Doug Wead is a good guy, do not hate him for being what most on here have been themselves.

+rep

[twomp]

Well, there's a lot of idiots on these boards who apparently hate the idea of winning and would prefer to be 3rd party losers.

Yes you know because you are the "judge" of all this? Who's to say that you're not the idiot? You know the one that wants to try the same thing over and over in hopes of a different result "this time around."

Just be patient, look at Barry Goldwater, look at Pat Roberson, look at the Tea Party. They sure changed the party from within didn't they? No they changed the party's language. The establishment remains firmly in power.

But let me guess, it will be different this time right?

[Mini-Me]

Yes you know because you are the "judge" of all this? Who's to say that you're not the idiot? You know the one that wants to try the same thing over and over in hopes of a different result "this time around."

Just be patient, look at Barry Goldwater, look at Pat Roberson, look at the Tea Party. They sure changed the party from within didn't they? No they changed the party's language. The establishment remains firmly in power.

But let me guess, it will be different this time right?

Yes, because we're doing something totally different from what they did. We're taking over the GOP from the ground up...local chairs, state chairs, and eventually RNC. To ignore the difference between that and a single convention (Goldwater) or mere protests and get-togethers (Tea Party) is to be intellectually dishonest about the whole thing to feed your own emotional biases in a closed loop.

[AJ Antimony]

Yes you know because you are the "judge" of all this? Who's to say that you're not the idiot? You know the one that wants to try the same thing over and over in hopes of a different result "this time around."

Just be patient, look at Barry Goldwater, look at Pat Roberson, look at the Tea Party. They sure changed the party from within didn't they? No they changed the party's language. The establishment remains firmly in power.

But let me guess, it will be different this time right?

You're right, your plan is better. Vote for the 3rd party that never gets 1% and is a total joke to voters. Your plan has 40 years of failure, if looking from the perspective of the LP. If looking from the perspective of any third party... shit... I don't remember the last third party candidate to win a presidential election. Washington did it twice as an independent, but I can't remember if there were any other third party/independent presidents after him. I doubt it! Certainly not in the Dem/Rep era.

You're also right, political parties can't be changed. The South never voted Democratic. Grover Cleveland was a Republican. Robert Taft was a pro-peace Democrat. Evangelicals have always voted Republican. Yep. Parties never change. Let's just give up and vote 3rd party so we can get our 1% of the vote!

[Keith and stuff]

That makes him not the best choice for "special advisor" to the campaign then....IMO.

It was a reason why so many were happy here when he was hired to help Ron Paul. Maybe you are right, looking at it now but pretty much everyone disagreed with what you are currently saying, at the time.

I love how time changes things :)

[twomp]

Yes, because we're doing something totally different from what they did. We're taking over the GOP from the ground up...local chairs, state chairs, and eventually RNC. To ignore the difference between that and a single convention (Goldwater) or mere protests and get-togethers (Tea Party) is to be intellectually dishonest about the whole thing to feed your own emotional biases in a closed loop.

My emotional biases? How am I being bias? Is what I was saying a lie? Did the "Goldwater movement" get co-opted? Did the Tea Party get co-opted? Maybe you are the one here being emotional. I mean how dare I question the RNC and the GOP right?

[sailingaway]

One should not forget that the Romney campaign chair in Lousiana said that the legitimate Paul delegates should go to Tampa, so you can't blame Romney for the LA situation.

they apparently are saying they never said that.

[twomp]

You're right, your plan is better. Vote for the 3rd party that never gets 1% and is a total joke to voters. Your plan has 40 years of failure, if looking from the perspective of the LP. If looking from the perspective of any third party... shit... I don't remember the last third party candidate to win a presidential election. Washington did it twice as an independent, but I can't remember if there were any other third party/independent presidents after him. I doubt it! Certainly not in the Dem/Rep era.

You're also right, political parties can't be changed. The South never voted Democratic. Grover Cleveland was a Republican. Robert Taft was a pro-peace Democrat. Evangelicals have always voted Republican. Yep. Parties never change. Let's just give up and vote 3rd party so we can get our 1% of the vote!

No what I'm saying is parties DO change. They change their message in order to gain support. What DOESN'T change is their policies. They took Barry Goldwater's message to help them get elected. Once elected, they go back to voting the way the establishment wants them to. Isn't that what co-opting is? The same thing with the evangelicals and the Tea Party. The same thing will happen to our movement if we continue to feel that we can "take over" the GOP. A new crop of politicians will come. They will call themselves "Ron Paul Republicans" and they will sell that message to get elected. Once elected their votes will then go back to voting the way the Establishment wants because in order to get things done in the GOP, you have to "play along to get along."

As for your comment about 3rd party being a failure so far, you are correct. But just because something has never been done before, doesn't mean it will never be done. If people stopped creating new things just because "it's never been done before" then we would still be in a world with sticks and rocks as tools. I'm sure at one point, someone said man will never fly or man will never go to space.

I am not your enemy here. I object to you calling people like me "idiots" just because I don't have the same thought process as you. You say you feel like the way to liberty is through the GOP? Good for you. I'm sure many on this forum will agree with you.

I see it differently. I see Dr. Paul as a catalyst. I believe with him as anchor, the rEVOLution can be the birth of a legitimate 3rd party. He may not win President this year but SOMEONE needs to have the courage to stand up against the 2 -party system not bend to it because "it has never been done before."

[twomp]

Yes, because we're doing something totally different from what they did. We're taking over the GOP from the ground up...local chairs, state chairs, and eventually RNC. To ignore the difference between that and a single convention (Goldwater) or mere protests and get-togethers (Tea Party) is to be intellectually dishonest about the whole thing to feed your own emotional biases in a closed loop.

By the way, I'm sure there is plenty of "Goldwater Republicans", "Tea Party Republicans" and "Evangelical Republicans" who have taken over local chairs, state chairs etc... To say that everyone currently in those positions in all 50 states is part of the "establishment" is being intellectually dishonest on your part.

[speciallyblend]

well, I heard some people were even bashing Carol. So that just goes to show you.

well i haven't heard anyone bashing carol but after rand endorsing romney. If i was carol i would of demanded ron paul wore a condom on a certain day.

[AJ Antimony]

No what I'm saying is parties DO change. They change their message in order to gain support. What DOESN'T change is their policies. They took Barry Goldwater's message to help them get elected. Once elected, they go back to voting the way the establishment wants them to. Isn't that what co-opting is? The same thing with the evangelicals and the Tea Party. The same thing will happen to our movement if we continue to feel that we can "take over" the GOP. A new crop of politicians will come. They will call themselves "Ron Paul Republicans" and they will sell that message to get elected. Once elected their votes will then go back to voting the way the Establishment wants because in order to get things done in the GOP, you have to "play along to get along."

As for your comment about 3rd party being a failure so far, you are correct. But just because something has never been done before, doesn't mean it will never be done. If people stopped creating new things just because "it's never been done before" then we would still be in a world with sticks and rocks as tools. I'm sure at one point, someone said man will never fly or man will never go to space.

I am not your enemy here. I object to you calling people like me "idiots" just because I don't have the same thought process as you. You say you feel like the way to liberty is through the GOP? Good for you. I'm sure many on this forum will agree with you.

I see it differently. I see Dr. Paul as a catalyst. I believe with him as anchor, the rEVOLution can be the birth of a legitimate 3rd party. He may not win President this year but SOMEONE needs to have the courage to stand up against the 2 -party system not bend to it because "it has never been done before."

Turns out Ron Paul completely stood up against the 2-party system in 1988. How did that work out for him? Has his message grown more since his Libertarian 1988 campaign or his 2008 GOP campaign?

I also don't understand your point anymore. So, you're saying we shouldn't continue successfully building and reforming the GOP because, in the future, some guys will call themselves "Ron Paul Republicans" and vote like George W. Bush Republicans? Who's fault is it if some fakes get elected and then stay in office? The voters. If movements get co-opted, it's because they let themselves get co-opted. You seem to be under the impression that the establishment can just snap their fingers and take congressional seats. Don't forget that we have voting in this country. If some fake guys get elected, it's because us voters allowed them to. Movements get co-opted because of stupid voters, not because of the movement itself.

[twomp]

Turns out Ron Paul completely stood up against the 2-party system in 1988. How did that work out for him? Has his message grown more since his Libertarian 1988 campaign or his 2008 GOP campaign?

I also don't understand your point anymore. So, you're saying we shouldn't continue successfully building and reforming the GOP because, in the future, some guys will call themselves "Ron Paul Republicans" and vote like George W. Bush Republicans? Who's fault is it if some fakes get elected and then stay in office? The voters. If movements get co-opted, it's because they let themselves get co-opted. You seem to be under the impression that the establishment can just snap their fingers and take congressional seats. Don't forget that we have voting in this country. If some fake guys get elected, it's because us voters allowed them to. Movements get co-opted because of stupid voters, not because of the movement itself.

Are u saying that conditions now are the same as in 1988? Dr. Paul is way more popular now. The GOP as a tool to promote liberty has served its purpose. Dr. Paul will not win the GOP nomination so why not do the country a huge favor and run 3rd party and gain some exposure for the foundation of a legitimate 3rd party. One that is opposed to both the other parties and build on Dr. Paul's ability to draw people from both sides.

As for abandoning the current delegate strategy, of course not. Those patriots have sacrificed time, money and in some cases blood for this cause and it should followed through till Tampa.

I guess my preference is that Dr. Paul go 3rd party AFTER Tampa. Do I think he will actually do it? No probably not. It still doesn't change my stance.

As for your point about the voters, I disagree. The voters usually vote based on the message they are told. Bush didn't campaign on bombing Iraq, Obama didn't campaign on NDAA. You are suggesting the voters voted for illegal wars and indefinite detention? That is what i feel being co-opted is. We elect politicians based on what they tell us, once elected, they vote based on party pressure. Got play along to get along.

My suggestion? Create a party where "play along to get along" means you vote based on the constitution.

[Uriah]

I'm about as T'ed off with Wead as I am with peace, love, and freedom!

[coffeewithchess]

in Louisiana, it was supporters of santorum, not romney, that caused the violence.

If it was, there was not a Rick Santorum supporter named in the article, which is why he went back and changed the title of it.

[opinionatedfool]

Doug Wead is a good guy.

[LibertyEagle]

//

[AJ Antimony]

Are u saying that conditions now are the same as in 1988? Dr. Paul is way more popular now. The GOP as a tool to promote liberty has served its purpose. Dr. Paul will not win the GOP nomination so why not do the country a huge favor and run 3rd party and gain some exposure for the foundation of a legitimate 3rd party. One that is opposed to both the other parties and build on Dr. Paul's ability to draw people from both sides.

As for abandoning the current delegate strategy, of course not. Those patriots have sacrificed time, money and in some cases blood for this cause and it should followed through till Tampa.

I guess my preference is that Dr. Paul go 3rd party AFTER Tampa. Do I think he will actually do it? No probably not. It still doesn't change my stance.

As for your point about the voters, I disagree. The voters usually vote based on the message they are told. Bush didn't campaign on bombing Iraq, Obama didn't campaign on NDAA. You are suggesting the voters voted for illegal wars and indefinite detention? That is what i feel being co-opted is. We elect politicians based on what they tell us, once elected, they vote based on party pressure. Got play along to get along.

My suggestion? Create a party where "play along to get along" means you vote based on the constitution.

I'm saying that Ron Paul is more popular now because he ran for president as a Republican and not as a loser Libertarian. I'm also saying that the Republican Party is the vessel through which the liberty movement will continue to grow, and that a loser 3rd party is where the movement will die.

Gain some exposure? What are you talking about? Ron Paul and his ideas have been exposed. This isn't 2007 where he's a no-name.

Go 3rd party after Tampa? You make it sound so easy, almost as if you know nothing about getting on a ballot. And you also make it sound like just willy nilly going 3rd party will have zero disadvantages and only advantages. If Ron Paul wants to screw over all his supporters as well as Rand, then he should run third party. If he wants to continue building the liberty movement by successfully rebuilding and reforming the GOP, then he should stay in the GOP. He's going to stay in the GOP.

You still don't understand my point about elections and fake politicians. If a voter hears a candidate state a principle, then that candidate gets elected, then that person votes against his stated principle, then it's up to the voter to get pissed off and vote him out of office. It's also up to the voter to do 5 minutes of homework and not vote for the fake candidate in the first place. Flip flopping politicians are the fault of dumb voters, not entire movements.

If you're really so gung-ho about 3rd parties, you should probably go read about how impossible it is to even get on the ballot and how they spend all their money getting on ballots and then fighting in court to stay on the ballots. It's almost like the only way to make ballot access easier is to reform a major party and elect major-party candidates that will reform ballot access laws.

[twomp]

I'm saying that Ron Paul is more popular now because he ran for president as a Republican and not as a loser Libertarian. I'm also saying that the Republican Party is the vessel through which the liberty movement will continue to grow, and that a loser 3rd party is where the movement will die.

Gain some exposure? What are you talking about? Ron Paul and his ideas have been exposed. This isn't 2007 where he's a no-name.

Go 3rd party after Tampa? You make it sound so easy, almost as if you know nothing about getting on a ballot. And you also make it sound like just willy nilly going 3rd party will have zero disadvantages and only advantages. If Ron Paul wants to screw over all his supporters as well as Rand, then he should run third party. If he wants to continue building the liberty movement by successfully rebuilding and reforming the GOP, then he should stay in the GOP. He's going to stay in the GOP.

You still don't understand my point about elections and fake politicians. If a voter hears a candidate state a principle, then that candidate gets elected, then that person votes against his stated principle, then it's up to the voter to get pissed off and vote him out of office. It's also up to the voter to do 5 minutes of homework and not vote for the fake candidate in the first place. Flip flopping politicians are the fault of dumb voters, not entire movements.

If you're really so gung-ho about 3rd parties, you should probably go read about how impossible it is to even get on the ballot and how they spend all their money getting on ballots and then fighting in court to stay on the ballots. It's almost like the only way to make ballot access easier is to reform a major party and elect major-party candidates that will reform ballot access laws.

I agree that Dr. Paul wouldn't have been as well known had he not run for President as a Republican both in 2007 and this year. At the same time, I feel that using the GOP as a tool to promote liberty has served it's purpose. He is effectively retiring from politics this year and he should use his popularity to promote a 3rd party. How many times in the last 50 years have we had a candidate with a solid 5-10 percent base that would vote for him NO MATTER what party he's in? Hell there is a lot of people on this VERY forum that will vote for him even if he's NOT on the ballot? What do you say to those people? That they are throwing away their vote?

As for exposure, you are wrong. The MSM has done a brilliant job in shutting Ron Paul out. I bet you could walk out on your street or go to your library and find people who don't know who Ron Paul is. I'm sure if you asked them who Romney or Obama is, they would know.

To address your point about getting on the ballot. He doesn't have to start from scratch, there are parties out there that I'm sure would be willing to have him on their ticket just for his base. But you are right, I should look more into this so that I don't look like I'm talking out my ass and I definitely will.

As for the career of Rand Paul, I believe his career is safe now in the ample bosom of one Willard Mitt Romney. It is going to be hard to for people to blame Rand for his dad's actions. I'm sure they will try though. All Rand Paul has to say is "look I publicly supported Mitt Romney and I caught hell for it." Besides it's not like the establishment GOP helped him get elected anyways.

I will get back to you about the getting on the ballot stuff, I've heard Dr. Paul speak on how hard it is to get on every state but I never really looked up the requirements. Now that you mention it though, I'll probably look up which party managed to get on the ballots in all 50 states, it can't be that much seeing how hard it is. Either way, I hope one of these parties extend an invitation to Dr. Paul and find a way to get him on the ticket.

And finally to address your voter comments. I'm sure the voters would vote the frauds out IF THEY KNEW! People have lives and families, they trust what they see on the evening news after a long hard day at work. The media doesn't show them what is really going on. Why would they vote someone out when they don't even know what he's done wrong? NDAA was barely reported on by the media as well as all those countless other crap that Congress and the President has pulled off. You blame the voters for something media and establishment has been responsible for. I'm sure you were one of the "enlightened" ones who saw through this crap way back in the 70's with Dr. Paul right? But for the rest of us, we have been manipulated by the media. Hell up till about 8 months ago, I didn't know the Federal Reserve was a private company.

In any case, the disagreement remains. The Barry Goldwater movement couldn't change the GOP "from within." The Pat Roberson evangelical movement couldn't do it. The Tea Party couldn't do it.

It's time to stop trying the same thing over and over and try a new approach. This opportunity goes away when Dr. Paul does. There has been NO candidate with his appeal and he is the ONLY one that could be the anchor for a legitimate 3rd party run. If it doesn't work, well the GOP will still be here in 2016 no? It still wouldn't be to late to rebuild that corrupt party from within.

[olsonly]

Really

[olsonly]

well i haven't heard anyone bashing carol but after rand endorsing romney. If i was carol i would of demanded ron paul wore a condom on a certain day.

That is really stupid.

[AJ Antimony]

I agree that Dr. Paul wouldn't have been as well known had he not run for President as a Republican both in 2007 and this year. At the same time, I feel that using the GOP as a tool to promote liberty has served it's purpose. He is effectively retiring from politics this year and he should use his popularity to promote a 3rd party. How many times in the last 50 years have we had a candidate with a solid 5-10 percent base that would vote for him NO MATTER what party he's in? Hell there is a lot of people on this VERY forum that will vote for him even if he's NOT on the ballot? What do you say to those people? That they are throwing away their vote?

As for exposure, you are wrong. The MSM has done a brilliant job in shutting Ron Paul out. I bet you could walk out on your street or go to your library and find people who don't know who Ron Paul is. I'm sure if you asked them who Romney or Obama is, they would know.

To address your point about getting on the ballot. He doesn't have to start from scratch, there are parties out there that I'm sure would be willing to have him on their ticket just for his base. But you are right, I should look more into this so that I don't look like I'm talking out my ass and I definitely will.

As for the career of Rand Paul, I believe his career is safe now in the ample bosom of one Willard Mitt Romney. It is going to be hard to for people to blame Rand for his dad's actions. I'm sure they will try though. All Rand Paul has to say is "look I publicly supported Mitt Romney and I caught hell for it." Besides it's not like the establishment GOP helped him get elected anyways.

I will get back to you about the getting on the ballot stuff, I've heard Dr. Paul speak on how hard it is to get on every state but I never really looked up the requirements. Now that you mention it though, I'll probably look up which party managed to get on the ballots in all 50 states, it can't be that much seeing how hard it is. Either way, I hope one of these parties extend an invitation to Dr. Paul and find a way to get him on the ticket.

And finally to address your voter comments. I'm sure the voters would vote the frauds out IF THEY KNEW! People have lives and families, they trust what they see on the evening news after a long hard day at work. The media doesn't show them what is really going on. Why would they vote someone out when they don't even know what he's done wrong? NDAA was barely reported on by the media as well as all those countless other crap that Congress and the President has pulled off. You blame the voters for something media and establishment has been responsible for. I'm sure you were one of the "enlightened" ones who saw through this crap way back in the 70's with Dr. Paul right? But for the rest of us, we have been manipulated by the media. Hell up till about 8 months ago, I didn't know the Federal Reserve was a private company.

In any case, the disagreement remains. The Barry Goldwater movement couldn't change the GOP "from within." The Pat Roberson evangelical movement couldn't do it. The Tea Party couldn't do it.

It's time to stop trying the same thing over and over and try a new approach. This opportunity goes away when Dr. Paul does. There has been NO candidate with his appeal and he is the ONLY one that could be the anchor for a legitimate 3rd party run. If it doesn't work, well the GOP will still be here in 2016 no? It still wouldn't be to late to rebuild that corrupt party from within.

5-10% base?? Good one! Have a source for that? No, I know you don't, because you made those numbers up. Completely made up. Ron Paul got 11% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012) in the entire 2012 GOP primary race, and I guarantee not all of that 11% are die hard supporters. Maybe half of them are? Who knows. Even if we say all 2,000,000 GOP votes for Ron Paul are from die hard supporters, in a general election of 130,000,000 voters, that's only 1.5% of the vote. If we make the completely unverifiable assumption that Ron Paul has 2,000,000 die hard voters in the Democratic Party, then we are up to 3% of the general election electorate! My signature applies to you and what you said here. You believe Ron Paul has a completely bogus number of die hard voters. He doesn't. His die hard voters are such a tiny fraction of the electorate. It actually amazes me how such a small amount of supporters have been able to overhaul GOP.

Regarding exposure, who cares what some dolts on the street know about politics? Half of America doesn't vote. We only care about exposure among GOP voters. Polls have shown that Ron Paul has high name recognition among voters. They know him from 2008. I think I saw some polls like this before Iowa, but I don't remember. Do voters know exactly where he stands on the issues? Of course not. But they don't really have any idea where Obama and Romney stand either.

"Besides it's not like the establishment GOP helped him get elected anyways." Um, the GOP certainly helped him win the general election...

Regarding voters, you're right that voters vote like morons because they don't know anything. But this is still, at least partially, their fault. Voters are not completely faultless. Again, 5 minutes on Google can teach voters more about their candidates than the MSM can in 5 weeks. It's their fault that they don't care to do their homework.

Your overall point still has absolutely no logical support. You are saying that because a movement may be "co-opted," then it's the movement's fault for trying to restore a political party. And again, as another poster pointed out, are you even sure you are comparing apples to apples here? Are you sure the Goldwater, evangelical, and Tea Party movements are exactly the same as the Ron Paul movement? Are you sure? Seeing as you don't know much about ballot access, I highly doubt you know much about the Goldwater movement. I sure don't know a lot about it!

If you could please explain how supporting an unpopular third party candidate/ticket is NOT trying the same thing over and over, then that would be great. By the way, how is Ron Paul the ONLY anchor for a "legitimate" 3rd party run? Like it or not, Ron Paul was a congressman that really didn't get anything done. Gary Johnson, on the other hand, is a two term major party governor that did a great job as governor. To me, a two term governor seems more "legitimate" than a congressman (how did former GOP Rep. Bob Barr do in 2008?)

[parocks]

Yes you know because you are the "judge" of all this? Who's to say that you're not the idiot? You know the one that wants to try the same thing over and over in hopes of a different result "this time around."

Just be patient, look at Barry Goldwater, look at Pat Roberson, look at the Tea Party. They sure changed the party from within didn't they? No they changed the party's language. The establishment remains firmly in power.

But let me guess, it will be different this time right?

It's an continuous fight. The conservative tradition is one in the republican party. conservatives have been battling the eastern establishment since at least 1940 - on basically the same lines - against the new deal, too big fed gov. Taft - Goldwater - Reagan - Paul. Keep fighting.

[twomp]

5-10% base?? Good one! Have a source for that? No, I know you don't, because you made those numbers up. It says 7-10 percent like Ron Paul.

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=18901


Polls have shown that Ron Paul has high name recognition among voters.

I won't call you a liar but how do I know that you didn't make that up? You want to know if people know who he is? Just ask 10 random people you see tomorrow.


Your overall point still has absolutely no logical support. You are saying that because a movement may be "co-opted," then it's the movement's fault for trying to restore a political party. And again, as another poster pointed out, are you even sure you are comparing apples to apples here? Are you sure the Goldwater, evangelical, and Tea Party movements are exactly the same as the Ron Paul movement? Are you sure? Seeing as you don't know much about ballot access, I highly doubt you know much about the Goldwater movement. I sure don't know a lot about it!

You're right. You don't know. Where did I say they were exactly the same? No two movements are the same. The thing they have in common is that they all got co-opted. I'm not sure how many times I have to explain this to you but let me try again. Those previous movements have TRIED to change the party from within. They got co-opted in the process. Is it their "fault"? I don't even know what you mean by their "fault for trying to restore a political party"? Those movements had good intentions when they started. The Barry Goldwater movement was big on conservatism. The Pat Roberson movement was big on faith and religion. The Tea Party was against big government and crony capitalism. They all succeeded in changing the rhetoric. They failed in "changing the party" from within. They got co-opted. I don't know how many times I can explain this. Maybe 2-3 more times?


If you could please explain how supporting an unpopular third party candidate/ticket is NOT trying the same thing over and over, then that would be great. By the way, how is Ron Paul the ONLY anchor for a "legitimate" 3rd party run? Like it or not, Ron Paul was a congressman that really didn't get anything done. Gary Johnson, on the other hand, is a two term major party governor that did a great job as governor. To me, a two term governor seems more "legitimate" than a congressman (how did former GOP Rep. Bob Barr do in 2008?)

Sure for the 3rd time, I will explain it again. Gary Johnson doesn't have the base that Ron Paul does. Ron Paul has a base that will vote for him no matter what party he is in and I'm sure you've seen some of the posts here of how folks will vote for him even if he isn't on the ballot. There has been NO other candidate in the past 40 years that has that kind of a base. If the polls for the video I linked from above is correct, then Dr. Paul will start with a 5-10 percent base. IF you can find any polls that says otherwise, I'd love to see it. I'm looking for a fairly recent poll of how he would match up versus Mitt Romney AND President Obama.

If Dr. Paul is considering running in 2016, I would say stay in the party. Since it's unlikely that he will do that. Why not find a way to run 3rd party and give the country a legitimate 3rd option. A REAL rEVOLution would be the start of a 3rd party.

[speciallyblend]

That is really stupid.

wearing a condom is safe not stupid . what is really stupid is people endorsing obamney and then trying to justify it. Romney is obama and a liar. people who are willing to endorse obamney should not be trusted.

[WhistlinDave]

I think the topic of this thread and many other threads I've seen, and the general level of tension and anger out there overall, seems to indicate a lot of people need to seriously chill out.

Keep up with efforts on a local and state level, throw in with the lawsuit if you have anything pertinent to contribute, and other than that, chill out.

Everyone is getting uptight because they cannot wait until Tampa and they are wanting all the answers and some kind of resolution or closure now, whether it's winning or losing the nomination. Some people cannot stand the fact that everything is in Limbo. They cannot stand the indications that things may not be going well. How quickly some people have already mentally given up!

But all the anger and getting mad at this person or that person or calling this one a traitor and that one useless or whatever, none of it is constructive.

We all need to just keep chugging along, and chill out, because getting all frenzied does not help anything. If Ron loses the nomination in Tampa, there will still be more work to do. If Ron wins the nomination in Tampa, there will still be more work to do. This heightened level of anxiety some people are feeling in the meantime is not going to make August get here any faster and it certainly isn't going to help anyone or anything.

Whenever you see people flipping out, whether here, or other places online (or in real life for that matter) please remind them Tampa is still a ways off, and encourage them to take a deep breath and relax. People need to channel their passion and find something to do that will help the cause of Liberty, not find someone to get mad at.

[CPUd]

On cognitive dissonance:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=korGK0yGIDo