RON Paul in 2016? Thoughts?

[Peace&Freedom]

A Few Questions, Concerning the Present Ron Paul Campaign Situation

by Walter Block


1. Rand Paul’s recent endorsement of Mitt Romney

First, what is the proper libertarian response to Rand Paul's recent endorsement of Mitt Romney?

For me, an important point was the realization, thanks to Jack Hunter, that Murray Rothbard supported George Bush over Bill Clinton. That strongly indicates to me that there is nothing anti libertarian, per se, about such an endorsement, whether of Bush by Rothbard, or of Mitt, by Rand.

Suppose we were slaves, and the master offered us a vote for either Overseer Baddy, who beat the crap out of us all the time, or Overseer Goody, who only beat us once in a while, and then more gently. And suppose we voted for the latter. Does this mean we support slavery? Of course not. Does this mean that we have thereby violated the libertarian principle of non aggression? Again, of course not. Does this mean we endorse Goody? No, a thousand times no. We can only infer from this action that we prefer Goody to Baddy.

Now posit that a mugger held us at gun point, and demanded either our watch or our wallet, and we gave him our time piece. Does this mean we have acquiesced in the robbery? Certainly not. Does this imply we agreed to having our watch stolen from us? Again, not at all. The main problem I have with Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney is its timing: it was done before his father, Ron Paul, had actually lost the election, which is to be based on delegates, not popular vote. For the rest of this article, I will assume the contrary to fact conditional (at least at present), that Governor Romney will be the Republican candidate, not the man who will bring about liberty, save lives abroad and domestically, end the fed, stop the war on drugs.

2. Should Ron Paul endorse Mitt Romney?

If in the future, Ron endorses Mitt, I will regard this act solely on pragmatic grounds. I am not sure whether this is a wise move or not. On the one hand, Ron will score points with the GOP establishment if he does; on the other, his legions of fans will be gnashing their teeth; see the eloquent testimony of Tom Woods to this effect. But, as far as libertarian principle is concerned, I would have no problem with it, any more than I did with the prospect of Ron accepting matching funds from the government for his campaign expenditures. As I see things, this decision is not a matter of praxeology, of logic, of libertarian principle. It is solely an issue of history as Mises would put it, or practicality.

Ron will either endorse Mitt, or not. And whatever he does, we will never know if liberty could have been better promoted had he taken the other course. However, were this up to me, my instinct would be to advise Ron not to endorse the weathervane. That is my prudential judgment.

3. What is the best tactic for promoting liberty (assuming Ron Paul does not become the Republican nominee)?

Many people have concluded from this likely eventuality that politics is a fool’s game in terms of bringing about a libertarian society. They cite the vicious manner in which our hero, Ron Paul, has been treated by the GOP hierarchy: they have attempted to ignore him, ridicule him, change the delegate rules at the last minute, they have physically abused his supporters, have engaged in outright cheating in terms of miscounting ballots, etc. They offer in contention for their conclusion how the media regarded him: denigrated him, laughed at him, covered everyone else but him, gave him short shrift in the debates; if they were able to, they probably would have engaged in physical abuse and ballot box stuffing too, such disinterested and fair judges were they.

These critics of politics claim that we should therefore return to education. Now, don’t get me wrong. I favor trying to educate the general populace. I have devoted a goodly part of my career in this direction, and shall continue my efforts in this regard. However, I am not at all giving up on politics, not even our attempt to take over the Republican Party, and return it to its (Taft, Borah, constitutional) roots. But fairness forces me to acknowledge the fact that one of the best ways to educate the public regarding the merits of personal liberties, Austrian economics and a non imperialistic foreign policy is precisely in the manner blazed by Ron Paul. We can have our cake and eat it too. It is a false choice: either Ron Paul style Republicanism, or education. The former is perhaps the best way, or means, to accomplish the latter! Murray Rothbard used to say something to the effect that every four years, for a few months, the eyes of the public turn to politics, and that this would be a good opportunity for us to take advantage of this phenomenon. Murray was a political hound. He was involved in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party (for Adlai Stevenson, against Ike), the Peace and Freedom Party, the Libertarian Party; he saw this as a good way to get our message to the public. I think his insight was dead on and applies now as well as during his own lifetime.

4. Which strategy should libertarians embrace?

The Free State Project? The Libertarian Party? Free market think tanks? Sea-steading? Bookstores? Fabianism in reverse? Attempting to infiltrate the universities? Supporting Ron Paul’s efforts in the GOP? Journalism? Music videos? Novels? Public lectures? I support them all. But in what proportion? With my time? Academia and the Mises Institute are for me first and foremost. I am forever trying to teach my students the benefits of economic freedom, and the importance of understanding the dismal science, from an Austrian perspective. In terms of my monetary donations? Ron Paul and the Mises Institute are head and shoulders above all the rest. But my advice to others? Engage in the course that is the most enjoyable for you. Even Bill Buckley, no friend of liberty he, acknowledged Murray Rothbard and his happy band. This libertarian movement is supposed to be FUN. So, do what feels best, is my advice.

5. Who will be better for the country? Mitt Romney or Barack Obama?

According to this video, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two of them. I disagree. One reason is, say what you will about Obama, at least he is not a weathervane, changing policy every time the political wind veers. He sticks to his horrendous socialist policies, come rain or shine. The same cannot be said for Romney. Choosing between them is difficult, in that we really don’t know what one of them will do (ask the generals? Ask the lawyers? Ask John Bolton?) However, attempting to look beneath the fog put out by the weathervane, in my view Obama is likely to be slightly better on foreign policy than Romney. And, I think this arena more important than the other two, economic and personal liberty, however much all three of them are intertwined. I favored Obama over John McCain in 2008 on this foreign intervention ground, and I now support our sitting president vis a vis Romney for that reason too.

6. Who to vote for in the fall?

Fortunately, our choices are not limited to a "progressive" socialist or a weathervane fascist. There is indeed a third option: Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party. Again, on the assumption that our man Ron Paul is not in the running in November, this seems like a no brainer. Gary Johnson is no Murray Rothbard. He is no Ron Paul. But compared to Romney and Obama? It is no contest. The counter argument is, a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama. So what? I favor Obama over Romney in any case.

7. What of the future?

Ron Paul in 2016 is my motto. Ron is WAY better than Rand on libertarian grounds, as Lew Rockwell brilliantly demonstrates. Why support Rand, when Ron will still be around? Yes, he will be 80 years old at that time. What, are you an ageist, you despicable discriminatory creature? What about elder rights? Wait, I’m getting off the point. Ron will have reached his eighth decade in four years, but, extrapolating from the present, he will still be in far better physical shape than men 30 years younger than him. Anyone want to challenge Ron to a bicycle race in the heat of Texas? Not I, not I. Ron Paul in 2016, say I.

8. What is the libertarian position?

What is the libertarian position on Ron endorsing Mitt? The libertarian position on anything is based on the question of, Does it violate the non aggression principle (NAP) about initiating or threatening physical violence. If so, the libertarian position is that it should be illegal, and punished by the full force of the law. If not, the libertarian position is that it should be legal, and it would be unjustified to use physical violence against the person who engages in that act. Before answering the question posed, let us consider some other issues. What is the libertarian position on vanilla ice cream, basketball, rap music, Mozart, homosexual marriages, libel and blackmail (as opposed to extortion)? The question that must first be asked is, do any of these things constitute a per se rights violation, in that they are incompatible with that NAP? The answer is, Of course not. Thus, the libertarian position on each of these items is that they should all be legal. What is the libertarian position on murder, rape and theft? Since these all violate the NAP, the libertarian position is, they should all be illegal. Now for the question posed: What is the libertarian position on Ron endorsing Mitt? It should be legal. Ron should not be thrown in jail if he does this. Period.

June 14, 2012

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable and Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective. His latest book is The Privatization of Roads and Highways.

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

http://lewrockwell.com/block/block204.html

[eleganz]

I don't even think Ron would mind if it were just about him going to the debates to continue steering the political debate our way and letting us do the legwork.

I definitely know what I have to do for the next go around if it were to happen.


Ron Paul 2016 Presidential Campaign Exploratory Committee, LETS' GO!





And PLEASE....Ron is not going to endorse Mitt.

[Mini-Me]

I've always liked Walter Block. :) He's so chill and nonjudgmental.

I don't see Ron running in four years, since the man needs his retirement, and his age would be an extreme political liability, but regardless: An-caps could have much worse role models than Walter Block.

[Aratus]

he might run

[twomp]

Ron Paul in 2016? Does a bear shit in the woods?

YUS!!!

[Aratus]

even if its only
educational:)
and its a few
debates he's
in, but he needs
to recharge his
emotional core
being and all
his emotional
batteries i do
think, anyway

[helmuth_hubener]

Yes, this would be wonderful! Everyone said in 2008 that he would be too old in 2012. He wasn't. 80 years old might be pushing it, but still is within reason. Let's do it!

[SantanJ]

Absolutely NOT. Why spend another round when it only happens 4 years?

Sorry...but no one is electing an 80 yer old president. They just aren't. So...Ron Paul would only be taking up the space of someone that is the FUTURE of the movement. Like it or not, Ron Paul is mostly the past. (Some may say founder, but still, mostly in the past.)

It would mean not being able to have anyone with a REAL shot even get any experience in trying until 2020.

It is really a moot point. He simply is not going to do it. Again...like it or not, by 2016, Ron Pauls life expectancy...yes, even taking into account his fitness level...will be not much more than 4 years. With a greater than 50% chance of him dying within 4 years. (Especially since a job like that ages people considerably. Look at Obama today compared to 2007, or Bush in 2009 comapred to 2000.) And he doesn't want to be so stressed out for the rest of his life.

IT is simply time to move on and embrace the next leader(s). Honor the past, embrace the future.

[Aratus]

we can now dream and we can aspire
we truly know doctor ron paul inspires

[sailingaway]

Poor Ron.....

But it is certainly a great idea as a placeholder for right now, at minimum, what could motivate our delegates more than laying a foundation for his possible next run? :p

[Lightweis]

please let the man retire! Its time for us to become the messengers,

[helmuth_hubener]

And next time, no one from the current campaign staff carries over. It needs to be a totally different team. Hire professionals who can be trusted.

[Aratus]

we need to dutifully be outside the good doctor's front porch in 2015 for auld lang syne's sake becuz rand is a tad young, yet

[Aratus]

even if poor carol paul takes a timely broom to us all because of our cheeky behavior!

[coffeewithchess]

Poor Ron.....

But it is certainly a great idea as a placeholder for right now, at minimum, what could motivate our delegates more than laying a foundation for his possible next run? :p

Hmmm, I think a great motivator right now would be a Romney attack ad? How about simply an Obama attack ad? I mean, they did raise over at least $2 million since April, and only had one outdated ad they wasted money on. Certainly they have some $$$$ left over to help motivate supporters still active right?

No, Ron in 2016 is terrible. If Ron Paul couldn't be elected in 2008/2012 with the most passionate supporters, and $50+ million, it wouldn't matter if the campaign had another $30+ million in 2016, they would torpedo themselves for a seat at the GOP table all day long apparently.

[joshnorris14]

There is no doubt in my mind that Ron will consider it. Of course he will consider it, the Liberty movement is his life. If he thinks a presidential run will further strengthen the Liberty movement, he'll do it without hesitation. And we owe him a great deal for that.

[Aratus]

especially if it is a vintage front porch campaign sorta like warren g. harding's classic one! especially if its an educational front porch campaign!

[YankeesJunkie]

What about a guy like Justin Amash or Jeff Flake who have both scored very highly on both economic and social liberty. Obviously Amash will just be 35 in 2016, but Flake in all likelihood will have four years as junior senator of AZ.

[sailingaway]

What about a guy like Justin Amash or Jeff Flake who have both scored very highly on both economic and social liberty. Obviously Amash will just be 35 in 2016, but Flake in all likelihood will have four years as junior senator of AZ.

I'm remembering having some problems with Flake. Didn't he vote for the Patriot Act or NDAA something like that? I'd have to look it up, but mentally I wrote him off.

[alucard13mmfmj]

please let the man retire! Its time for us to become the messengers,

yeah. i feel he did all he can. he should spend his time peacefully and without bullcrap with his family. bike all day and work on his garden on his property.

[Origanalist]

Ron Paul is not going to run in 2016. Get a grip on reality.

He is a human being

[Aratus]

rick S brought back the bill mckinley handshake all over iowa by meeting some farmers.

maybe doctor ron paul can think over a warren g. harding era front porch campaign!!!!!

[SantanJ]

Here is another way to look at it...Someone ELSE runs...whether it is Rand or someone else...and Ron Paul might actually get MORE airtime being interviewed and talking about that other person than he did this year or in 2008. That would help more than another year of getting a couple hundred delegates and being ignored.

[Weston White]

Presuming that Ron Paul is not to be elected, then after 2012, I think it would be much better if either Ron Paul (1) were to serve as head of one of the major national bureaucracies and effect policy changes through administrative regulations, e.g., Treasury, DHS, etc., or (2) were to publicly debate fulltime against the likes of current mainstream pundits and talking-heads, e.g., Cheney, Rove, etc.

[Justinfrom1776]

He doesn't have to. The idea that is Ron Paul has arrived. Now all that is needed is someone accepted by the establishment who will carry our torch. Someone who will vote almost identically to Ron but compromise on silly things like.. I don't know.. Endorsements.

[r3volution]

as much as i would like to see this happen i doubt it will .

[thatpeculiarcat]

Absolutely NOT. Why spend another round when it only happens 4 years?

Sorry...but no one is electing an 80 yer old president. They just aren't. So...Ron Paul would only be taking up the space of someone that is the FUTURE of the movement. Like it or not, Ron Paul is mostly the past. (Some may say founder, but still, mostly in the past.)

It would mean not being able to have anyone with a REAL shot even get any experience in trying until 2020.

It is really a moot point. He simply is not going to do it. Again...like it or not, by 2016, Ron Pauls life expectancy...yes, even taking into account his fitness level...will be not much more than 4 years. With a greater than 50% chance of him dying within 4 years. (Especially since a job like that ages people considerably. Look at Obama today compared to 2007, or Bush in 2009 comapred to 2000.) And he doesn't want to be so stressed out for the rest of his life.

IT is simply time to move on and embrace the next leader(s). Honor the past, embrace the future.

Very true and +rep

[Karsten]

Somehow I've been living under the assumption that Ron ruled out running in 2016. Has he ever spoke about it?

He would be out of office for (3) years, since the election season, if it is open (Obama gets a 2nd term) would start in 2015.

However, I get the feeling that the system is pushing Romney. When was the last successful dark horse candidate? If you think Ron doesn't get coverage now, there would be nothing at all if it's against incumbent Romney.

[Lishy]

Isn't Israel's president in his 80's? So I see nothing wrong with Ron Paul campaigning again, if he does! :)

But I respect whatever decision he makes.

[Karsten]

And by the way, I'm totally for the idea. Having the leader of the Iowa GOP being a Ron Paul person would help a lot.

And frankly, people who were 14-17 this year being able to vote (for Ron), and a bunch of old ass establishment voters dying off.

Sorry to have to put it that way.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Ron is great at educating, I think he would do great giving speeches to elementary, junior high and high school students. Hopefully he can WAKE THEM UP before they get to voting age.

I would vote for him again if he ran though. He is a statesman and everyone else on the stage are politicians through and through.

[James Madison]

Might as well try. Who cares if he'll be 80? Last time I checked, there wasn't a maximum age requirement to run for president.

[John F Kennedy III]

Poor Ron.....

But it is certainly a great idea as a placeholder for right now, at minimum, what could motivate our delegates more than laying a foundation for his possible next run? :p

:p Ron Paul 2016! 2020....2024...2028...2032

[Weston White]

Personally, I really do not get this whole “scoring points” mantra. I mean, who is Mitt Romney, really? Ron Paul has well-established himself in the federal circuit, thus, is it not Mitt Romney (and for that matter the entire GOP) who should be endorsing Ron Paul and not the other way around?

After all, Ron Paul is not representative of some dopy Barney Frank closet imbecile, he is of both Mises quality intellect and worldly respectability.

[moonshine5757]

I hope some of you are joking. There some extremely delusional comment in this thread. He isn't running in four years. He did his job, he laid the groundwork. That's it he'll never be president. We should focus and try to agree on the next Ron Paul and start planning and donating money today. We need to get our butts in gear now and not cry over spilled milk. It's time to pass the baton to the next Ron Paul. So, who do we support next?

[SantanJ]

Personally, I really do not get this whole “scoring points” mantra. I mean, who is Mitt Romney, really? Ron Paul has well-established himself in the federal circuit, thus, is it not Mitt Romney (and for that matter the entire GOP) who should be endorsing Ron Paul and not the other way around?

After all, Ron Paul is not representative of some dopy Barney Frank closet imbecile, he is Mises quality intellect.


But what does any of that have to do with wasting another election season on someone who will not win. Sure..the chances of anyone else similar to Ron PAul winning in 2016 are very slim too..but it would be better to spend 2016 building for the future rather than looking to the past.

The next person other than Ron Paul to run will likely get somewhere between Ron Paul 2008 and Ron Paul 2012 numbers their first time running. I don't care who it is. The gains made by Ron Paul will help, but the fact that he ISN'T Ron Paul will hurt. However that will happen whether Ron Paul runs in 2016 or not. No matter when it is, the next one will have to start almost all over. So...if that new person has to wait until 2020 to start, then the absolute soonest he can make an impact will be 2024.

Think of how far away that is. It is doubtful Ron Paul would be alive to see his predecessor build on his momentum if this were the case.





However, I get the feeling that the system is pushing Romney. When was the last successful dark horse candidate? If you think Ron doesn't get coverage now, there would be nothing at all if it's against incumbent Romney.

I think obviously this is only even up for debate (if at all) if Obama wins. I don't think there is ANYONE loopy enough to think that Ron Paul would even CONSIDER trying to beat an incumbent president in his own party Ron Paul is simply not that stupid as to think that he would be taken seriously if he tried.

[Carehn]

He's not running in 16. I don't want him to. It will kill him. I don't like seeing his supporters 'rape' him like this. He is not a fucking side show. The man is a human bean.

I will never forget what I learned from him or what he has given me personally but its getting time to move on.

Ron Will not be running for us in 4 years and Its best he doesn't. Its best he live out his life and KNOW we all love him and respect what he has given us and helped us with.

I say Liberty 2016 ... whoever fills that position.

[Carehn]

Reading this thread makes me sad.

You guys just don't get it. We have to move past him.

In 60 years I will know who Ron Paul was. And I will not forget what he stood for.

Don't pump the well dry guys. Let him go.

[Origanalist]

Reading this thread makes me sad.

You guys just don't get it. We have to move past him.

In 60 years I will know who Ron Paul was. And I will not forget what he stood for.

Don't pump the well dry guys. Let him go.

+1

But long before 60 years gets here I'll be taking a dirt nap.

[freedomordeath]

If he decides to run we'll back him no matter what, poeple will back him to the death, but it will be something he decides on regardless what we think his chances are, for me I don't think he'll run again simply because of his son. He'll want Rand to take over, I don't like Rand.

Me personally, the market chose gold over the last 5000years and we got that in Ron, he was the gold standard, lets give this Amash guy a go, apperantly he doesn't have a hope in hell against the sitting democrat, this is our kinda project, take on the impossible, lets rally behind this dude and remember he has what money can't buy, the craziest hard core die hard followers that this world has ever seen. I read the one MSM article where they think delusional Ron Paul followers think they in some kind of rag tag rebel army.. hahaha this is true, pick up the flag and face the enemy.

[S.Shorland]

I'd like some sort of nice monument for him.Something visible from a transcontinental rail line on the side of a hill.I don't think it has to be too expensive but just something big enough to suit his service.His face with 'LIBERTY' under it.

[John F Kennedy III]

Reading this thread makes me sad.

You guys just don't get it. We have to move past him.

In 60 years I will know who Ron Paul was. And I will not forget what he stood for.

Don't pump the well dry guys. Let him go.

Exactly. RAND Paul 2016.

[Origanalist]

Exactly. RAND Paul 2016.

Doesn't that put you at odds with AF? Or are you able to agree to disagree? ( we could use a whole lot more of that)

[Yieu]

Reading this thread makes me sad.

You guys just don't get it. We have to move past him.

In 60 years I will know who Ron Paul was. And I will not forget what he stood for.

Don't pump the well dry guys. Let him go.

It's true, I'd love for Ron to run again, but we all know that is very unlikely.

The problem is, we don't know who we will be able to get behind now once 2016 comes along, and we have no one for 2012 anymore.

Hopefully someone will come to the spotlight before 2016, but it better be soon because 4 years isn't a long time.


3. What is the best tactic for promoting liberty (assuming Ron Paul does not become the Republican nominee)?

Many people have concluded from this likely eventuality that politics is a fool’s game in terms of bringing about a libertarian society.

I already thought this from the start, but decided to play along to see just how far it is possible to get. I am now less naive.

[blamx8]

If RP decided to run again, I can say right now with no hesitation, that I would once again support him with my time, money, voice, and vote.
Some of you talk like 4 more years is going to kill the man. I say it just makes him an even greater sage than he is now. Think of the growth we saw in his delivery from '08 to today.

[John F Kennedy III]

Doesn't that put you at odds with AF? Or are you able to agree to disagree? ( we could use a whole lot more of that)

I guess we agree to disagree. Lol.

[bultza]

Let us make a money-bomb to finance the cloning of Ron Paul:D

[matt0611]

Let us make a money-bomb to finance the cloning of Ron Paul:D

We have his son, who is as close as we're gonna get.

I honestly wouldn't want Ron to run again even if he did (which he won't), I love the guy but the republicans just won't nominate him.

Rand Paul 2016 for me. I don't think there's anyone else I'd trust more besides Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano to be President than Rand.

[TrishW]

Ron Paul has already given so much. The role of presidency would be so draining. I would rather think of him spending his time with his wife, relaxing and enjoying his grandkids. All I would hope, is that Ron Paul give us a push in the right direction. I know if he says Rand, it is for a far better reason than just relationship.

I thought I was alone in my hopes for a better America. Ron Paul has brought me here, and introduced me to a world of people .... that I can actually agree with! lol

[V3n]

I'd love to see him take a little break to be with his family for a few months after his Congressional term is over.

After that, an RV tour - rock-star style! Travel across the country filling Stadiums for two years continuing to educate America and say everything he's always wanted to without 'the next Congressional run' hanging over his head (not that he's ever really held back!)

He can leave the campaigning aside for the next generation (other than campaigning for them) - and be a great leader and educator outside the system.

[sailingaway]

We have his son, who is as close as we're gonna get.

I honestly wouldn't want Ron to run again even if he did (which he won't), I love the guy but the republicans just won't nominate him.

Rand Paul 2016 for me. I don't think there's anyone else I'd trust more besides Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano to be President than Rand.

I think the entire point of this thread was that people are shaken about Rand and trying to keep committed by putting Ron out there again. 2016 will take care of itself and should have been left to do so, not intruded over 2012, imho.

[Peace&Freedom]

I'd love to see him take a little break to be with his family for a few months after his Congressional term is over.

After that, an RV tour - rock-star style! Travel across the country filling Stadiums for two years continuing to educate America and say everything he's always wanted to without 'the next Congressional run' hanging over his head (not that he's ever really held back!)

He can leave the campaigning aside for the next generation (other than campaigning for them) - and be a great leader and educator outside the system.

Now you're getting it, albeit incompletely. Paul is NOT retiring from politics, he's retiring from CONGRESS. This gives him a chance to hold stadium-filling youth rallies and headline liberty candidate fundraisers for the next 2-3 years, thereby building up the liberty movement outside of the GOP (having turned over the within-party structure to Rand). He doesn't have to run an energy-intensive REPUBLICAN campaign again, but can elect to run an educational 'Plan B' 3rd party candidacy if Rand fails in '16, where WE supply the missing energy.

Ron's 'retirement' opens up the possibility of a last run in 2016 on the LP line (if he wants to), after Rand runs for the 2016 Republican nomination and (as expected) gets hosed by the establishment, the same way they did Ron. Then all that infrastructure, built up for Rand's candidacy both inside and outside the GOP, can get swiftly transferred over to Ron, and we finally get to vote for Paul on Election day in 2016. Even if he still doesn't win, he will have completed the journey of being the Moses of the growing rEVOLution, even if he himself was ultimately unable to cross the Jordan into the White House.

[joshnorris14]

I think the entire point of this thread was that people are shaken about Rand and trying to keep committed by putting Ron out there again. 2016 will take care of itself and should have been left to do so, not intruded over 2012, imho.

These people don't get it. "Let him live out his life in peace"

This IS his life. If someone less than capable steps in to fill the void, he will not be at peace.

[IDefendThePlatform]

Heard a lot of the "He'll be way too old in 2012" talk 4 years ago too. And Ron was freaking FANTASTIC on the campaign trail this time around.

Maybe after 3 years of relaxing and just giving a few speeches Ron will get the itch again.

Also, what if inflation really gets out of control? Or Obama attacks Iran and it goes poorly? Ron has by far the most credibility on those issues and Rand would have to give up his senate seat (and I personally wouldn't be nearly as excited about him) and Amash will probably still need more seasoning before he's ready.

No doubt it's a long ways off, but I'm not ruling it out.

[The Dude]

The only thing I would like to see from Ron after this campaign is over is TV appearances here and there and maybe some speeches at universities. Even if he ran in 2016, I wouldn't support him. He would just be too old, it's delusional to think he would be fit at age 80 to be President. We need to look elsewhere (and not at Rand) for a liberty candidate in 2016.

[helmuth_hubener]

Maybe, just maybe, this is already his plan. Running for President takes time. Ron is so conscientious about his Congressional duties; he's not comfortable just writing it off and missing all the votes. Being a Congressman is a full-time job. Running for President is a full-time job. Ron is quitting one full-time job. Could it be so that he can focus on the other?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkCIz8nZeVs

In any case, it is certainly not impossible that Ron would run in 2016. Most everyone said that he'd be too old in 2012. They said "time to pass the torch," "don't be delusional," "he'll never run," etc., etc. But he diii-iid.... :)

[No Free Beer]

And next time, no one from the current campaign staff carries over. It needs to be a totally different team. Hire professionals who can be trusted.

Okay, AJ

[trey4sports]

Ron got the movement off the ground. We now need someone who can take us to the next level and that is not Ron. It might not even be Rand. Maybe Massie or Amash runs instead? Ron will continue to be active but he doesn't need to be running for president.

[helmuth_hubener]

Okay, AJ It's not me. I don't know any of these people and haven't followed all this drama stuff. But it's clear that there's too much bad feelings and distrust and so for the sake of team spirit and good feelings, it needs to be a new team. Too many people in the grassroots hate the campaign staff too bad for it to be an ideal productive situation. Plus, definitely there are many things which could have been done much better, of course. Not to say the team necessarily did a horrible job -- I don't know, I'm not qualified to judge.

[jmdrake]

It's obvious to anyone rationally looking at recent events that Ron brought his campaign in for a soft landing to pave the way for Rand to protect his own viability for 2016 by endorsing Romney. Ron's not running for office again.

[sailingaway]

Ron got the movement off the ground. We now need someone who can take us to the next level and that is not Ron. It might not even be Rand. Maybe Massie or Amash runs instead? Ron will continue to be active but he doesn't need to be running for president.

I'm not willing to trade a movement that actually represents US for 'the next level'. And anyone who actually represents us against all the entrenched interests will get the demonization and marginalization by media that Ron got.

[trey4sports]

I'm not willing to trade a movement that actually represents US for 'the next level'. And anyone who actually represents us against all the entrenched interests will get the demonization and marginalization by media that Ron got.

the "next level" and "us" are not mutually exclusive. Besides, are we really satisfied merely protesting this stuff?

I mean we haven't won a damn fight yet and i'm ready to actually audit the fed, bring the troops home, end the drug war, repeal the patriot act, repeal the NDAA, and lower the tax rates.

Unfortanetly we haven't hardly won a single fight, we've just been pissin' in the wind.

[atomicsink]

I don't think he'll be alive in 4 years. Retirement wrecks havoc on your health.

As far as the movement there are plenty of people to take his place, we need to be finding them instead of clinging on to a man in his 70s. He's done his job, accomplished as much as he could given the circumstances, now let's look to the future.

[sailingaway]

I don't think he'll be alive in 4 years. Retirement wrecks havoc on your health.

I wouldn't expect retirement of the retirement sort from Ron. He is leaving the House, is all.

[sailingaway]

the "next level" and "us" are not mutually exclusive. Besides, are we really satisfied merely protesting this stuff?

I mean we haven't won a damn fight yet and i'm ready to actually audit the fed, bring the troops home, end the drug war, repeal the patriot act, repeal the NDAA, and lower the tax rates.

Unfortanetly we haven't hardly won a single fight, we've just been pissin' in the wind.

I am certainly satisfied with Ron, and with more machinery on our side we'd do better next time. I certainly wouldn't compromise on candidates. Of course, I hope new people will prove themselves to be as good, but I doubt we'll find a step UP.

[helmuth_hubener]

I mean we haven't won a damn fight yet New Hampshire reduced their state budget by 10% in 2011. That's huge.
Constitutional carry has passed in some places around the country.
Marijuana de-facto legalization is proceeding inexorably, state-by-state.

If New Hampshire reduces their state budget again next time by at least 10%, I think we should sit up and take notice. Something's happening up north there...

[ninepointfive]

tldr


but no, Ron is done. Someone else must pick up the torch and run with it. it's time

[jay_dub]

Well, gee, I'm not giving up on 2012.

Without a Ron Paul victory this year, we will be over $20 trillion in debt by 2016 (we are already at 103% debt to GDP ratio). We will have suffered more credit downgrades (Egan Jones downgraded us again back in April. Look for S&P to follow.). Interest rates will have gone up and we will be paying $1Trillion a year just on servicing the debt. IOW, pretty much economic collapse. Not to mention the foreign policy we will pursue as the Dollar goes through its death throes. And just imagine what will happen on the home front with these conditions. Oh, and Europe?

Ron has been telling us this for years. Does anyone not think the tipping point will come in the next 4 years? It would be great to think about the future if we had time to. We don't.

I still believe that going into Tampa with all the strength we can muster, along with Ron continuing to speak forcefully on these matters up til then leaves the door open for a victory. We all know the details of what needs to happen and that it's a long shot, but it's our ONLY shot. Let's take it.

I sent Dr. Paul an e-mail the other day through his Congressional office detailing some of the things I've mentioned here and encouraging him to soldier on. I would like to suggest an e-mail bomb to Dr. Paul from all of us to let him know just how the hopes of the nation and much of the world are riding on his shoulders. Barack Obama the World's President? Nah. That title is being reserved for one Ronald Ernest Paul. Let's let him know just how much we are behind him. He needs a second wind for the home stretch. Let's help give it to him.

RON PAUL 2012!!!

[jhk07]

What is this age discrimination crap ? And it is crap. He can probably ride a bicycle circles around 3/4 of us when he IS 80. And as long as his mind is sharp... who gives a rats ass. If he wants to retire, so be it. To say you would not support him in 2016 (if) because of his age, you need kicked in the nads.

[sailingaway]

Well, gee, I'm not giving up on 2012.

Without a Ron Paul victory this year, we will be over $20 trillion in debt by 2016 (we are already at 103% debt to GDP ratio). We will have suffered more credit downgrades (Egan Jones downgraded us again back in April. Look for S&P to follow.). Interest rates will have gone up and we will be paying $1Trillion a year just on servicing the debt. IOW, pretty much economic collapse. Not to mention the foreign policy we will pursue as the Dollar goes through its death throes. And just imagine what will happen on the home front with these conditions. Oh, and Europe?

Ron has been telling us this for years. Does anyone not think the tipping point will come in the next 4 years? It would be great to think about the future if we had time to. We don't.

I still believe that going into Tampa with all the strength we can muster, along with Ron continuing to speak forcefully on these matters up til then leaves the door open for a victory. We all know the details of what needs to happen and that it's a long shot, but it's our ONLY shot. Let's take it.

I sent Dr. Paul an e-mail the other day through his Congressional office detailing some of the things I've mentioned here and encouraging him to soldier on. I would like to suggest an e-mail bomb to Dr. Paul from all of us to let him know just how the hopes of the nation and much of the world are riding on his shoulders. Barack Obama the World's President? Nah. That title is being reserved for one Ronald Ernest Paul. Let's let him know just how much we are behind him. He needs a second wind for the home stretch. Let's help give it to him.

RON PAUL 2012!!!

You know, the grassroots need a lift. I can't think of anything better than Ron visibly making the most that can be made of his campaign, win, if possible, firing up supporters to do what we can, otherwise. We have conventions this week, and I understand Ron may be speaking in Iowa, but only from something Carol Paul said. I haven't seen anything else on it. She also said they haven't canceled anything and can only go where they are invited. I think we should send these emails encouraging Ron. I also wonder if we could set up other appearances for him, and invite him as was done with his Texas appearance. We'd have to understand that we'd be putting it on ourselves, though.

[realtonygoodwin]

Unfortunately, Ron was too old this time, much less 4 years from now. Not in a discrimination way, but based on observation.

1. He didn't keep up a particularly strenuous campaign schedule.
2. Appeared more rambly, less coherent in debates than even 4 years ago.
3. He didn't run to win. He wasn't even going to run this time, but had to be talked into it.

He is retiring from Congress. He has certainly earned his rest. In 2016, it will be time for the next generation of liberty fighters! I personally support Rand for 2016, but I don't know what all my choices will be.

[alex_florida]

double post

[alex_florida]

Isn't Israel's president in his 80's? So I see nothing wrong with Ron Paul campaigning again, if he does! :)

But I respect whatever decision he makes.

Israel is parlamentary republic, not presidencial republic. President of Israel is more ceremonial position than a real executive power.

[jay_dub]

You know, the grassroots need a lift. I can't think of anything better than Ron visibly making the most that can be made of his campaign, win, if possible, firing up supporters to do what we can, otherwise. We have conventions this week, and I understand Ron may be speaking in Iowa, but only from something Carol Paul said. I haven't seen anything else on it. She also said they haven't canceled anything and can only go where they are invited. I think we should send these emails encouraging Ron. I also wonder if we could set up other appearances for him, and invite him as was done with his Texas appearance. We'd have to understand that we'd be putting it on ourselves, though.

We saw Ron's focus with his Texas speech. It is exactly the right message for the rest of the campaign. Whether Ron gets to speak at any conventions or not, he can make himself available to the media to push this message that all need to hear. I can't help but think he's been bombarded with requests, but has turned them down due to the hoopla over Rand's endorsement.

At this point, it's not about raising money. It's about having the intestinal fortitude to see this thing through. Ron has to be a little discouraged with the recent events. HE NEEDS TO HEAR FROM US MORE THAN WE NEED TO HEAR FROM HIM!!. Let's let him know that we are unwavering in our support and exactly WHY we need Ron Paul as President!!

I have no idea how to get him more speaking slots, but will support any ideas on that. We can, however, all let Ron know we are 100% behind him and it doesn't cost anything at all. It's easy. Just go to his congressional page and click on 'contact'. Now, an e-mail or 2 may not get noticed, but hundreds will not be ignored!! Let's send Ron some LOVE!!

E-MAIL BOMB FOR RON PAUL!!!

[sailingaway]

We saw Ron's focus with his Texas speech. It is exactly the right message for the rest of the campaign. Whether Ron gets to speak at any conventions or not, he can make himself available to the media to push this message that all need to hear. I can't help but think he's been bombarded with requests, but has turned them down due to the hoopla over Rand's endorsement.

At this point, it's not about raising money. It's about having the intestinal fortitude to see this thing through. Ron has to be a little discouraged with the recent events. HE NEEDS TO HEAR FROM US MORE THAN WE NEED TO HEAR FROM HIM!!. Let's let him know that we are unwavering in our support and exactly WHY we need Ron Paul as President!!

I have no idea how to get him more speaking slots, but will support any ideas on that. We can, however, all let Ron know we are 100% behind him and it doesn't cost anything at all. It's easy. Just go to his congressional page and click on 'contact'. Now, an e-mail or 2 may not get noticed, but hundreds will not be ignored!! Let's send Ron some LOVE!!

E-MAIL BOMB FOR RON PAUL!!!

I will definitely send him my support, by email.

[James Madison]

Israel is parlamentary republic, not presidencial republic. President of Israel is more ceremonial position than a real executive power.

Under the Constitution, isn't the president more or less meant to be ceremonial? He can veto bills and appoint SC judges, both of which can be overridden by Congress. Sounds ceremonial to me.

[jcannon98188]

Is Amash old enough (in 2016) to run? If so I would gladly support him. He is like a freaking rockstar. What about Judge Nap? I would SO jump behind a Judge Nap presidency. And of course, if Ron Paul makes the run in 2016 I would totally support him. I think he deserves some rest, but if he still has it in him, then why the hell not?

[Richie]

No, not Ron Paul in 2016. Folks, I love Ron. However, he has a weakness for his family. IMO, 2008 and 2012 have been absolute disasters. If Ron ran again in 2016, we'd have Jesse Benton screwing things up again. I HOPE and PRAY that Rand is smarter in his future campaigns.

[trey4sports]

Judge nap is not going to run, he doesn't want the spotlight. He even said he wouldn't really want the VP position.

[PaulConventionWV]

we need to dutifully be outside the good doctor's front porch in 2015 for auld lang syne's sake becuz rand is a tad young, yet

Rand is a tad young, and you want his 80 year old dad to run? That is so funny.

[PaulConventionWV]

Isn't Israel's president in his 80's? So I see nothing wrong with Ron Paul campaigning again, if he does! :)

But I respect whatever decision he makes.

This is America. We are fat and lazy and die young.

[sailingaway]

This is America. We are fat and lazy and die young.

Ron?!?!? :eek:

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/252718_10150208633031686_6233046685_7290002_727408 _n.jpg

[PaulConventionWV]

Might as well try. Who cares if he'll be 80? Last time I checked, there wasn't a maximum age requirement to run for president.

These are Rand's prime years. He should be taking over now for Ron. We can't just keep squeezing the juice out of Ron when we have someone fresh and new like Ron who is accepted by many mainstreamers in the GOP. Nobody's going to vote for an 81 year old to be president.

[PaulConventionWV]

Doesn't that put you at odds with AF? Or are you able to agree to disagree? ( we could use a whole lot more of that)

I think it does, but it really depends on your outlook, so hopefully the great AF can forgive our sins, even though we hold similar views on almost everything else.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ron?!?!? :eek:

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/252718_10150208633031686_6233046685_7290002_727408 _n.jpg

No, not Ron. I'm just saying that's the American standard. It's too far out for Americans.

[Liberty74]

No way Ron Paul in 2016. What are you people smoking???

Ron Paul has no desire or intention of wanting to be President. That is OUR desire. We can't make that happen when you run around the country talking to only 10-15% of the voters (young people on college campuses) while letting every neocon talk show host smear and lie about you all in the same time you refuse to attack the front runner that you don't agree with any issue on Mitt Romney. Still waiting to find out what deal was made with Romney. Oh that's right, use Rand as the go to guy to herd Ron Paul supporters so the establishment can co-opt our message. :mad:

Many Paul faithfuls have yet figure out that Ron Paul's definition of "in it to win it" was not about winning the Presidency. If you look at how Ron carried his campaign from the start to the end, he is all about spreading the message i.e. brush fires. That's it!!! It's up to us to decide who we want that leader to be in the near future. Unfortunately, it's not gonna be Ron in 2016 for me because I want to WIN that top spot. We need someone in there that will not compromise. We need someone in there to void executive orders. We need someone in there that will let states like AZ defend themselves. We need someone in there that will veto everything. The President holds much much power than the average American realizes. Far more power to change things than a few state reps or local reps in a handful of states. It's all about that top spot IMO.

Judge NAP 2016!!!

[PaulConventionWV]

Maybe, just maybe, this is already his plan. Running for President takes time. Ron is so conscientious about his Congressional duties; he's not comfortable just writing it off and missing all the votes. Being a Congressman is a full-time job. Running for President is a full-time job. Ron is quitting one full-time job. Could it be so that he can focus on the other?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkCIz8nZeVs

In any case, it is certainly not impossible that Ron would run in 2016. Most everyone said that he'd be too old in 2012. They said "time to pass the torch," "don't be delusional," "he'll never run," etc., etc. But he diii-iid.... :)

How long are you going to be saying this? There has to be a point at which the "he did it last time" thing just doesn't work anymore. How old does he have to be when you say, "You know what, he might not want to do it this time."

[MelissaCato]

I think maybe the boss should retire, for Carols sake. She deserves her man at home or campground hopin' in an RV or something. They both deserve peace and a nice retirement after almost 4 decades of fighting TPTB. or Ron Paul 2012 !!! I prefer Ron Paul 2012 !!! at the moment. :D

[clint4liberty]

So, Ron Paul 2012 continues til the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida. If Mitt Romney loses and gives the liberty movement nothing during the campaign we support Rand Paul in 2016. Is Rand Paul looking to even run for President in 2016 if Mitt Romney loses in November? If Rand Paul for President is going to become a real
concept we need to start preparing now to raise the one hundred million it is going to take to win the Republican Party Primary. All this fundraising cannot even start until
the completion of the 2012 Presidential election. If Mitt Romney beats Barrack Obama then the liberty movement will not be able to field a candidate until after the 2016 presidential term. This is why a Rand Paul picked as Vice Presidential nominee is crucial, if Mitt Romney claims victory. We all know now that the liberty movement
cannot elect a Republican nominee by itself. We need votes from a cross section of the Republican Party. Our goal has to go from 2 million voters to ten million voters.

[helmuth_hubener]

How long are you going to be saying this? There has to be a point at which the "he did it last time" thing just doesn't work anymore. How old does he have to be when you say, "You know what, he might not want to do it this time." Oh, very true he might not. What do you mean "how long"? It's not as if I've long been propounding the theory that Ron is going to run again. I just found this thread and was tickled by the idea. It could be good. I was just putting forth something to think about, an idea that you may not have considered: that Ron may be quitting Congress to spend more time meeting with evangelical leaders and whatnot, all the things Doug is talking about. I do not consider it an overwhelmingly likely possibility, just an interesting one.

I'd put the chances of Ron running for President again in 2016 at 15%, at best. Chances are he will not, in my opinion, which like yours and everyone else's is really just a baseless guess. But of course I'd support him if he did, and I'm sure you would as well.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The last two presidential campaigns have aged him a lot, and Carol's experienced health problems both times. I'd support him if he did run, but I'd be fine with him taking his leave and being an advocate outside the swamp.

[jcannon98188]

I'd vote 3rd party before I vote Rand.

[Carehn]

I'd vote 3rd party before I vote Rand.

You mean like if Ron was running 3rd party? lol

I vote 3rd party all the time my self, if possible. But I'm willing to bet that if Rand runs in 4 years I would support him. Maybe. He may become a statist by then. But I doubt it. And wile Rand and I have had our dissagreements in the past couple of day,,, I am still willing to forgive and forget these political shenanigans for now.

He is in his 1st term and made a mistake. He doesn't know it yet. But I think he comes to the light about it soon enough,

[J. W. Evans]

I'm sure this has been mentioned, but a constant attack I noticed against Ron this cycle was a constant comparison of him to Ralph Nader. They made him out to be a perennial candidate in the mold of Nader and Stassen. I disagreed vehemently at every chance I could, but if Ron was to mount a 2016 bid, there's honestly no way he'd be able to escape that stigma.

[Britannia]

As much as I respect and admire Dr. Paul I think another run at the presidency in 2016 would be unsuccessful because of his age. However if Sen. Paul doesn't run I'd love to see his Father at the debates making mincement out of the other candidates again! Personally I think Dr. Paul has served you faithfully for a long time and deserves a happy and peaceful retirement. Having said that I can't imagine he will be idle or quiet after he finishes his term of office.

[Southerner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpqiq-FHDV4

[Shane Harris]

Rand 2016 is obvious and very exciting to look forward to. in the meantime, we focus on state, house, and senate seats.

[tbone717]

If Romney loses in November, I don't believe that Ron will run in 2016. I think it will be Rand.

It would be very smart for Liberty Republicans to have some other candidates start to dip their toes into the nomination process as well to begin to set themselves up for future runs. Looking back at the last 50 years of GOP nominees, you'll see that a good percentage of them won the nomination on their 2nd or 3rd attempt: Romney ran in 08 & 12; McCain in 00 & 08; Dole in 80, 88 & 92; Bush in 80 & 88; Reagan in 68, 76 & 80. So if guys like Amash want to eventually take a serious run at the nomination, getting themselves out in IA & NH in 16 would do well for them for future runs.

[mport1]

I'd be for it. I'm pretty sure Ron wouldn't be though. He is clearly tired of this. I was incredibly surprised Ron ran this time.

[Noble Savage]

Ron would make a better coach than team leader, Rand can be waterboy

[jkob]

Ron deserves his retirement. The movement can't become just the 'Ron Paul movement' or you'll marginalize it. Not only would Ron by 80, it would be his 4th time running for president. Over the next 4 years, we need to find someone else to carry the mantle be it Rand, Amash, or whoever.

[The Free Hornet]

Celebrity: Too old...

Celebrity: Doesn't want to be president...

Contestant: Reasons Ron Paul can't be president?

[BZZZZZZZZ!]

Celebrity: Can't win...

Contestant: Why Ron Paul won't run in 2016?

[BZZZZZZZZ!]

Celebrity: Ought to enjoy his retirement...

Contestant: Things that are none of my fucking business?

[DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!]