Should we not run a presidential candidate in 2016?

[tangent4ronpaul]

It looks like we won't have a candidate for 2016 and lets face it - The president doesn't have that much power. Congress does.

I saw this tidbit in a thread about Romney's donors bailing on him:


smaller races tend to be cheaper and easier to sway.

The average cost of winning a seat in the House in 2008 was $1.1 million, and the average cost of a Senate win was $5.6 million. As it stands, the two presidential candidates have spent more than $700 million combined so far trying to win the presidency.

As Paul raised ~40 Million this cycle, not including PACs, if we could do that again, we could conceivably elect 40 house members or 8 Senators (or a mix) if we can raise that again.

What do people think?

-t

[asurfaholic]

Will be harder to get the enthusiasm to do that again with multiple candidates. Imagine the infighting and bickering over whether or not a candidate is perfect enough.

Plus, the president isnt really just one position, it is very influential, not just domestic, but even globally. Getting a liberty candidate in the white house will shift everything. Getting 40 congressmen will accomplish little.

[lakefx]

Chances are pretty good, Rand Paul will be running for President in 2016.

Rand will have the tentative backing of Teocons and and even some Huckabee/Santorum type conservatives out of the gate. I really, really like Rand's chances in 2016, he's played the game and played it well, Those of us who listen to his speeches and watch his votes rather than follow his "endorsements" will know where his loyalty truly lies. He's his father's son, and a statesmen that plays the game where Ron would refuse to tread.

My point is this...We may get the presidential candidate we want--with the help of the enemy and with the party structure we've layed in Ron's wake.

Its happening. Don't give up.

[Dick Chaney]

Good luck with the Rand Paul ticket, I guarantee you the establishment has already picked their 2016 candidate after Mitten Sach's loses to Barry in November, Marco Rubio.

[GunnyFreedom]

It looks like we won't have a candidate for 2016 and lets face it - The president doesn't have that much power. Congress does.

I saw this tidbit in a thread about Romney's donors bailing on him:



As Paul raised ~40 Million this cycle, not including PACs, if we could do that again, we could conceivably elect 40 house members or 8 Senators (or a mix) if we can raise that again.

What do people think?

-t

or 400 members of state legislatures.

[Athan]

Will be harder to get the enthusiasm to do that again with multiple candidates.
Imagine the infighting and bickering over whether or not a candidate is perfect enough.
!!

[GunnyFreedom]

!!

Yes, inasmuch as most folks here adamantly avoid lesser evils, many of us also seem to avoid lesser heroes too.

[bultza]

ronpaul2016

[supermario21]

The thing is though Rand is the anti-establishment candidate and that is who the tea party usually aligns with. Keep in mind you'll likely have Jeb or Christie throwing their hats in with the party backing. Rubio will want to defend his Senate seat and unlike Rand is in a tougher state to win.

[jbauer]

Mehh, Christie's likley to die of a heart attack. Rubio doesn't scare me. Ryan doesn't scare me. After Dumbo gets re-elected the GOP is going to have to do some soul searching to figure out exactly why it didn't work out. I just hope that we're able to pass the buck on the blame to someone else besides us.

[CaptUSA]

I thought Ron Paul had cured my apathy. In fact, it was only in remission.

I got on board with this movement because I saw a light turn on in millions of people. But it seems it may have been wishful thinking on my part. The light didn't really turn on for that many, they just wanted to give the finger to the establishment. While that's great and feels nice, it really doesn't do much to help my child to grow up free.

My hope is that someone will come along and be able to turn that light on again, but my fear is that it won't. I didn't join this movement because of Ron Paul, I joined because of you folks. But I see too many of these same people who were inspired by Ron Paul, factioning themselves off. As individuals, we are strong. As a bunch of collectives fighting eachother, we couldn't be weaker.

[KingNothing]

Good luck with the Rand Paul ticket, I guarantee you the establishment has already picked their 2016 candidate after Mitten Sach's loses to Barry in November, Marco Rubio.

No, it won't be Rubio's turn yet. It'll be someone older who has "paid his dues," or something.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

No, we need someone to run in 2016, even if the impact isn't as great as Ron Paul's runs. Many movements have weakened and died when they abandoned the Presidential field to focus on local only races.

Sadly, it doesn't work. Presidential races are what excite people enough to draw in new converts. In a perfect world this wouldn't be in the case, but you gotta accept it and work with it. I would be surprised if there are 1/10 of the supporters who were active in RP's campaign now actively working on these House/Senate/local candidates. It just doesn't draw the enthusiasm of a Presidential candidate and you are far less likely to win new people over to your movement.

[VBRonPaulFan]

It looks like we won't have a candidate for 2016 and lets face it - The president doesn't have that much power. Congress does.

are you joking me? one of the biggest reasons I was so invested into getting Ron elected (as well as probably many others), was because he would of had the power to IMMEDIATELY bring the troops home, close a ton of bases, put more troops on our borders, end the drug war, etc, etc. the president has a huge amount of power as commander in chief, and can directly dictate policy to several various government departments.

presidents are incredibly powerful now - more than ever. it's been a consistent consolidation of power over the last couple of hundred years.

however, I do think it would be very wise to try to get as many liberty candidates into the house... as that's probably the most bang for the buck. if you get enough in there, republicans wouldn't be able to get things passed without getting the liberty folks on board, at least.

[BSU kid]

When the GOP losses expect them to do something desperate by 2016, they will realize their neo-con base is dying so I fully expect them to run a minority ideologue as their establishment pick...Tim Scott (SC), Mia Love (UT), Nikki Hailey (SC), Bobby Jindal (LA), Marco Rubio (FL). They will do this to show that they are just as inclusive as the democrats, this could go horrible for them and end up like a 2004 Alan Keyes vs. Obama scenario i.e. a compete blowout loss.

Meanwhile the democrats, will also pick a minority...a woman, a hispanic or a combination thereof to show how progressive they are. This is what I foresee happening.

[Neil Desmond]

Mehh, Christie's likley to die of a heart attack. Rubio doesn't scare me. Ryan doesn't scare me. After Dumbo gets re-elected the GOP is going to have to do some soul searching to figure out exactly why it didn't work out.
The GOP has a soul? If there is a soul it's just one dark soul that controls both political party wings. It's the torso of the hideous beast between those two wings.

Seriously, why would the GOP want to do any "soul" searching just because they lost an election? They go back and forth between winning and losing elections all the time. It would be nice if motivation to do soul searching could happen, but to me it just looks like it would be a desire for an unrealistic fantasy to come true.


I just hope that we're able to pass the buck on the blame to someone else besides us.
They can never be entitled to blame us; that would be like saying "the customer is wrong."

[mello]

If Romney loses I could see Rand running in 2016. It would be a good idea to get as many liberty-supporters in local government positions & the State party in order to minimize the chances of getting screwed over in caucuses by those nimrods that flagrantly violated Robert's Rules of Order.

[sailingaway]

It is 2012. Why on earth do we need to make this decision today?

[sailingaway]

No, we need someone to run in 2016, even if the impact isn't as great as Ron Paul's runs. Many movements have weakened and died when they abandoned the Presidential field to focus on local only races.

Sadly, it doesn't work. Presidential races are what excite people enough to draw in new converts. In a perfect world this wouldn't be in the case, but you gotta accept it and work with it. I would be surprised if there are 1/10 of the supporters who were active in RP's campaign now actively working on these House/Senate/local candidates. It just doesn't draw the enthusiasm of a Presidential candidate and you are far less likely to win new people over to your movement.

We need a standard bearer, that is why it is so dead NOW imho. Ron has gone into the woodwork and no one else rallies people up the same way, to interest them in races ACROSS THE COUNTRY. But a poor standard bearer would be worse than none, imho -- for exhibit A I give you the Libertarian party. That's for sure why it doesn't interest me. In my head I know they have a bunch of good local candidates and if one runs IN MY DISTRICT I will look at them. But their best known candidates, setting the 'tone' for outsiders, are their presidential candidates, and since I've been really paying attention to them, that is Barr and Johnson. Better to keep the standard and not run for that office, than water down the standard, imho.

[Matt Collins]

Chances are pretty good, Rand Paul will be running for President in 2016.

Those of us who listen to his speeches and watch his votes rather than follow his "endorsements" will know where his loyalty truly lies. He's his father's son, and a statesmen that plays the game where Ron would refuse to tread.Excatly. Our people need to read between the lines a bit and think through things to see what's going on here.

[Matt Collins]

It is 2012. Why on earth do we need to make this decision today?Because running for President isn't something you do 1 year beforehand. Every Republican nominee had been working for years beforehand.

[sailingaway]

Because running for President isn't something you do 1 year beforehand. Every Republican nominee had been working for years beforehand.

I'm not saying the candidates who are interested shouldn't be making moves, but right now if I had to pick who I want for President in 2016 I'd say Ron Paul. I'm willing to let someone become more interesting to me, over the intervening time.

[Matt Collins]

I'm not saying the candidates who are interested shouldn't be making moves, but right now if I had to pick who I want for President in 2016 I'd say Ron Paul. I'm willing to let someone become more interesting to me, over the intervening time.Ron is NOT running for President again. What he said on Leno was just a joke.

[sailingaway]

Ron is NOT running for President again. What he said on Leno was just a joke.

That doesn't change my opinion.

[LibertyEagle]

I'd bet money that Rand will be running and I will do everything in my power to help him. Just like I tried to do with Ron.

[July]

It's a catch 22. You can't win a presidential race without local party infrastructure--that was the lesson we learned this time around. The local GOP committee men and women matter. We've also seen what one senator alone can do, and what more could be done if he had more backup there. Unfortunately it's true that it is the big presidential races that excites people most, and fewer people stick around to focus on local and congressional races without that big goal of winning the presidency as motivation. A standard bearer is needed to run. They don't need to win it, but they must be capable of motivating, and must encourage supporters to get involved, and to keep running for office, etc... Create a cycle that will keep feeding and growing, and snowballing.

[Crystallas]

How can bottom-up work, if we stay focused on top-down? I agree, it must be local, unless of course, we have someone come forward that is as good as Ron is, and there is nobody that good, not his family, not anyone in other parties, nobody. Not to say that it isn't possible.

[Uriah]

To have a chance at the presidency we need someone that will inspire people like Ron did. Or have a big name such as Rand Paul run. Anything less then these two options won't cut it. Ideally we would have a candidate with huge name recognition and the ability to inspire people like Ron did. With that said we should totally run a presidential candidate and where possible attempt to get constitutional liberty candidates elected to the House & Senate.

All out!

[Barrex]

I dont see people raising 40 Million for local candidates. It simply doesnt work that way. People will not be motivated without someone touching their hearts. Sure some will donate but not nearly enough to get to 40 Million mark. If local candidates want to get elected they will have to do it on their own. They must move the masses and not the other way around.


Another useless Idea:
Create a PAC now for liberty candidate (Rand or someone else) in presidential election in 2016.... Dont keep money in FED paper. Keep it in gold and silver..... People could donate few dollars a month... How much on value would it lose/gain? It would be pretty interesting statement.... use your imagination...


Here is another one: call people who call barley/malted wheat juice beer.... cal them morons.

[GunnyFreedom]

I have been screaming since 2007 that the state level races (and particularly the state legislatures) are several orders of magnitude more important than any Federal races whatsoever. I find the entire debate in this thread unbearably depressing. :(

[mz10]

I cannot fathom that people aren't lining up behind Rand. For heaven's sake, what else does the man have to do?

[gjdavis60]

The GOP presidential primary has been a great vehicle for reaching the masses with our message. You could not raise enough money to buy the exposure that our positions received through Ron's participation in the GOP primaries. That's where I learned about him. I hope we have someone in 2016 to continue the country's education.

[eleganz]

We shouldn't even be asking this question, Rand Paul IS running.

We won't be able to raise nearly enough money for Rand as we did for Ron (although Rand does have an audience outside of the remnant).

Other than that we can't raise shit for liberty candidates, people won't put their money up. The only reason we did it for Ron was because so many people believed in him and there was a time urgency given the state of this nation and his age.

[nobody's_hero]

I support this, though, as someone else mentioned, the president does have a lot of power to do things like call the troops home and tell Congress to STFU about it.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, we've shown our hand when it comes to presidential races. The GOP wasn't prepared for the non-apathetic droves of us to show up at caucuses to vote and county conventions to become delegates. The establishment was accustomed to telling GOP voters who to vote for and getting their way by doing so. Had Ron Paul people not showed up to my county convention here in Georgia, the list of delegates would have been filled by names who didn't bother to attend the convention (at least in Georgia, it is allowable to fill vacancies with names of people absent as long as preference goes to people who actually show up in person for the convention). This was the way they had always done it, with one or two people showing up to a desolate convention and nominating their friends to fill slots. We, the revolution, totally threw a wrench in that by having just 4 Ron Paul supporters show up, in person, to the county convention.

I predict that the RNC rules changes will stand, and it will become much harder to get involved and try to have any meaningful influence on presidential picks. I don't want to give up, but, yeah, it's hard to win the jackpot when other players at the table know what cards you're holding.

I think Senate and especially House races are important. But you're not going to see as much money. As it is now, we're having to pool our resources and donate to people in other states to try to get them into house seats. I have no problem with that, but my funds are limited, so when it comes to supporting people in my district when (if) they step up, we're going to see just how far we as a movement can stretch a dollar. Do I support someone in another state or do I support the guy I can vote for? At least with a presidency, there is one unifying umbrella to pool funds into. Something to think about, I guess.

[scrosnoe]

I have been screaming since 2007 that the state level races (and particularly the state legislatures) are several orders of magnitude more important than any Federal races whatsoever. I find the entire debate in this thread unbearably depressing. :(

+rep

all politics is local! build the base and the cream will rise to the top -- naturally!

[sailingaway]

We shouldn't even be asking this question, Rand Paul IS running.

We won't be able to raise nearly enough money for Rand as we did for Ron (although Rand does have an audience outside of the remnant).

Other than that we can't raise shit for liberty candidates, people won't put their money up. The only reason we did it for Ron was because so many people believed in him and there was a time urgency given the state of this nation and his age.

Believing in Ron made people donate to Rand, and believing in Ron will get people to donate to Davis, unless he somehow blows up between now and 2014. I think Ron needs to be front and center carrying our banner and making people CARE about politics.

[singe22]

Only way i would ever consider Rand is if Ron is active in his campaign speaking at events in support. And not some this is my son speech , but backing his views of liberty and a true constitutional Republic.

[July]

Believing in Ron made people donate to Rand, and believing in Ron will get people to donate to Davis, unless he somehow blows up between now and 2014. I think Ron needs to be front and center carrying our banner and making people CARE about politics.

I think he will still have a presence giving speeches and writing and stuff like that. But I don't think he is going to say or do much right now, until after the dust settles with the election. Once that is done and over with, I bet we hear more from him.

[sailingaway]

I think he will still have a presence giving speeches and writing and stuff like that. But I don't think he is going to say or do much right now, until after the dust settles with the election. Once that is done and over with, I bet we hear more from him.

Why do you think he would lay low until after the election? He has potential for a high profile NOW.

[Matt Collins]

Only way i would ever consider Rand is if Ron is active in his campaign speaking at events in support. That would be counterproductive. The reason that Rand is popular with Republican / conservatives is that he markets and packages his message in a way that doesn't offend them. Ron doesn't do this, and thus has a hard time getting their votes.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

It looks like we won't have a candidate for 2016

Just because you don't like Rand Paul doesn't mean he does not exist.

[Matt Collins]

How can bottom-up work, if we stay focused on top-down?Both are necessecary.

[Matt Collins]

I have been screaming since 2007 that the state level races (and particularly the state legislatures) are several orders of magnitude more important than any Federal races whatsoever.Very true, but the federal races build excitement and draw people together, not to mention build lists.

[Matt Collins]

Other than that we can't raise shit for liberty candidates, people won't put their money up. Which is why we need liberty candidates like Rand, who package and market their message to be more Republican/conservative friendly. If Rand had talked like Ron during his race, he would've lost.

[Matt Collins]

all politics is local! build the base and the cream will rise to the top -- naturally!Careful though, sometimes crap floats too.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

As Paul raised ~40 Million this cycle, not including PACs, if we could do that again, we could conceivably elect 40 house members or 8 Senators (or a mix) if we can raise that again.

Here's where your logic fails: assuming that people are going to donate $40,000,000 to a bunch of obscure candidates for the state legislature or U.S. House, many of whom are probably of the no-hoper variety (gerrymandered districts; challenging incumbents in party primaries; etc.)

We couldn't get Hightower $10,000 in one day. Ron Paul got a lot of donations from people who really are not plugged into politics.

[sailingaway]

Which is why we need liberty candidates like Rand, who package and market their message to be more Republican/conservative friendly. If Rand had talked like Ron during his race, he would've lost.

If Ron hadn't talked like RON during Ron's race, RAND would have lost.

[Matt Collins]

If Ron hadn't talked like RON during Ron's race, RAND would have lost.Very true.

[jcannon98188]

Which is why we need liberty candidates like Rand, who package and market their message to be more Republican/conservative friendly. If Rand had talked like Ron during his race, he would've lost.
Why do we need to package or market anything? Ron Paul gathered us all here because he didn't package and market his message to anyone. He told the truth. The blunt truth. I sure as hell wouldn't have joined his campaign had he had different rhetoric. We don't need someone to tell the Republicans what they want to hear. We need someone to tell them what they NEED to hear.

[jmdrake]

or 400 members of state legislatures.

Word! And why even worry about 2016, when there's still 2014? If this movement does what it needs to do in 2014, we'll be in the drivers seat and liberty presidential candidates can "come out of the closet" so to speak.

[jmdrake]

I have been screaming since 2007 that the state level races (and particularly the state legislatures) are several orders of magnitude more important than any Federal races whatsoever. I find the entire debate in this thread unbearably depressing. :(

Hang in there Gunny! Here's the problem. Most people (myself included) haven't adequately addressed our personal finances. We give to the high profile races. Then we get a zillion requests (many from the C4L) to fund this initiative or that project. "Do you support Audit the Fed? Great! Can we count on you to mail a petition? Great! Can we count on you for $50 to fund the effort to tell other people to sign the petition?" The Christian conservative movement solved their own personal finance issue (Amway) then became a powerful (though fully co-opted at this point) force.

So two things need to happen. We need to become a movement that helps people gain disposable income. (If 100,000 people are making an extra $25 dollars a month that they can "throw away" on candidates that may or may not win, we become unstoppable). We need an organization that is focused on helping candidates fundraise as opposed to focusing on "issue fundraising". Sadly, I don't think the C4L's structure as a 527 allows it to do either.

[KEEF]

Careful though, sometimes crap floats too.

Crap only floats if there are alot of lipids in your diet:D...OH SHIT!!! That means the establishment is going to run Christie!

[singe22]

That would be counterproductive. The reason that Rand is popular with Republican / conservatives is that he markets and packages his message in a way that doesn't offend them. Ron doesn't do this, and thus has a hard time getting their votes.

Its not counterproductive. Rand hasnt done enough for me to lock a solid vote for me if he ever does run as of right now. I have that right and i'm not on here or any other site spreading negative propaganda about rand paul. I"m sorry but endorsing someone just to play along loses major points with me. I'm spoiled by Ron Paul statesmanship.

The difference between us and the sheep that are still sleep are, they live for the headlines of the moment and forget them in the future until their sleezy new anchor tells them its relevent again.

When Romney Loses we will get the blame, after a year they will be "going along" long enough to pander some of your votes when they see the wreck the party is in.

[Carson]

Should we not run a presidential candidate in 2016?

The way we've not been able to run a candidate for decades?

I don't think we have any more say in the matter than England, France, Spain, or any one of the other countries that have a central bank tied in with the global network of central banks, have.

We are left with voting for whom they allow us to vote for...

Kang or Kodos


It will take more than an act of Congress to restore order now. It will take an act by "We The People".

Maybe they will wake up and a miracle will happen in
2012

Ron Paul

[Ivash]

Good luck with the Rand Paul ticket, I guarantee you the establishment has already picked their 2016 candidate after Mitten Sach's loses to Barry in November, Marco Rubio.

The 'establishment' is already going at each other for who should be the 2016 candidate. The 'establishment' really isn't as unified as you guys tend to think (too many people looking out for their own self and ideological interests), and there will be so many people running in 2016... well, its going to get bloody.

I wouldn't bet on Rand Paul, however. I'm not so sure if his father's support will transfer over to him, and there are other candidates beloved by the other wings of the Republican party.

[DylanWaco]

Which is why we need liberty candidates like Rand, who package and market their message to be more Republican/conservative friendly. If Rand had talked like Ron during his race, he would've lost.

This may be true.

But if Rand's last name was Smith or Jones or Cooper he wouldn't have won either.

I will never vote for Rand for President for a lot of reasons, some of which are strategic

[Luieburger]

Gary Johnson 2016? He's got some momentum going right now. Keep it up?

[Smart3]

Support Jesse Ventura for President.
Support 15 Liberty Republicans for House
Support Tom Davis if he fails to oust Graham
Support 50 new Liberty Republicans in state legislatures.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

RAND PAUL 2016

[mport1]

Other - Run a VERY principled libertarian under a major party banner and invest all other resources in outside the system activism to educate the public. Do not spend time/money on other politics unless it is for local government in New Hampshire.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I will support Rand Paul.

I think we need to work on Senate races that are winnable. That means a red state, where we can either run somebody who can win an open primary or we have the support of the Tea Party to challenge somebody. Kurt Bills and Barry Hinckley are not examples of this model, though I respect them and like them. Senate races are very expensive, and that is why we can only focus on winnable ones.

We don't need to choose between state house/senate vs. federal house. The plan should be this: If there is an avenue to run a state house/senate candidate, run that person and then they have a route to Congress. If the state openings are not available, but a winnable House seat is, run a candidate for that race, and that person should be the kingmaker for all encompassing state and local elections.

The problem I see now, is that our hardcore and quasi-liberty candidates do not appear to be connected whatsoever. We need a true liberty caucus, not the "liberty caucus" we currently have in the House. Yes, there are some good members(Paul, Duncan, Flake, Jones, Garrett) but they have people like Trent Franks, Denny Rehberg, and Roscoe Bartlett. And I don't see Justin Amash, nor Raul Labrador, nor Paul Broun, etc.

No. 1 priority for Ron Paul should be to get our people currently in office in sync and connected before he leaves!

[DylanWaco]

The problem with working only in Red State's is that the Red State's tend to have GOP's overridden with those who think mass murder overseas is the sole function of government and any and all costs incurred to further the Empire are necessary and cannot be questioned.

I live in SC but could never vote for Demint because I don't think killing Muslim babies is a moral imperative. And Demint is constantly pointed to as a guy we can work with,if not someone who is outright on our side.

[Anti-Neocon]

I'll support Rand and if for some reason he doesn't want to run or his campaign fails, I hope Jesse Ventura goes 3rd party.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I will support Rand Paul.

I think we need to work on Senate races that are winnable. That means a red state, where we can either run somebody who can win an open primary or we have the support of the Tea Party to challenge somebody. Kurt Bills and Barry Hinckley are not examples of this model, though I respect them and like them. Senate races are very expensive, and that is why we can only focus on winnable ones.

We don't need to choose between state house/senate vs. federal house. The plan should be this: If there is an avenue to run a state house/senate candidate, run that person and then they have a route to Congress. If the state openings are not available, but a winnable House seat is, run a candidate for that race, and that person should be the kingmaker for all encompassing state and local elections.

The problem I see now, is that our hardcore and quasi-liberty candidates do not appear to be connected whatsoever. We need a true liberty caucus, not the "liberty caucus" we currently have in the House. Yes, there are some good members(Paul, Duncan, Flake, Jones, Garrett) but they have people like Trent Franks, Denny Rehberg, and Roscoe Bartlett. And I don't see Justin Amash, nor Raul Labrador, nor Paul Broun, etc.

No. 1 priority for Ron Paul should be to get our people currently in office in sync and connected before he leaves!

2014 possible senate races:

Alaska - Joe Miller
New Hampshire - FSP, smallish, one-term Democratic incumbent
South Dakota - Small (= cheap), relatively red state, Democratic incumbent
Montana - small, has some libertarian leanings, red state, SIX-term Democratic incumbent
Wyoming - least likely out of list, red state, 3-term GOP incumbent

[GeorgiaAvenger]

The problem with working only in Red State's is that the Red State's tend to have GOP's overridden with those who think mass murder overseas is the sole function of government and any and all costs incurred to further the Empire are necessary and cannot be questioned.

I live in SC but could never vote for Demint because I don't think killing Muslim babies is a moral imperative. And Demint is constantly pointed to as a guy we can work with,if not someone who is outright on our side.

You are using strawmen. I LIVE among standard Republicans. They don't want mass murder; they don't want to kill Muslims even.

They have been fooled into believing that the only way they will remain safe, is by Middle East occupation. Most don't even know what goes on over there.

Republicans naturally are more receptive to liberty. I can now convince Republicans that we should modify our foreign policy to be less interventionist for our national security, get rid of foreign aid, and get rid of waste in the military. No, its not full blown Ron Paul but it is an improvement. Democrats on the other hand, are naturally receptive to big government, and that is a non-starter for Ron Paul candidates.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

2014 possible senate races:

Alaska - Joe Miller
New Hampshire - FSP, smallish, one-term Democratic incumbent
South Dakota - Small (= cheap), relatively red state, Democratic incumbent
Montana - small, has some libertarian leanings, red state, SIX-term Democratic incumbent
Wyoming - least likely out of list, red state, 3-term GOP incumbent

Good choices.

[DylanWaco]

You are using strawmen. I LIVE among standard Republicans. They don't want mass murder; they don't want to kill Muslims even.

They have been fooled into believing that the only way they will remain safe, is by Middle East occupation. Most don't even know what goes on over there.

Republicans naturally are more receptive to liberty. I can now convince Republicans that we should modify our foreign policy to be less interventionist for our national security, get rid of foreign aid, and get rid of waste in the military. No, its not full blown Ron Paul but it is an improvement. Democrats on the other hand, are naturally receptive to big government, and that is a non-starter for Ron Paul candidates.

The fuck I am.

I LIVE among standard Republicans and have worked with them in a close capacity for years. The one deal breaker for these people is an unwillingness to commit mass murder overseas. You can be in favor of any government program and they will generally support you so long as you are a "hawk." If you oppose the warfare state, no matter how much you hedge it, you are a soft appeaser at best, at worst an open enemy of the United States. Hell I have had a Congressman (one of whom was supported by many liberty folks) and a county chair all but say that to my face (actually the words they used were arguably more disturbing than my alleged "strawman").

[FSP-Rebel]

Nice, a whopping 14 brave souls decided to go back to sitting on their thumbs and spin. They'll come around when the Rand hype starts infecting like a virus in 2.5 years. I support the broadest approach to electing liberty candidates that we can muster. Whenever it's plausible for a win, we get in on it. Also, running a top of the ticket in '16 is a must as it ignites the liberty base to get involved en masse. Now that Ron is winding down this season, it appears that some have toned down their activism despite us having plenty of state and federal candidates to support.

[VictorB]

I'm on the Rand Paul bandwagon. On the eve of tonight's debate, I spent the day watching Rand Paul videos from his own YouTube channel. Listen to what he says and how he votes. He is a great speaker and knows his stuff. People are going to flock to him in 2016.

Also, when things get worse, people are going to start saying..."Ron Paul was right". That will give Rand Paul a big boost.

[The Dude]

2016 will be insanely difficult as far as a Presidential election goes for someone like Rand, it would be much more beneficial to focus on House and Senate.

[GunnyFreedom]

or. state. legislatures.

if ONE vs 169 can have as much of an impact as we have seen in NC the last 2 years, imagine what 10 will do in a single state? With $50 Million, you can literally BUY ten State legislator seats in every state in the union.

[Smart3]

or. state. legislatures.

if ONE vs 169 can have as much of an impact as we have seen in NC the last 2 years, imagine what 10 will do in a single state? With $50 Million, you can literally BUY ten State legislator seats in every state in the union.
You'd need 10million to just get one seat in California. Let's get at least one guy in each legislature (except California), and see how much he/she accomplishes. Then in the next cycle we can determine where to invest.

[sailingaway]

You'd need 10million to just get one seat in California. Let's get at least one guy in each legislature (except California), and see how much he/she accomplishes. Then in the next cycle we can determine where to invest.

There are seats in Northern California that can be had for a lot cheaper than that.

The question is where do the great candidates and the seat opportunities match up, not getting a 'balance' across the nation, imho.

[GunnyFreedom]

You'd need 10million to just get one seat in California. Let's get at least one guy in each legislature (except California), and see how much he/she accomplishes. Then in the next cycle we can determine where to invest.

A California State House race costs $10 Mil ?? :eek:

[GunnyFreedom]

There are seats in Northern California that can be had for a lot cheaper than that.

The question is where do the great candidates and the seat opportunities match up, not getting a 'balance' across the nation, imho.

This, the "10 seats in every state" was not a strategy, just an example. After all, in some states we may want 20, or 30. ;-)

[sailingaway]

This, the "10 seats in every state" was not a strategy, just an example. After all, in some states we may want 20, or 30. ;-)

Yeah. It will be a lot easier to support our more local candidates when we don't have a presidential race, I think we should make our 'moves' in 2014, so in 2016 we are doing reelections of incumbents wherever possible, in case we ARE pushing a presidential candidate in 2016.

[Peace&Freedom]

1) Rand will be running in '16, whether we like it or not, and we will get to see how his more strategic-minded rhetorical approach fares. Hopefully, Ron will be involved, or will run (or at least threaten to) on a 3rd party line to help shake the 'electable' aura off the next establishment GOP frontrunner. This should protect Rand's race for the Republican nomination.

2) Focusing on open seat situations in ether safe GOP or safe Democratic areas is still better than a GOP-only focus. Concentrating on these races will improve the probability of more liberty victories, more than spreading our energies thinly running low-percentage campaigns against entrenched incumbents.

[GunnyFreedom]

1) Rand will be running in '16, whether we like it or not, and we will get to see how his more strategic-minded rhetorical approach fares. Hopefully, Ron will be involved, or will run (or at least threaten to) on a 3rd party line to help shake the 'electable' aura off the next establishment GOP frontrunner. This should protect Rand's race for the Republican nomination.

2) Focusing on open seat situations in ether safe GOP or safe Democratic areas is still better than a GOP-only focus. Concentrating on these races will improve the probability of more liberty victories, more than spreading our energies thinly running low-percentage campaigns against entrenched incumbents.

If you look at NC CD1 and the legislative districts within it, you will find that the area is literally begging for a Ron Paul Democrat.

[Smart3]

There are seats in Northern California that can be had for a lot cheaper than that.

The question is where do the great candidates and the seat opportunities match up, not getting a 'balance' across the nation, imho.
Doesn't seem to be the case, but sure let's try.


A California State House race costs $10 Mil ?? :eek:

Year Number of candidates Total contributions
2010 275 $77,405,341
2008 236 $84,386,698
2006 285 $91,726,959
2004 264 $94,287,806
2002 279 $73,822,064

It costs close to a mil in the races we could win, 10 mil in other races. Of course this assumes we would ever want to try that. We'd probably target the smaller districts in the North and East, and that would still set us back at least 300k. (more than we're used to raising)

10 mil was an obvious exaggeration, to add emphasis.

[jkob]

I'm open to supporting Rand provided he votes the right way. He'll be more than tested by 2016 so we'll should know.

If Romney wins, it would probably be better not to put all our eggs in the presidential race tho. Running against an incumbent is almost impossible. However if Obama wins, it's going to be an seat with no incumbent after 8 years of Democrat rule. Maybe America will be ready by then?

[supermario21]

Having 8 years of Romney would be advantageous to our base. Rand moves into a more powerful position in the Senate and we buy ourselves 4 more years to get our guys in place throughout the House and Senate. Guys like Graham and McCain will all be gone (hopefully) and we would have more party infrastructure to get Rand nominated. 8 years could also be long enough to see the guys like Christie/Jeb Bush get old for example and decide against running.

[supermario21]

I'm open to supporting Rand provided he votes the right way. He'll be more than tested by 2016 so we'll should know.

If Romney wins, it would probably be better not to put all our eggs in the presidential race tho. Running against an incumbent is almost impossible. However if Obama wins, it's going to be an seat with no incumbent after 8 years of Democrat rule. Maybe America will be ready by then?

Have you watched his votes the last few weeks?? LOL

[Smart3]

Having 8 years of Romney would be advantageous to our base. Rand moves into a more powerful position in the Senate and we buy ourselves 4 more years to get our guys in place throughout the House and Senate. Guys like Graham and McCain will all be gone (hopefully) and we would have more party infrastructure to get Rand nominated. 8 years could also be long enough to see the guys like Christie/Jeb Bush get old for example and decide against running.
In case you hadn't noticed, Christie is only 50 years old. Much less than 65-year-old Romney.

[supermario21]

In case you hadn't noticed, Christie is only 50 years old. Much less than 65-year-old Romney.

Yeah but Christie would be out of office for a few years and I don't think his personality is suited to being without a bully pulpit for awhile. Once he's done I'd say he's done for good.

[ScotTFO]

I'd still have a hard time respecting Rand after what he did, though he'd probably be our best option.

Though I would take Judge Napolitano over anyone any day! :) (Except Ron Paul himself of course)

[Smart3]

Yeah but Christie would be out of office for a few years and I don't think his personality is suited to being without a bully pulpit for awhile. Once he's done I'd say he's done for good.

Why wouldn't Christie run against Menendez in 2018? or Lautenberg's successor in 2020?

I doubt Christie would be out of office.

[FrankRep]

Rand Paul.

[Matt Collins]

I'd still have a hard time respecting Rand after what he didHuh? What in the hell are you talking about? :confused:

You mean Rand keeping his word? :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

Hopefully, Ron will be involved (in 2016), or will run (or at least threaten to) on a 3rd party line to help shake the 'electable' aura off the next establishment GOP frontrunner. Not happening.

[Matt Collins]

I will never vote for Rand for President for a lot of reasons, some of which are strategicThen you are not helping the cause of liberty

[Matt Collins]

Its not counterproductive. Rand hasnt done enough for me to lock a solid vote for me if he ever does run as of right now. LOLz, then you haven't been paying attention apparently. :rolleyes:



I"m sorry but endorsing someone just to play along loses major points with me. He endorsed Romney to keep his word.

[Matt Collins]

Sadly, I don't think the C4L's structure as a 527 allows it to do either.I think maybe you meant "501c(4)?" :confused:

[Matt Collins]

Why do we need to package or market anything?Because that is how you convince people to vote for you.


Ron Paul gathered us all here because he didn't package and market his message to anyone. He told the truth. The blunt truth.Yes, and that doesn't win elections as evidenced by '08 and 2012.


I sure as hell wouldn't have joined his campaign had he had different rhetoric. We don't need someone to tell the Republicans what they want to hear. We need someone to tell them what they NEED to hear.The average Ron Paul supporter is not like the average Republican (obviously). If you want to convince them to vote for your guy, you have to not piss them off first.


This is why Rand is successful and has droves of Republicans who like him when he is essentially the same as his dad.

[TheTexan]

With the exception of education, anything at the Federal level is pointless. That's a road that leads nowhere.

FSP, secession, and/or nullification is what we need to be focusing on. If you can't move to NH, try to get your local conservatives riled up about whatever issue just to piss them off enough to threaten secession. Try obamacare. They love to hate that shit.

Yes, yes, most of these conservatives actually do love obamacare. But they can't admit it. They have to say they hate it with every fiber of their being just to maintain their cognitive dissonance. So use that to your advantage, and run a campaign on nullification or secession to get rid of obamacare. Even if we can get nullification/secession into the public discussion that in of itself would be a victory.

Of course, the easier way is for us to simply pack up our shit and move to a state that has 1/300th the population of the US. If even 10% of the movement did this, mathematically it would be 30 times more effective than trying to play the political game at a national level. We would have a shitload more leverage if we just focused on making one state free instead of fifty.

[LibertyEagle]

With the exception of education, anything at the Federal level is pointless. That's a road that leads nowhere.

FSP, secession, and/or nullification is what we need to be focusing on. If you can't move to NH, try to get your local conservatives riled up about whatever issue just to piss them off enough to threaten secession. Try obamacare. They love to hate that shit.

Yes, yes, most of these conservatives actually do love obamacare. But they can't admit it. They have to say they hate it with every fiber of their being just to maintain their cognitive dissonance. So use that to your advantage, and run a campaign on nullification or secession to get rid of obamacare. Even if we can get nullification/secession into the public discussion that in of itself would be a victory.

Of course, the easier way is for us to simply pack up our shit and move to a state that has 1/300th the population of the US. If even 10% of the movement did this, mathematically it would be 30 times more effective than trying to play the political game at a national level. We would have a shitload more leverage if we just focused on making one state free instead of fifty.

That is just so much bullshit. :rolleyes:

[cindy25]

take over the Democratic party. I assume Romney will start a war, and a foreign policy election is long overdue

[ProvincialPeasant]

I'd prefer Rand succeed DeMint as leader of the conservative Senate wing. Help elect true conservatives and libertarians in 2014, 2016 and beyond (especially if Romney wins). But I know people think he will make a good Presidential candidate. I don't think so, he just doesn't have Presidential traits, and I think a loss would hurt him (especially since it will force the GOP base to decide whether they like him or not).

[ScotTFO]

Huh? What in the hell are you talking about? :confused:

You mean Rand keeping his word? :rolleyes:you are obviously an idiot if you think that is the reason why some of us are angry with Rand

[ScotTFO]

Then you are not helping the cause of libertyI thought the cause of liberty was to promote individuality and to support people being able to make their own decisions.

[BuddyRey]

Nothing beats having a principled libertarian candidate running as a *Republican* and getting in the debates to expose people to libertarian ideas. The educational impact of the Ron Paul campaign alone has been solid proof that our current strategy is working. We just need to keep forging ahead until we have about 20% of the voters on our side. Remember, revolutions are never started by "the majority" of people....all it takes is a tireless and pissed off minority. Something about brushfires of liberty and so on.

[nobody's_hero]

That is just so much bullshit. :rolleyes:

He may have a point. Apparently there is a large group of 'conservatives' who came around to parts of Obamacare because of the mandate. "We have mandatory auto insurance to protect other drivers, so we should have mandatory health insurance so we don't bankrupt our hospitals. Blah blah blah government needs more power. Let's tax people for not affording health insurance."

It is bullshit, but I don't think we mean that in the same context.

[DylanWaco]

Then you are not helping the cause of liberty

Tell us how the foreign policy of Mitt Romney, sanctions on Iran, calling for the massive seizure of private land by the government on behalf of corporations, expanding corporate state/fascist economics, and taking the ultra-nationalist, pro-bribery, position on foreign aid is "helping the cause of liberty?"

This is the problem with the new Randian cult. Despite accusations that Rand's critics are unfair and demand perfection, they take an even more extreme pro-Rand position. Any criticism of Rand, failure to support his future plans, questioning of his motivations, et is immediately denounced as insane, anti-movement rhetoric. It's not enough to view Rand as a potential ally - something I have written about in a public forum very recently - one must accept him as a christ like, messianic figure, who's status as a serial liar is a positive good that is actually somehow supposed to make him MORE trustworthy.

I was actually far more open to a Rand run not that long ago. Even after the endorsement of Romney in fact (the endorsement was to be expected. The statements he offered in defense of Romney were disgraceful). But the professional Rand Paul Rah Rah Brigades has shown me the danger of a Rand candidacy. As a "best we can reasonably do candidate" he is appealing. As a "this man defines our movement" candidate he is abysmal. And that is how he is being casts by the great majority of his supporters, to say nothing of those (like Collins) who are attempting to build their careers off of him in the future.

[DylanWaco]

I thought the cause of liberty was to promote individuality and to support people being able to make their own decisions.

To Matt the cause of liberty means "things that will get me paid." That's obvious.

For the record I think there are sound strategic reasons for Rand supporters to oppose his running for President as well, some of which were outlined by ProvincialPeasant. But they will be ignored in favor of Rah Rah cheerleading.

[whoisjohngalt]

As I believe was previously pointed out in this thread, Rand will be running in 2016.

There is no question of who "we" should run. It is up to every individual to decide whether or not they will support him, but the great majority of the liberty movement will unquestionably support him and his candidacy.

Any attempts to derail or subvert his candidacy by trying to convince others in our movement not to support him or to try and push another candidate will, in fact, hurt the liberty movement. This is true of any efforts to fracture any movement, but it not necessarily wrong as its often the result of a belief that the movement is getting away from its defining values.

The die has already been cast. The only question left to answer is if you will support him personally. Here is to freedom of conscience!

[AuH20]

Rand Paul's candidacy in 2016 will have historic implications on the scale of Barry Goldwater. If others want to miss the train and complain until the end of time, so be it. Rand has been kicked and dragged through the mud by his supposed allies even before he committed to endorsing Romney. Don't be fooled by the sanction barbs and the contention about the Romney endorsement. They never liked Rand to begin with, which was well-documented when he announced his candidacy as a primary challenger in Kentucky. Rand will keep on trucking without them.

[sailingaway]

As I believe was previously pointed out in this thread, Rand will be running in 2016.

There is no question of who "we" should run. It is up to every individual to decide whether or not they will support him, but the great majority of the liberty movement will unquestionably support him and his candidacy.

Any attempts to derail or subvert his candidacy by trying to convince others in our movement not to support him or to try and push another candidate will, in fact, hurt the liberty movement. This is true of any efforts to fracture any movement, but it not necessarily wrong as its often the result of a belief that the movement is getting away from its defining values.

The die has already been cast. The only question left to answer is if you will support him personally. Here is to freedom of conscience!

we don't yet know who will run, and freedom of conscience means you speak for yourself, not 'the great majority of the liberty movement'. Rand will likely run. He will get support. He will likely get more support if his supporters understand he has to earn it, and isn't going to get 'the majority of the liberty movement' just by existing, regardless of his actions.

[DylanWaco]

Rand Paul's candidacy in 2016 will have historic implications on the scale of Barry Goldwater. If others want to miss the train and complain until the end of time, so be it. Rand has been kicked and dragged through the mud by his supposed allies even before he committed to endorsing Romney. Don't be fooled by the sanction barbs and the contention about the Romney endorsement. They never liked Rand to begin with, which was well-documented when he announced his candidacy as a primary challenger in Kentucky. Rand will keep on trucking without them.

Sadly this is another common lie advanced by the Disciples of Rand. Many of us were very supportive of Rand during his initial campaign.

My initial questions about Rand date back to shorty after he won the GOP nomination. I was speaking to a key member of Rand's team when the subject of war funding came up. I was shocked to discover that the same man who said "I will never vote for an unbalanced budget," had made an unsolicited remark that he would have no problem at all voting for spending on unconstitutional wars and in fact saw it as necessary for political reasons. As someone who sees the issue of the American Empire as aparamount I found this very troubling and it's also why the "opposition to undeclared wars" talking point used to advance the Ted Cruz's of the world does little to assure me that they have any interest in actually trimming away at the warfare state.

Still I was not above voting for Rand for President then. The Iran sanctions vote - apparently irrelevant in the case of Rand though it would be widely condemned if any other politician had cast it in opposition to the principles of the movement that he rode into office on - had me starting to seriously doubt whether I could vote for him, but I still wasn't off the wagon entirely. What did it for me was the fanatical devotion of his delusional followers after the Romney endorsement. Instead of correctly noting that Rand had always vowed to endorse the nominee and admitting that Rand's language, location and timing were perhaps not ideal but still ultimately necessary, the vast majority of his supports touted him as a man of unquestionable integrity, who could not have possibly erred in talking up the "mature foreign policy of Mitt Romney," while lambasting all criticism of the endorsement as vile, divisive, anti-liberty, hate mongering. It was at that point that I realized a significant section of the liberty movement sees Rand as a godlike entity, who's inconsistencies and/or lies can not be discussed by mere mortals because he is really only acting for the greater good, something mere mortals are far too stupid to understand.

My fear is that if Rand Paul becomes the standard bearer we will have another Reagan/Contract for America moment, albeit perhaps not as severe an ideological sellout. When a movement starts out radical in nature, it cannot de-radicalize without losing something. But it is especially bad to try and pretend someone is a hard radical, when at best they are a soft one.

It is bad strategy for Rand to be the candidate of the liberty movement in 2016, because if Rand Paul becomes the defining face of the liberty movement, the movement will go the way of the religious right, i.e. a fully integrated part of the GOP apparatus that gets scraps tossed its way on occasion, while gradually becoming more and more mainstream in character.

The grassroots can not push him because Rand and his handlers don't give a god damn about the grassroots at best and actively loathe them at worst. They want a coalition with the nationalist and traditionalist wings of the GOP and generally assume that the average liberty advocate will support them just because there is no better option. Rand will continue to cast mostly good votes, with mixed rhetoric which makes him a solid vehicle for that sort of coalition building. It does not however make him the best figurehead for the liberty movement, particularly when so many people are unwilling to accept any criticism of his record or rhetoric.

[whoisjohngalt]

we don't yet know who will run, and freedom of conscience means you speak for yourself, not 'the great majority of the liberty movement'. Rand will likely run. He will get support. He will likely get more support if his supporters understand he has to earn it, and isn't going to get 'the majority of the liberty movement' just by existing, regardless of his actions.

I'm not speaking for the great majority of the liberty movement. A branch of mathematics known as statistics is.

[whoisjohngalt]

DylanWaco, your moment of clarity is based on his supporter's actions rather than Rand's? This makes a lot of sense.

Then you proceed to make a lot of non sequitur predictions based on your fears.

Either you trust Rand to continually move things in the direction of liberty or you expect the liberty movement to become absorbed and believe that the liberty movement will merely be exploited on the way to some bastardization of two completely conflicting ideologies. It's really very simple and requires no crystal ball.

[AuH20]

DylanWaco, your moment of clarity is based on his supporter's actions rather than Rand's? This makes a lot of sense.

Then you proceed to make a lot of non sequitur predictions based on your fears.

Either you trust Rand to continually move things in the direction of liberty or you expect the liberty movement to become absorbed and believe that the liberty movement will merely be exploited on the way to some bastardization of two completely conflicting ideologies. It's really very simple and requires no crystal ball.

I for one, would love to know when Rand planted the seeds for this inevtiable Judas moment??? I think it was when he stared down Dick Cheney at the closed door Senate meeting about the impact of sequesteration. He sold out then by not going along with status quo. He's a real traitor.

[DylanWaco]

DylanWaco, your moment of clarity is based on his supporter's actions rather than Rand's? This makes a lot of sense.

Then you proceed to make a lot of non sequitur predictions based on your fears.

Either you trust Rand to continually move things in the direction of liberty or you expect the liberty movement to become absorbed and believe that the liberty movement will merely be exploited on the way to some bastardization of two completely conflicting ideologies. It's really very simple and requires no crystal ball.

My moment of clarity is a political calculation. It's odd how the supporters of Rand have zero problem with him making overtly political calculations, but when others do the same the suggestion is that it is foolish. Another example of Rand's status as an exalted figure, held to an entirely different standard than anyone else with ties to the movement.

Trusting Rand is entirely predicated on whether or not one believes he is a liar for us. Well, I suppose it is possible to trust in his support for the mature foreign policy of Mitt Romney and acts of war against Iran, but I would guess most of his supporters are hopeful that those statements/votes were pure politics and not accurate expressions of his true feelings. Whichever way you believe - that he really believes everything he says and does which is troubling, or that he is working a "trust me I'm a liar" gimmick which is also troubling - Rand is not beyond criticism. As a purely political matter, associating publicly with those that regard him as a Messianic figure is something I am willing to do, not because I find it personally distasteful, but because I find it politically unwise to hold up Rand as a standard bearer who is beyond all criticism. It's not that hard to grasp.

I have left out the fraud that was the post-SC debate Ron Paul campaign, but at this point it may also be worth noting that that is another reason I found it increasingly difficult to cast my lot with Rand and what I was told about that ordeal guarantees I would never donate a penny to the man's campaign.

[DylanWaco]

I for one, would love to know when Rand planted the seeds for this inevtiable Judas moment??? I think it was when he stared down Dick Cheney at the closed door Senate meeting about the impact of sequesteration. He sold out then by not going along with status quo. He's a real traitor.

I am curious - during communion, what part of Rand's body and fluids do you consume?

[AuH20]

I am curious - during communion, what part of Rand's body and fluids do you consume?

I am not a disciple. I see the big picture and the alleged game breaking sins that Rand has committed are not even worth mentioning, given the winner-take-all war we are currently engaged in. We have elements of this "movement" crucifying a person who is actually carrying the ball up the field with his principles in tow, as opposed to wallowing in obscurity. The flak that Rand Paul receives on a daily basis is almost sadistic. And I'm certainly not saying that he's above criticism, but his most vocal critics appear to be the ones who come off as the most irrational.

[whoisjohngalt]

Dylan, it's not really that odd. It's a simple willingness to use the neocon strategy against them and an understanding that he is "our liar" as you would term it. Based on the evidence provided by those who know him personally (his father, brothers, friends, etc.) as the primary indicator of his character, we can be relatively sure of that assessment.

If it is not enough for you, that is fine. I'm not trying to convince you to support him, just begging you to please focus your energies on something other than detracting from his efforts.

I'm a poker player and I've learned to completely ignore what people say. I don't know about the SC thing though. What happened?

[DylanWaco]

I was told by someone in the very inner circle of the campaign that the campaign effectively turned into the Rand Paul 2016 infrastructure campaign immediately following the last SC debate where the perception among campaign insiders was that Ron bombed. Some may have no problem with this, but I have a major problem with that sort of dishonesty, particularly when it is known that there is a movement split on Rand. Another insider told me later they knew people would quit donating if the perception was that it was "all about Rand" so they had to keep it quiet.

I wish I believed Rand was "our liar" but it is precisely because of things he has said to people I know in private that I became unsettled with him in the first place. Of course people are free to tout him and point to his positives. I just reject the notion that his negatives should be off the table.

[AuH20]

I was told by someone in the very inner circle of the campaign that the campaign effectively turned into the Rand Paul 2016 infrastructure campaign immediately following the last SC debate where the perception among campaign insiders was that Ron bombed. Some may have no problem with this, but I have a major problem with that sort of dishonesty, particularly when it is known that there is a movement split on Rand. Another insider told me later they knew people would quit donating if the perception was that it was "all about Rand" so they had to keep it quiet.

I wish I believed Rand was "our liar" but it is precisely because of things he has said to people I know in private that I became unsettled with him in the first place. Of course people are free to tout him and point to his positives. I just reject the notion that his negatives should be off the table.

It was pretty obvious that Ron reached his threshold after Iowa. Making lemonade out of lemons was the only logical next move. You may lose the battle (the primary) but you plan accordingly to win the war. With that said, the campaign should have notified their donors of their strategy instead of leading them along.

[sailingaway]

It was pretty obvious that Ron reached his threshold after Iowa. Making lemonade out of lemons was the only logical next move. You may lose the battle (the primary) but you plan accordingly to win the war. With that said, the campaign should have notified their donors of their strategy instead of leading them along.

Actually, if that happened, saying the goal was to maximize one candidate while taking money to maximize someone else at the expense of NOT maximizing the other sure would seem like fraud to me. And how much did you donate after SC? Because of course the RAND supporters think that was a decent way to go, but those who saw all other candidates as a step down, and Ron as the premier Pied Piper for liberty -- the EXACT people still donating even if the nomination became increasingly unlikely, have every reason to consider that betrayal, IF that is true. And remember, I donated thousands to Rand's campaign and phone banked for him. I was never 'anti Rand'.

Your ASSUMPTION that it may have been true and was 'all good', is not helping matters.

[whoisjohngalt]

It's funny because, in my mind, this has been the Rand 2016 campaign since sometime in early 2010. It's upsetting that it took them so long to realize it. I still donated all the money and time I could spare for Ron to the 2012 campaign because I didn't see them as mutually exclusive propositions.

Did I think Ron had even a snowball's chance in hell of winning in 2012? No, of course not. Did I see the tremendous value it would provide to the liberty movement? Yes, of course. Did I think Rand was ready in 2012? No, as much as I don't want to wait four more years, it had to happen this way.

Ron's 2012 campaign was just another domino that had to fall. As will the election of Rand in 2016. The end game is liberty and I've been on this big picture trip for a long long time now.

[sailingaway]

That isn't how it was billed and many don't think they are interchangeable or would deliver the same 'liberty'. Some think waking up those ignoring politics (Ron) is the way to go, and they don't necessarily support Rand. Others think Rand is fine after they are foreclosed from having Ron, due to age, but that not one iota of the maximum trajectory of Ron's run for RON'S influence should be lessened, because he is the standard. Who exactly do you think was more likely to have been donating AFTER SC? Those people or those who were just marking time until Rand could run?

again, your assumption really doesn't help matters. You are saying YOU are as fine with Rand as Ron, and it was ok for people to make that same judgment call on behalf of all who donated to RON, regardless of language saying he would run his best race, fight to the end, and the fact that Ron himself actually seemed to be doing that.

I don't know that the campaign actually decided that as a policy matter, although at this point I suspect it, but if it did, I would absolutely consider that unacceptable.

[DylanWaco]

I should make clear that I never thought Ron had any chance in 2012 either and still had no problem supporting him, encouraging people to vote for him, passing out literature, talking to voters about him, et.

[sailingaway]

I should make clear that I never thought Ron had any chance in 2012 either and still had no problem supporting him, encouraging people to vote for him, passing out literature, talking to voters about him, et.

His chances were always greater for waking people up and developing influence to launch his post-Congressional influence, than for winning the nomination, but those should have been secondary goals, NOT a future campaign for someone else. That the residue organization would inure to Rand's benefit was clear, not that Ron's campaign and HIS influence and trajectory should be summarily torpedoed for comity with the party for some other person's later benefit. In my opinion.

[DylanWaco]

That isn't how it was billed and many don't think they are interchangeable or would deliver the same 'liberty'. Some think waking up those ignoring politics (Ron) is the way to go, and they don't necessarily support Rand. Others think Rand is fine after they are foreclosed from having Ron, due to age, but that not one iota of the maximum trajectory of Ron's run for RON'S influence should be lessened, because he is the standard. Who exactly do you think was more likely to have been donating AFTER SC? Those people or those who were just marking time until Rand could run?

again, your assumption really doesn't help matters. You are saying YOU are as fine with Rand as Ron, and it was ok for people to make that same judgment call on behalf of all who donated to RON, regardless of language saying he would run his best race, fight to the end, and the fact that Ron himself actually seemed to be doing that.

I don't know that the campaign actually decided that as a policy matter, although at this point I suspect it, but if it did, I would absolutely consider that unacceptable.

This is really the point. It's highly deceptive, politics as usual stuff, from a campaign representing a candidate who's appeal is that he was above that sort of thing.

One can make the argument that political deception is required when battling with the scum on the Hill. But the idea that it is a just and necessary good when dealing with supporters is at best amoral. And I'm being generous.

[DylanWaco]

His chances were always greater for waking people up and developing influence to launch his post-Congressional influence, than for winning the nomination, but those should have been secondary goals, NOT a future campaign for someone else. That the residue organization would inure to Rand's benefit was clear, not that Ron's campaign and HIS influence and trajectory should be summarily torpedoed for comity with the party for some other person's later benefit. In my opinion.

Totally agree

[whoisjohngalt]

I also totally agree. They should have known Rand 2016 was the plan all along coming in to the campaign, but that it was not their responsibility to do anything to further that objective. Those people managing Ron's campaign should have focused solely on their duty, which was running Ron's campaign and not torpedoing anything. Beyond that, I think it was completely unnecessary for anyone who is not Rand or Ron to worry about Rand 2016 at the time.

I just don't see any difference in strategy between trying as hard as possible to get Ron elected in 2012 and preparing for Rand 2016. I'm no Benton apologist.

[sailingaway]

I do see the difference, because enthusiasm seemed to be expressly drowned to KEEP there from being enough delegates to get Ron on the floor, and when we had them anyhow, someone on staff told delegates FALSELY Ron wouldn't accept the speech even if he could get it (Tate had to send an email correcting this due to the furor over it.) Ron's influence, momentum (which cratered after the endorsement and staff emails) and overall stature going into retirement would have been greatly enhanced by a speech to GENERAL ELECTION audience at the debate, given he speaks to independents as others, including Rand, do not. (IMHO.) Playing a 'play nice' strategy to administer RON'S campaign definitely, if intentional or not, impacted RON'S influence. And Rand is a different person and as you say, should not have been the concern of RON'S campaign.

In my opinion Ron is the gold standard, and no one having influence is more important than his. And I'm one of the ones who donated all along.

[dean.engelhardt]

I could get behind Rand. If he doesn't run it is LP me, unless they pick Bob Barr again.

[whoisjohngalt]

Yes, there is no argument that the campaign was horribly mismanaged and kowtowed to the establishment. Rand was not part of Ron's campaign. I'm not defending the injustices that happened within the campaign. I think they did nothing to serve the advancement of Rand and obviously greatly damaged the influence Ron could have and his chances of winning.

[LibertyEagle]

With the exception of education, anything at the Federal level is pointless. That's a road that leads nowhere.

FSP, secession, and/or nullification is what we need to be focusing on. If you can't move to NH, try to get your local conservatives riled up about whatever issue just to piss them off enough to threaten secession. Try obamacare. They love to hate that shit.

Yes, yes, most of these conservatives actually do love obamacare. But they can't admit it. They have to say they hate it with every fiber of their being just to maintain their cognitive dissonance. So use that to your advantage, and run a campaign on nullification or secession to get rid of obamacare. Even if we can get nullification/secession into the public discussion that in of itself would be a victory.

Of course, the easier way is for us to simply pack up our shit and move to a state that has 1/300th the population of the US. If even 10% of the movement did this, mathematically it would be 30 times more effective than trying to play the political game at a national level. We would have a shitload more leverage if we just focused on making one state free instead of fifty.

You give me a neg rep for pointing out to you that your idiotic assumption about conservatives was idiotic. You apparently wanted me to explain to you for the umpteenth time that you cannot categorize people like that. First of all, who are you talking about? Neoconservaties? Paleoconservatives? Social Conservatives? People who claim they are "conservatives" and aren't? People like Romney, McCain, Huckabee and Santorum? Who?

Neocons are not conservatives at all. They are leftist-progressives who left the democratic party and saw an opportunity to take over the conservative movement and did it. Some that go by "Social Cons" were brought into the Republican Party during Reagan's run, not because they believed in conservative principles, but because of their vote. Many of them are little different than big government leftists who are quite willing to use government force as long as it is used to cram their own agenda down everyone else's throat. Then there are the paleocons. These are the only real conservatives from where I sit. They believe in limited constitutional government, individual liberty, personal privacy, personal responsibility, a strong national defense, and "states' rights".

So no, you cannot just group all people claiming to be "conservatives" together with some blanket statement like you did. After Reagan, everyone in the damn Republican Party calls themselves a conservative. That doesn't make them one.

[Matt Collins]

Yes, there is no argument that the campaign was horribly mismanaged and kowtowed to the establishment. Rand was not part of Ron's campaign. Untrue on both accounts.

[Matt Collins]

That isn't how it was billed and many don't think they are interchangeable or would deliver the same 'liberty'. And they obviously don't know Rand very well, nor are they paying attention to his voting record.


Some think waking up those ignoring politics (Ron) is the way to go, and they don't necessarily support Rand. And that is not a winning strategy.

[Matt Collins]

I was told by someone in the very inner circle of the campaign that the campaign effectively turned into the Rand Paul 2016 infrastructure campaign immediately following the last SC debate where the perception among campaign insiders was that Ron bombed. Who? :rolleyes:


But regardless of who may or may not have told you that, doesn't make sense to have a backup plan? If Ron wasn't able to do it, doesn't it make sense to ancillary lay the groundwork for Rand?



Some may have no problem with this, but I have a major problem with that sort of dishonesty, particularly when it is known that there is a movement split on Rand.Nothing is dishonest, we are building the liberty movement. And those who don't support Rand obviously aren't a part of it.

[Matt Collins]

To Matt the cause of liberty means "things that will get me paid." That's obvious. LOLz, you obviously don't know how little I get paid. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

It was pretty obvious that Ron reached his threshold after Iowa. Making lemonade out of lemons was the only logical next move. You may lose the battle (the primary) but you plan accordingly to win the war. With that said, the campaign should have notified their donors of their strategy instead of leading them along.

I would agree with you, if I thought that was what happened. But, I don't. I am pretty sure that at least most of them thought that there was a chance for a brokered convention. But, that hope was all over when Santorum dropped out. Then, they segued into trying to make as much of an impact as possible. But, there was really no hope of winning.

I do agree that at that point, they should have been upfront before asking for anymore donations.

I know how frustrating it is and the campaign did make mistakes. But, hell guys, look at what we all did. The establishment is still talking about us. We have made huge inroads towards accomplishing our goals. Many more people have joined our cause; we now have more than just Ron in Congress and have started laying the groundwork to make it much easier to get more elected. Most Americans know that the Federal Reserve exists and while they may not understand it a whole lot, they know it is a bad thing.

[DylanWaco]

LOLz, you obviously don't know how little I get paid. :rolleyes:

If you are paid a dime it's more than you're worth.

[Matt Collins]

Tell us how the foreign policy of Mitt Romney, sanctions on Iran, calling for the massive seizure of private land by the government on behalf of corporations, expanding corporate state/fascist economics, and taking the ultra-nationalist, pro-bribery, position on foreign aid is "helping the cause of liberty?" I never said that it was.


It's not enough to view Rand as a potential ally - something I have written about in a public forum very recently - one must accept him as a christ like, messianic figure, who's status as a serial liar is a positive good that is actually somehow supposed to make him MORE trustworthy.Not at all, but Rand is the new Ron.


And that is how he is being casts by the great majority of his supporters, to say nothing of those (like Collins) who are attempting to build their careers off of him in the future.Ha ha ha, not hardly. I'd much rather be doing other stuff than politics. Ayn Rand has a quote about this somewhere...

[Matt Collins]

With the exception of education, anything at the Federal level is pointless. That's a road that leads nowhere.Maybe.... a popular federal candidate, like Ron, can be used as a rallying base, and a way to build lists.


FSP, secession, and/or nullification is what we need to be focusing on. I agree that the majority of our focus for the time being needs to be on the state and local level, that's where we can all make the most difference.

[sailingaway]

Who? :rolleyes:


But regardless of who may or may not have told you that, doesn't make sense to have a backup plan? If Ron wasn't able to do it, doesn't it make sense to ancillary lay the groundwork for Rand?


Nothing is dishonest, we are building the liberty movement. And those who don't support Rand obviously aren't a part of it.

that sounds like a 'Rand Paul movement' not a liberty movement, particularly when phrased in such a 'him or nothing' manner. And the back up plan of Ron's campaign was to build RON'S influence in his congressional retirement, to those who supported RON.

[sailingaway]

Maybe.... a popular federal candidate, like Ron, can be used as a rallying base, and a way to build lists.



Which lists would belong to RON and no one else, except with his express permission.

[DylanWaco]

"Rand is the new Ron" - Matt Collins

But I thought he was his own man and it's not fair to judge him against his dad and you have to make room for different political realities?

Well no. Not in this case. Because Rand is the New Messiah and any criticism of him is disallowed. His paid lemming has all but said as much in this thread. Those who would be unwilling to kill or die for him hate liberty. Can't you all see that?

[LibertyEagle]

Hey guys, for those of you who want to keep dragging Ron's campaign through the mud, what do you think of Romney's campaign? How do you think they are doing? You know Romney is paying them top dollar and he has millions and millions of money to work with. Do you think they are better?

I don't. They have let Obama completely define their candidate and his positions.

[LibertyEagle]

Which lists would belong to RON and no one else, except with his express permission.

Yes and that is how it is now.

[DylanWaco]

Hey guys, for those of you who want to keep dragging Ron's campaign through the mud, what do you think of Romney's campaign? How do you think they are doing? You know Romney is paying them top dollar and he has millions and millions of money to work with. Do you think they are better?

I don't. They have let Obama completely define their candidate and his positions.

Romney's campaign has been terrible, but to be fair they have a totally unappealing candidate, who the vast majority of the parties base viscerally loathes and who has no real connection to alternative voters outside the existing system. I'm not sure you CAN run a good campaign with a candidate like that.

[AuH20]

Rand is on second base, in scoring position essentially and we have critics telling us we need to abandon him and go back to square one. Does that make any sort of sense?

[LibertyEagle]

Romney's campaign has been terrible, but to be fair they have a totally unappealing candidate, who the vast majority of the parties base viscerally loathes and who has no real connection to alternative voters outside the existing system. I'm not sure you CAN run a good campaign with a candidate like that.

They have money to run ads to define Romney the way they think he should be defined. They don't do it. They have let Obama paint him. That is inexcusable.

[DylanWaco]

They are fighting against an MSM that has (amazingly) rightfully portrayed Romney as a serial lying fraud. The ads have helped him. Without the money he wouldn't have gotten out of the primaries.

[matt0611]

Run Rand Paul for President in 2016. Obviously.

There's no other good option.

And no, don't say Jesse Ventura or some other BS, try to stay in the real world here.

[LibertyEagle]

that sounds like a 'Rand Paul movement' not a liberty movement, particularly when phrased in such a 'him or nothing' manner. And the back up plan of Ron's campaign was to build RON'S influence in his congressional retirement, to those who supported RON.

Rand is our best bet at the presidential level. That seems clear to me. That doesn't mean there aren't others at all levels.

I hope we get good people running for everything and its dog.

[sailingaway]

You are entitled to your opinion. Others who may previously have held that opinion now are open to others coming into view in the intervening time. It doesn't make them, or even those who subscribe to principles most of us share but for whatever reason may not, at least at this time, subscribe to Rand, 'outside the liberty movement' as Collins declares them to be. It is that presumption of defining for all the 'liberty movement' and who 'its' candidate will be that I was objecting to, not the choice of specific people to support Rand.

And his statements together also suggest that it was/would have been acceptable to run Ron's campaign for Rand not Ron, which I disagree with. Again that doesn't go to anyone in particular's choice for presidential candidate, just my response to Collins's pronouncements.

[LibertyEagle]

You are entitled to your opinion. Others who may previously have held that opinion now are open to others coming into view in the intervening time. It doesn't make them, or even those who subscribe to principles most of us share but for whatever reason may not, at least at this time, subscribe to Rand, 'outside the liberty movement' as Collins declares them to be. It is that presumption of defining for all the 'liberty movement' and who 'its' candidate will be that I was objecting to, not the choice of specific people to support Rand.

And his statements together also suggest that it was/would have been acceptable to run Ron's campaign for Rand not Ron, which I disagree with. Again that doesn't go to anyone in particular's choice for presidential candidate, just my response to Collins's pronouncements.

That's fair. As long as you don't misuse your position as a Moderator to undermine Rand.

[sailingaway]

That's fair. As long as you don't misuse your position as a Moderator to undermine Rand.

I will state my positions, and I try to be as honest as I can be and challenge my own assumptions, and I always try to be fair by my own lights. Anyone here who follows what I say as the be all and end all 'right' idea without examination should rethink that position. I reject the notion that stating my honest opinions in a discussion of opinions is 'misusing' my position as a moderator, whatever the result is. From the way you put that, it sounds like my opinions are fine if they agree with a result you like, but not if they don't.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Chances are pretty good, Rand Paul will be running for President in 2016.

Rand will have the tentative backing of Teocons and and even some Huckabee/Santorum type conservatives out of the gate. I really, really like Rand's chances in 2016, he's played the game and played it well, Those of us who listen to his speeches and watch his votes rather than follow his "endorsements" will know where his loyalty truly lies. He's his father's son, and a statesmen that plays the game where Ron would refuse to tread.

My point is this...We may get the presidential candidate we want--with the help of the enemy and with the party structure we've layed in Ron's wake.

Its happening. Don't give up.
He's the liberty movement's Bill Clinton in how advanced he is at playing the game of politics.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Good luck with the Rand Paul ticket, I guarantee you the establishment has already picked their 2016 candidate after Mitten Sach's loses to Barry in November, Marco Rubio.
Jeb Bush will crush him in Florida.

[LibertyEagle]

I will state my positions, and I try to be as honest as I can be and challenge my own assumptions, and I always try to be fair by my own lights. Anyone here who follows what I say as the be all and end all 'right' idea without examination should rethink that position. I reject the notion that stating my honest opinions in a discussion of opinions is 'misusing' my position as a moderator, whatever the result is. From the way you put that, it sounds like my opinions are fine if they agree with a result you like, but not if they don't.

Nope and I think you know exactly what I mean. That is all I am saying about it here.

[Bastiat's The Law]

If Romney loses I could see Rand running in 2016. It would be a good idea to get as many liberty-supporters in local government positions & the State party in order to minimize the chances of getting screwed over in caucuses by those nimrods that flagrantly violated Robert's Rules of Order.
Start planning ahead accordingly.

[Bastiat's The Law]

To have a chance at the presidency we need someone that will inspire people like Ron did. Or have a big name such as Rand Paul run. Anything less then these two options won't cut it. Ideally we would have a candidate with huge name recognition and the ability to inspire people like Ron did. With that said we should totally run a presidential candidate and where possible attempt to get constitutional liberty candidates elected to the House & Senate.

All out!
I think Rand has the energy and drive to run for President and bring other liberty candidates along for the ride. Rand will have huge coattails in 2016. The direct opposite of what Romney has now dragging fellow republicans down with him. The contrast between the two will be dramatic.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I have been screaming since 2007 that the state level races (and particularly the state legislatures) are several orders of magnitude more important than any Federal races whatsoever. I find the entire debate in this thread unbearably depressing. :(
I agree with you on their importance, but how many thousands or tens of thousands state-level positions are there? It's hard for the average Paul supporter to keep track of them all and see the value in supporting someone in a far off state. Look at the difficulty Chris Hightower had raising only 10k in funds and he's a well-known, respected liberty candidate. It's very difficult getting people to take notice and give donations to candidates that really won't bare fruit on the national scene for several years in the future or at all.

Then you have the task of singling out which state to make our move, or do we just support everyone willy-nilly style throughout the country? Should we focus on one state like NH and bankroll their state level candidates and try to effect change in one state first? I'm with you on the importance of having a strong minor league, but what strategy do we opt for?

[cajuncocoa]

That's fair. As long as you don't misuse your position as a Moderator to undermine Rand.Good grief, LE...I don't think Sailing is doing that at all. Some of you are so invested in Rand that you can't even take a difference of opinion about him.

[Bastiat's The Law]

We shouldn't even be asking this question, Rand Paul IS running.

We won't be able to raise nearly enough money for Rand as we did for Ron (although Rand does have an audience outside of the remnant).

Other than that we can't raise shit for liberty candidates, people won't put their money up. The only reason we did it for Ron was because so many people believed in him and there was a time urgency given the state of this nation and his age.
I think Rand has a higher ceiling for fund raising actually. He casts a much wider net.

[Bastiat's The Law]

If Ron hadn't talked like RON during Ron's race, RAND would have lost.
Ron was a catalyst; Rand is a refinement.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Why do we need to package or market anything? Ron Paul gathered us all here because he didn't package and market his message to anyone. He told the truth. The blunt truth. I sure as hell wouldn't have joined his campaign had he had different rhetoric. We don't need someone to tell the Republicans what they want to hear. We need someone to tell them what they NEED to hear.
Because words matter. Presentation matters. Perception is 9/10th of reality to people.

[Bastiat's The Law]

2014 possible senate races:

Alaska - Joe Miller
New Hampshire - FSP, smallish, one-term Democratic incumbent
South Dakota - Small (= cheap), relatively red state, Democratic incumbent
Montana - small, has some libertarian leanings, red state, SIX-term Democratic incumbent
Wyoming - least likely out of list, red state, 3-term GOP incumbent
Now this is thinking ahead and smart!

[TheTexan]

You give me a neg rep for pointing out to you that your idiotic assumption about conservatives was idiotic. You apparently wanted me to explain to you for the umpteenth time that you cannot categorize people like that. First of all, who are you talking about? Neoconservaties? Paleoconservatives? Social Conservatives? People who claim they are "conservatives" and aren't? People like Romney, McCain, Huckabee and Santorum? Who?

Neocons are not conservatives at all. They are leftist-progressives who left the democratic party and saw an opportunity to take over the conservative movement and did it. Some that go by "Social Cons" were brought into the Republican Party during Reagan's run, not because they believed in conservative principles, but because of their vote. Many of them are little different than big government leftists who are quite willing to use government force as long as it is used to cram their own agenda down everyone else's throat. Then there are the paleocons. These are the only real conservatives from where I sit. They believe in limited constitutional government, individual liberty, personal privacy, personal responsibility, a strong national defense, and "states' rights".

So no, you cannot just group all people claiming to be "conservatives" together with some blanket statement like you did. After Reagan, everyone in the damn Republican Party calls themselves a conservative. That doesn't make them one.

Semantics. I'm using the word "conservative" to refer to all people who label themselves "conservative."

Would you prefer me say "all fake conservatives" rather than "most conservatives" ? It doesn't matter. Given the context [obamacare] it should be pretty obvious who I'm referring to.

The simple fact of the matter, which you don't appear to be disputing here.... is that most people who call themselves conservative - regardless of if they actually are - do like most of Obamacare.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

The debate last night got me thinking that Rand should start debate practice NOW. He is already good at it, and in 4 years he can be great. There are things that will weight him down, but debates can lift him up(or weight him down further).

It needs to be his new hobby; it is for many people.

[whoisjohngalt]

The debate last night got me thinking that Rand should start debate practice NOW. He is already good at it, and in 4 years he can be great. There are things that will weight him down, but debates can lift him up(or weight him down further).

It needs to be his new hobby; it is for many people.

I have a very strong suspicion that he is already a few steps ahead of you.

[DeMintConservative]

2014 possible senate races:

Alaska - Joe Miller
New Hampshire - FSP, smallish, one-term Democratic incumbent
South Dakota - Small (= cheap), relatively red state, Democratic incumbent
Montana - small, has some libertarian leanings, red state, SIX-term Democratic incumbent
Wyoming - least likely out of list, red state, 3-term GOP incumbent

1. Alaska. Joe Miller? The guy who managed to lose to a write-in candidate? This seat is for Parnell if he wants it. A super gadfly like Miller is done politically. At least for federal/statewide office.

2. New Hampshire. Shaheen should be vulnerable in 2014, especially if Obama is re-elected and I don't see any obvious Republican candidate. The GOP bench is pretty weak there. I suspect this nomination will go for "rich self-funding businessman", a la Ron Johnson (there are plenty of them in NH).

3. South Dakota. I think Tim Johnson will retire. Kristi Noem, the current SD-(AL) representative will get the GOP nomination easily.

4. Montana. Baucus is in a relatively strong position. I think he'll make this a toss-up to start with. No obvious GOP candidate either. I suspect we'll have another Ron Johnson type here.

5. Wyoming. Are you serious? Unless Enzi retires, which doesn't seem likely, he'll win the nomination and the general election with +75% of the vote.


Here are some other potentially interesting seats:

6. Kansas. Roberts is a backbencher who will be 78 in 2014, has no path to a leadership position and no personal fortune (former military and congressional staffer). I think there are very good chances he'll retire to spend the rest of his life in a low-intensity lobbying job. I think Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins would be impossible to beat in a primary if she wants to run though. I'd be happy with her anyway.

7. Mississippi. Cochran is a dinosaur, in his 70s, whose raison d'etre to serve was alwasy the ability to get pork. With earmarking becoming verbotten in the last few years and with little hope it'll make a come back in the near future, I think there's a chance he retires. Guys like Palazzo and especially Gregg Harper would be almost impossible to beat in a primary though.

8. Oklahoma. Inhofe is another guy hitting his 80s. He probably retires. If Mary Fallin runs, it's her seat. If not, it's a decent opening for a small government candidate.

9. Minnesota. Al Franken. Minnesota loves their incumbents as long as they keep their head low but I suspect Franken is a more vulnerable one. The GOP would need to do a lot better than Bills though.

10. North Carolina. Kay Hagan hasn't been doing much to become unpopular, but she's still in a relatively vulnerable position, especially if Obama is re-elected. I have a hard time seeing a Paulite type winning a primary here though.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I have a very strong suspicion that he is already a few steps ahead of you.
I sure hope so!

[Shane Harris]

The debate last night got me thinking that Rand should start debate practice NOW. He is already good at it, and in 4 years he can be great. There are things that will weight him down, but debates can lift him up(or weight him down further).

It needs to be his new hobby; it is for many people.

Its absolutely ridiculous but if he runs he will probably have to overcome his shortness (even more ridiculous than age, I know) because I think that definitely plays into the subconscious of the very idiotic and superficial voters in the USSA. How tall is he again? I just remember Ron was the shortest in the debates this year (at least he was shorter than Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich) and Rand makes Ron look tall.

[Bastiat's The Law]

What about Jim Forsythe in NH?

[sailingaway]

What about Jim Forsythe in NH?

I absolutely hope so.

[GunnyFreedom]

What about Jim Forsythe in NH?

Supporter here.

[GunnyFreedom]

1. Alaska. Joe Miller? The guy who managed to lose to a write-in candidate? This seat is for Parnell if he wants it. A super gadfly like Miller is done politically. At least for federal/statewide office.

2. New Hampshire. Shaheen should be vulnerable in 2014, especially if Obama is re-elected and I don't see any obvious Republican candidate. The GOP bench is pretty weak there. I suspect this nomination will go for "rich self-funding businessman", a la Ron Johnson (there are plenty of them in NH).

3. South Dakota. I think Tim Johnson will retire. Kristi Noem, the current SD-(AL) representative will get the GOP nomination easily.

4. Montana. Baucus is in a relatively strong position. I think he'll make this a toss-up to start with. No obvious GOP candidate either. I suspect we'll have another Ron Johnson type here.

5. Wyoming. Are you serious? Unless Enzi retires, which doesn't seem likely, he'll win the nomination and the general election with +75% of the vote.


Here are some other potentially interesting seats:

6. Kansas. Roberts is a backbencher who will be 78 in 2014, has no path to a leadership position and no personal fortune (former military and congressional staffer). I think there are very good chances he'll retire to spend the rest of his life in a low-intensity lobbying job. I think Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins would be impossible to beat in a primary if she wants to run though. I'd be happy with her anyway.

7. Mississippi. Cochran is a dinosaur, in his 70s, whose raison d'etre to serve was alwasy the ability to get pork. With earmarking becoming verbotten in the last few years and with little hope it'll make a come back in the near future, I think there's a chance he retires. Guys like Palazzo and especially Gregg Harper would be almost impossible to beat in a primary though.

8. Oklahoma. Inhofe is another guy hitting his 80s. He probably retires. If Mary Fallin runs, it's her seat. If not, it's a decent opening for a small government candidate.

9. Minnesota. Al Franken. Minnesota loves their incumbents as long as they keep their head low but I suspect Franken is a more vulnerable one. The GOP would need to do a lot better than Bills though.

10. North Carolina. Kay Hagan hasn't been doing much to become unpopular, but she's still in a relatively vulnerable position, especially if Obama is re-elected. I have a hard time seeing a Paulite type winning a primary here though.

It looks like there will likely be a primary fight in 2014 for US Senate between the current State House Speaker and my good friend Greg Brannon. Brannon will have a coalition of 'every Republican but the establishment,' having already won over the Tea Parties and the teapublicans etc. We have a better chance in NC that you realize, it will be mostly a matter of building a county-by-county grassroots network, and funding the media battle.

[sailingaway]

It looks like there will likely be a primary fight in 2014 for US Senate between the current State House Speaker and my good friend Greg Brannon. Brannon will have a coalition of 'every Republican but the establishment,' having already won over the Tea Parties and the teapublicans etc. We have a better chance in NC that you realize, it will be mostly a matter of building a county-by-county grassroots network, and funding the media battle.

It would help if you educate us about this person, so we are tracking him.

[Matt Collins]

that sounds like a 'Rand Paul movement' not a liberty movement,Ron = Rand = Liberty Movement

[Matt Collins]

"Rand is the new Ron" - Matt Collins

But I thought he was his own man and it's not fair to judge him against his dad and you have to make room for different political realities?
I am not paid by rand.

And Rand's voting record is almost identical to Ron's.

[Matt Collins]

Its absolutely ridiculous but if he runs he will probably have to overcome his shortness (even more ridiculous than age, I know) because I think that definitely plays into the subconscious of the very idiotic and superficial voters in the USSA. How tall is he again? I just remember Ron was the shortest in the debates this year (at least he was shorter than Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich) and Rand makes Ron look tall.There are ways to compensate for that :p :D :cool:

[Smart3]

What about Jim Forsythe in NH?
http://www.facebook.com/DraftJimForsytheForSenate2014

[LibertyEagle]

Semantics. I'm using the word "conservative" to refer to all people who label themselves "conservative."

Would you prefer me say "all fake conservatives" rather than "most conservatives" ? It doesn't matter. Given the context [obamacare] it should be pretty obvious who I'm referring to.
Ok. I'll start co-mingling people like Bill Maher, Glenn Beck, and oh yes, Dondero, when I speak of libertarians and see how well you like it. They refer to themselves as "libertarians" after all. lol. It would make as much sense as what you are doing.


The simple fact of the matter, which you don't appear to be disputing here.... is that most people who call themselves conservative - regardless of if they actually are - do like most of Obamacare.

Again... bullshit. That is not true at all and yes, I did dispute it.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Ok. I'll start co-mingling people like Bill Maher, Glenn Beck, and oh yes, Dondero, when I speak of libertarians and see how well you like it. They refer to themselves as "libertarians" after all. lol. It would make as much sense as what you are doing.

We should start floating before that crowd that the RP grassroots is forming the Libertine Party and movement and try to get them to embrace it... :D

VIVA LA LIBERTINES!

-t

[DylanWaco]

I am not paid by rand.

And Rand's voting record is almost identical to Ron's.

No, it isn't and no honest person can claim otherwise. Ron has been in office more than twenty years longer than Rand.

[Giuliani was there on 911]

Mehh, Christie's likley to die of a heart attack. Rubio doesn't scare me. Ryan doesn't scare me. After Dumbo gets re-elected the GOP is going to have to do some soul searching to figure out exactly why it didn't work out. I just hope that we're able to pass the buck on the blame to someone else besides us.

oh man LMAO :D

[TheTexan]

Ok. I'll start co-mingling people like Bill Maher, Glenn Beck, and oh yes, Dondero, when I speak of libertarians and see how well you like it. They refer to themselves as "libertarians" after all. lol. It would make as much sense as what you are doing.

Go for it. There are plenty of fake libertarians out there. Especially the big L kind.


Again... bullshit. That is not true at all and yes, I did dispute it.

If you say so!

[Republicanguy]

I personally believe, as the price of energy goes up, America may just have one term leaders from both parties.

[LibertyEagle]

No, it isn't and no honest person can claim otherwise. Ron has been in office more than twenty years longer than Rand.

What does the length of time have to do with anything?

[Matt Collins]

No, it isn't and no honest person can claim otherwise. Ron has been in office more than twenty years longer than Rand.What major differences exist in their voting records? :rolleyes:

[sailingaway]

What major differences exist in their voting records? :rolleyes:

actions are more than just voting records, but there are differences. It isn't worth debating them because you care or you don't.

[Matt Collins]

It isn't worth debating them because you care or you don't.Oh, I think it IS worth debating them because that's how people arrive at conclusions.

[sailingaway]

Oh, I think it IS worth debating them because that's how people arrive at conclusions.

I think people have arrived at conclusions and repeating that statement of yours over and over doesn't address how they arrived at those conclusions. But that is just me.

[DylanWaco]

What does the length of time have to do with anything?

To say they have virtually the same voting record isn't possible when they serve in different chambers at one guy has been in office ten times as long as the other.

[DylanWaco]

What major differences exist in their voting records? :rolleyes:

One guy believes sanctions are an act of war.

The other guy votes for them.

Now give me your pre-packaged central bank spiel so I can ignore it.

[Tod]

Would/Should our strategy change if between now and then the economy tanks and everyday life is significantly different for Americans? I think so. If things go south in a significant way, maybe we should concentrate almost exclusively on who we elect to state offices.

[GunnyFreedom]

Would/Should our strategy change if between now and then the economy tanks and everyday life is significantly different for Americans? I think so. If things go south in a significant way, maybe we should concentrate almost exclusively on who we elect to state offices.

I'm expecting the economic cataclysm between March and December of 2014.

[Matt Collins]

One guy believes sanctions are an act of war.And unfortunately Ron is incorrect on that, with an exception. Sanctions are not an act of war, unless the receiving country considers this so. So far Iran has not considered sanctions an act of war, therefore they are not.


The other guy votes for them.Only to sanction the Iranian central bank. If China sanctioned the Federal Reserve, I'd be very happy about that.

[sailingaway]

And unfortunately Ron is incorrect on that, with an exception. Sanctions are not an act of war, unless the receiving country considers this so. So far Iran has not considered sanctions an act of war, therefore they are not.

Only to sanction the Iranian central bank. If China sanctioned the Federal Reserve, I'd be very happy about that.

I disagree with both your statements.

To the first, that is nonsense on its face, but regardless, I'm pretty sure I saw where Iran said they were an act of war.

To the second, if the Fed were sanctioned WE would have to pay. You can pay my share.

[DylanWaco]

Matt knows the first statement is stupid, but he's aiming to get a gig with Rand in 2016, so he has to start spouting feces now. All this nonsense is just resume building.

[sailingaway]

Here is PressTV which I'm pretty sure is connected to the Iranian govt, at least I have read so, saying the sanctions are an act of war: http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/08/06/254726/iran-sanctions-no-less-than-act-of-war/

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I will say this again. Ron Paul is wrong on defining sanctions. He says they are both acts of war AND they lead to war, that is not logically possible.

However, I disagree with sanctions for three reasons.

1-They rarely accomplish anything in terms of changing a country's policy.
2-They hurt the people of the country on a whole; creating anti-American resentment.
3-They really prop up despotic governments.

So Ron and Rand are both wrong on sanctions for different reasons.

I still agree with Peter Schiff, that if we are going to make sure Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons, then we should destroy their nuclear facilities and let that be the end of it. I have also had debates with myself(and others) on weighing the utilitarian cost/benefit of Iran having nukes vs. not having them, and I do believe the world would be many times safer in the latter situation. It would be a rare beneficial preventive action, and those obviously are few and far between if history is any indicator. Still, I don't know for sure the truth about their nuclear weapons program; I am just a normal civilian. The military goal is accomplished, the people are not oppressed, and it actually leaves the despotic government in a weaker position than it was before.

However, I still strongly support both Ron and Rand, even though they are wrong in my view. There are bigger fish to fry and bigger problems to solve that we cannot be rigid in our support of people based on a few differences.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I disagree with both your statements.

To the first, that is nonsense on its face, but regardless, I'm pretty sure I saw where Iran said they were an act of war.

To the second, if the Fed were sanctioned WE would have to pay. You can pay my share.

Exactly. Sanctioning the Fed is a BAD thing.

The Fed IS in control of our currency and banking system. Very few of us are not apart of it.

And forget preventing the financial cliff when creditors stop lending, the cold turkey would be in effect immediately, with an incredible loss of life and chaos in this nation. We would be brought to our knees.

That is not why Rand voted for sanctions; that is a stupid hypothesis. Rand knows economics better than that.

[tangent4ronpaul]

or 400 members of state legislatures.

Go here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?391938-Operation-Slow-Motion-Coup-d-etat

-t

[DeMintConservative]

It looks like there will likely be a primary fight in 2014 for US Senate between the current State House Speaker and my good friend Greg Brannon. Brannon will have a coalition of 'every Republican but the establishment,' having already won over the Tea Parties and the teapublicans etc. We have a better chance in NC that you realize, it will be mostly a matter of building a county-by-county grassroots network, and funding the media battle.

I confess I've never heard of Greg Brannon. A cursory google search returns a Greg Barnon, MD who seems to be involved with local TP groups. Is that him?

Seems like a prototypical Some Dude to me. Can he self-fund? I understand he's your friend, but the success rate of not-self funding (read millionaire) Some Dude in statewide races for competitive seats is basically zero - starting with the primaries. Plus, if he's a "true believer" in Ron Paul platform, he'll struggle with a majority of the Republican base there.

As I see it, the primary will probably feature Thom Tillis, as you say: and, while you may not like him, defining him as "the establishment candidate", he was the leader of the GOP takeover of the House, he built a lot of good will (he quit his job to fundraise and campaign for local candidates all over the state). Plus, coming from Mecklenburg, he can syphon traditionally democrat votes in the general limiting Hagan's path to victory.

Then I suspect Patrick McHenry will be his major opponent (and probable winner).

Now, if besides these two, you also have, say, one of the congressmen we're going to elect this year running, plus some lower office holder like Steve Troxler - just a random example - then the field becomes so crowded that I can see a Some Dude Paulite winning the race. Otherwise, unless he's an extraordinary natural political talent, I wouldn't rate his chances as high as you.

[DeMintConservative]

If sanctions are acts of war, then why aren't tariffs acts of war as well? Or even any sort of border control procedures?

Plus, if sanctions are acts of war, does that mean there's a casus belli for a military attack on Iran? Because after the 1979 revolution, pretty much every American asset in Iran was expropriated and nationalized and American investments and importations prohibited by the Iranian regime and most of these sanctions remain in place.

I can certainly see a case for stating a blockade is an act of war. Saying these type of economic sanctions are acts of war is just a consequence of the type of logical gymnastics that Murray Rothbard was forced to promote in order to fit reality into his "every war under the sun was somehow a result of an US government action" mantra.

That said, while I tend to be opposed to sanctions on utilitarian grounds (rarely there's a status quo that justifies the imposition of limits to the right of commerce; and when one exists, economic sanctions rarely work, as GeorgiaAvenger points out), apparently this is one of those rare cases in which not only there's enough of a rationale to justify them and they seem to be working, as the regime is struggling to blame the deterioration of the economic conditions, which is undeniably happening, in external forces - a consequences of the popularization of internet among a very young population and how widespread the support for the sanctions is (similar to the SA apartheid regime sanctions in the 80s).

[sailingaway]

If sanctions are acts of war, then why aren't tariffs acts of war as well? Or even any sort of border control procedures?

Plus, if sanctions are acts of war, does that mean there's a casus belli for a military attack on Iran? Because after the 1979 revolution, pretty much every American asset in Iran was expropriated and nationalized and American investments and importations prohibited by the Iranian regime and most of these sanctions remain in place.

I can certainly see a case for stating a blockade is an act of war. Saying these type of economic sanctions are acts of war is just a consequence of the type of logical gymnastics that Murray Rothbard was forced to promote in order to fit reality into his "every war under the sun was somehow a result of an US government action" mantra.

That said, while I tend to be opposed to sanctions on utilitarian grounds (rarely there's a status quo that justifies the imposition of limits to the right of commerce; and when one exists, economic sanctions rarely work, as GeorgiaAvenger points out), apparently this is one of those rare cases in which not only there's enough of a rationale to justify them and they seem to be working, as the regime is struggling to blame the deterioration of the economic conditions, which is undeniably happening, in external forces - a consequences of the popularization of internet among a very young population and how widespread the support for the sanctions is (similar to the SA apartheid regime sanctions in the 80s).

No, those are your OWN border and sovereignty, not someone else's.

[LibertyEagle]

To say they have virtually the same voting record isn't possible when they serve in different chambers at one guy has been in office ten times as long as the other.

I'm pretty confident that he was talking about the votes thus far.

[DeMintConservative]

No, those are your OWN border and sovereignty, not someone else's.

There isn't a blockade. The sanctions are countries making use of their own sovereignty to refuse economic cooperation with a third country. Nobody is saying to Iran and, say, China or India, "you can't trade with each other".

[sailingaway]

There isn't a blockade. The sanctions are countries making use of their own sovereignty to refuse economic cooperation with a third country. Nobody is saying to Iran and, say, China or India, "you can't trade with each other".

I was speaking to tariffs and border controls which are what you raised, not to every kind of economic sanction. I think that just as a blockade can be viewed as an act of war, sanctions are a continuum that can in aggregate be an act of war. I can theoretically come up with sanctions I would think it silly to consider an act of war, but we don't usually deal in those.

[Matt Collins]

Here is PressTV which I'm pretty sure is connected to the Iranian govt, at least I have read so, saying the sanctions are an act of war: http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/08/06/254726/iran-sanctions-no-less-than-act-of-war/The government of Iran has not considered any US sanctions an act of war AFAIK. The author of that article is just an analyst, it's some guy's opinion. And they are talking about the recent sanctions, not the sanctions that Rand voted for.

[Matt Collins]

I disagree with both your statements.Feel free to, but you're wrong. I said the same thing initially, but then I did a ton of research trying to prove my point and found out I was wrong. You should try doing your own independent research of classical international relations / geopolitics.


To the second, if the Fed were sanctioned WE would have to pay. You can pay my share.How so?

[Shane Harris]

Governments should not have the power to control who its citizenry chooses to do business with, no matter who they are.