Steve Deace - "What the Liberty Movement could learn"

[Bastiat's The Law]

Steve Deace Worldview Wednesday - "What the Liberty Movement could learn"

Every Rand Paul supporter should listen to this! Worldview Wednesday looks at what the Liberty Movement could learn from the failures of the Religious Right…how you can win from the way we lost.

http://stevedeace.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/deace_hour3_121113.mp3

[eleganz]

It seems like 90% of Rand Paul fans here support the McConnell strategy. I say Steve Deace is right, fuck McConnell.


It is SO INTERESTING how we are being addressed and referenced outside of presidential campaign season. Wow we have really come pretty far from the "fringey gadfly" days, don't be so quick to sacrifice so much of your own principles to get ahead, our candidates are just as good as the rest.

[Peace&Freedom]

Lessoned learned from the religious right, in essence:

1) Don't fire with fire, Satan cannot cast out Satan. "You cannot beat them at their game." Prime example: Answering the left authoritarian attempts to ram their agenda through law on the rest of the country, by trying to ram right authoritarian laws on the rest of the country. It's the wrong solution, and as the left controls the media, they were much better positioned to paint the religious right negatively for its authoritarian tendencies, while it ignores its own. I don't like Deace's Nuke Japan WWII analogy, however, since Japan already was willing to concede defeat, without the use of the bomb.

2) Don't buy Republican lies. "Don't make the deal." Yes, issues unify, not loyalties or personalities. The GOP strung the religious right along for decades, mainly by giving them a seat at the table. The point being, the establishment used negotiation to win back the momentum already won by the social conservatives, and converted that energy back into installing more hacks who did nothing to reverse anything about the main issues of their concern. I differ with Deace on the "unconditional surrender" part (rather, we should get a surrender wherever we can, just so long it's them doing the surrendering), and his notion that Cruz is the real deal, rather than a hack posturing as a movement guy.

3) Don't be in the hip pocket of a big party, or else you'll get squished. Yes, Ditch McConnell, don't compromise away the victory you have achieved. No cult of the Pauls now, just as there should have been no cult of Ralph Reed then. In my view, the best days of the religious right were when they successfully boycotted 7-Eleven to get them to less prominently sell porn, or when pro-life ex-car salesman Randall Terry was organizing sit-in after sit-in at abortion clinics to keep the issue on the forefront. They didn't care how the secular left demeaned them, but only about getting their agenda done.

Did we care about appearances back when we were passing out Ron Paul CDs in the streets? The liberty movement should not be consumed over how it looks, or put itself in a position where its ability to define itself gets shaped by the very forces designed to conform it back into mush.

[rich34]

No wonder Cruz is a little ahead in the polls in Iowa, you got this fake anti establishment guy pumping Cruz as if he's the real deal while Rand somehow isn't. This douche bag was against Ron and now he's herding the sheep against Rand. I'm sick n tired of ignorant people acting as if Cruz is legit while somehow Rand isn't. Cruz has rode Rand's coat tails the whole rank time he's been in the Senate except for his fake filibuster. I sure hope like hell that Ron's supporters can maintain control of the state party until 16 cause we're. going to need all the help we can get and we've already saw from 07 how Ron was treated by the state party when the establishment ran it. At least with his peeps in power he'll be invited to every GOP event. Rand's going to need all the help he can get with mouth pieces like this blathering around. Jan Milkison or whatever you're name is you listening?

[TaftFan]

Before I start listening is this the show he did a while back?

[fr33]

The GOP establishment is still stringing the the religious right along with no results to show from it. Empty rhetoric buys their votes and keeps them from supporting someone that identifies with them.

[acptulsa]

Cruz has rode Rand's coat tails the whole rank time he's been in the Senate except for his fake filibuster.

Except? Rand Paul showed him how to filibuster. I doubt Cruz even knew what a real talking filibuster was before Rand Paul gave him the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington crash course in Civics 101...


The GOP establishment is still stringing the the religious right along with no results to show from it. Empty rhetoric buys their votes and keeps them from supporting someone that identifies with them.

You have a religious duty to continually vote Republican--vote for any Republican--even if that Republican doesn't keep a single promise that he or she made to you. I've heard that over and over, but I still don't buy it. God made feet to be held to the fire...

[Bastiat's The Law]

It seems like 90% of Rand Paul fans here support the McConnell strategy. I say Steve Deace is right, fuck McConnell.


It is SO INTERESTING how we are being addressed and referenced outside of presidential campaign season. Wow we have really come pretty far from the "fringey gadfly" days, don't be so quick to sacrifice so much of your own principles to get ahead, our candidates are just as good as the rest.

Its more nuance than that. Nobody here likes McConnell. Nobody here would vote for him if we lived in Kentucky. I have never seen anyone within the Liberty Movement advocate that. We can dispense with those notions right away.

My concern has always been resources (fund raising) and our enthusiasm levels. We get fired up for Ron and raise $40 million, but our midterm liberty candidates often die on the vine from lack of fund raising.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Before I start listening is this the show he did a while back?

Nope, this is a new one.

[TaftFan]

This is amazing. It needs to be sent to Doug Stafford ASAP.

[eleganz]

Its more nuance than that. Nobody here likes McConnell. Nobody here would vote for him if we lived in Kentucky. I have never seen anyone within the Liberty Movement advocate that. We can dispense with those notions right away.

My concern has always been resources (fund raising) and our enthusiasm levels. We get fired up for Ron and raise $40 million, but our midterm liberty candidates often die on the vine from lack of fund raising.

Nope, you can say almost no one here would actually vote for McConnell but dare to say something about how McConnell should not receive Rand's support for re-election, all of a sudden you don't understand how politics is played.

It is no secret that MANY of Rand supporters here favor the "McConnell Strategy". Seriously, it is people like him that NEED to go, leaders of the establishment NEED to go.

[jjdoyle]

Its more nuance than that. Nobody here likes McConnell. Nobody here would vote for him if we lived in Kentucky. I have never seen anyone within the Liberty Movement advocate that. We can dispense with those notions right away.

My concern has always been resources (fund raising) and our enthusiasm levels. We get fired up for Ron and raise $40 million, but our midterm liberty candidates often die on the vine from lack of fund raising.

There is no reason to be concerned with fund raising, or enthusiasm, if Ron Paul 2012 was as successful as some like to think around here. Ron Paul 2012 raised more dollars than all the other candidates in 2012, except Mitt Romney. Would anybody REALLY be surprised Mitt Romney raised more, considering his own wealth and business connections?

Ron Paul 2012's problem, wasn't the supporters, fund raising, or their enthusiasm. It was simply the fact Ron Paul 2012 didn't want to win it. Then, agreed to help Mitt Romney win it, by never attacking him where/when it mattered. If the enthusiasm for "liberty" politics and politicians failed after the 2012 campaign, look to the campaign that was supposed to be at the head of that movement, and completely wasted supporters time and money.

Are we really surprised that supporters might not be THAT enthusiastic about politics or politicians, that once were enthusiastic? I mean, $60+ million raised/spent between two campaigns, and Ron Paul still received fewer votes than candidates like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in 2012, and the campaign ended with a Mitt Romney endorsement being DEFENDED on Ron Paul 2012's official campaign website?

Had there been a campaign/candidate actively trying to win it, and harness the enthusiasm, then perhaps Ron/Rand would be more involved in midterm liberty candidates, than say a governor's race in a state Ron Paul 2012 didn't even try to win during the presidential race? Between the first campaign, and the second, is when we saw the biggest increase in "liberty" candidates getting elected right? Rand, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash and others.

But, you can only burn your supporters so many times though. Sure, there are some that will go all the way for you and drink poisoned kool-aid without asking why others around them are getting sick, but the fact Rand wants to "go along to get along" with someone like Mitch McConnell, isn't doing him any good with the Ron Paul 2008 and 2012 base that raised $60+ million. The Ron Paul supporters did not lack enthusiasm, again, it lacked a campaign that harnessed and APPRECIATED that enthusiasm. I can't remember seeing any Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich supporters doing sign waves on their lunch breaks. Renting booths at state fairs, for a them. Etc.

Also, Steve Deace endorsed WHO for President in 2012?
http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/why-i-am-endorsing-newt-gingrich-for-president/

We can't see things for the way they ought to be, but the way they are, he says? I agree, and I see that from his own 2012 endorsement. He has no room to talk, or try to give advice.
And I agree, his Japanese example is horrible and ignores what was actually the truth of what had already been happening in Japan with our bombers:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

*Edit: And I agree, that those of us that think Rand's endorsement of Mitch McConnell was/is stupid, are just told by the "experts" around here that we don't understand this "game". I didn't need to hear Deace say this crap, especially considering he endorsed Newt, when some of us have been saying it for far, far, far longer, and the "experts" just tell us we don't understand the game.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I'm Rand's biggest cheerleader here or arguably so. I posted this because I find some merit in what Deace is saying here. The part where Deace is spot on is where the Liberty Movement was successful was in those states where we stormed the Bastille (Maine, Nevada, Iowa). We out worked the establishment, got out people to show and won! That needs to replicated in every state.

[Working Poor]

By supporting McConnel Rand looks like he is playing both sides of the fence.

[jjdoyle]

I'm Rand's biggest cheerleader here or arguably so. I posted this because I find some merit in what Deace is saying here. The part where Deace is spot on is where the Liberty Movement was successful was in those states where we stormed the Bastille (Maine, Nevada, Iowa). We out worked the establishment, got out people to show and won! That needs to replicated in every state.

Except, we weren't successful, because of Ron Paul 2012. What happened in Maine? The governor of the state didn't even go to the convention, because the RNC was so freaking corrupt and dishonest.
What about Louisiana? Ron Paul 2012 gave away half our delegates, for what? So Rand could get a speech at the RNC? To play nice? To help the Ron Paul delegate that had fingers broken and was arrested out?

The ONLY thing that will work, is a complete sinking of the RNC. You can waste supporter's time/efforts all day long, but it won't matter a hill of beans when the people AT THE TOP are the ones that make/break their own rules, to their own benefit(s).
Instead of Ron Paul 2012 going for broke and trying to take down the RNC with the campaign (despite what their emails said), it decided to play nice with Mitt Romney, so Rand could get a speaking slot?

It must be really ironic for someone like Deace to try and speak for "Liberty" candidates and supporters, when he has no record of endorsing them....and flatout lying and not even understanding their policies:
"One of those candidates is Ron Paul, but his foreign policy is naive at best and reckless at worst."

Complete joke. Complete. When Deace was given the chance, not once, but twice, to endorse a "Liberty" minded candidate, he chose not to do so. Instead, he went with big government progressives.

[LibertyEagle]

Except, we weren't successful, because of Ron Paul 2012. What happened in Maine? The governor of the state didn't even go to the convention, because the RNC was so freaking corrupt and dishonest.
What about Louisiana? Ron Paul 2012 gave away half our delegates, for what? So Rand could get a speech at the RNC? To play nice? To help the Ron Paul delegate that had fingers broken and was arrested out?

The ONLY thing that will work, is a complete sinking of the RNC. You can waste supporter's time/efforts all day long, but it won't matter a hill of beans when the people AT THE TOP are the ones that make/break their own rules, to their own benefit(s).

How is that going to solve anything? We have been successfully using the Republican Party to get our candidates elected. Sure, it is corrupt at the top, the same way that the Democratic Party is and the same way any replacement that would spring up would become.


Instead of Ron Paul 2012 going for broke and trying to take down the RNC with the campaign (despite what their emails said), it decided to play nice with Mitt Romney, so Rand could get a speaking slot?

That wasn't what it was about at all. I would imagine you heard what Doug Wead said the same as everyone else here did.


It must be really ironic for someone like Deace to try and speak for "Liberty" candidates and supporters, when he has no record of endorsing them....and flatout lying and not even understanding their policies:
"One of those candidates is Ron Paul, but his foreign policy is naive at best and reckless at worst."

Complete joke. Complete. When Deace was given the chance, not once, but twice, to endorse a "Liberty" minded candidate, he chose not to do so. Instead, he went with big government progressives.

It's worth listening to him.

[LibertyEagle]

By supporting McConnel Rand looks like he is playing both sides of the fence.

Not to those who realize the only reason Rand is on the committees he is on is because of McConnell. If he wasn't on those committees, Rand would not have had the media platform that he has had; nor, would he have had the opportunities he has had to throw wrenches in the works.

[jjdoyle]

How is that going to solve anything? We have been successfully using the Republican Party to get our candidates elected. Sure, it is corrupt at the top, the same way that the Democratic Party is and the same way any replacement that would spring up would become.

That wasn't what it was about at all. I would imagine you heard what Doug Wead said the same as everyone else here did.

It's worth listening to him.

And what have our candidates been effective at doing exactly? How is the government smaller now, than before? Did they stop Obamacare? NDAA? Anything? If Ron Paul 2012 had been used to help sink the ship faster, then perhaps Rand wouldn't be kissing the likes of Mitch McConnell with an endorsement. Instead, they felt it was wise to use the supporters time/money, for a Mitt Romney endorsement from Rand on national TV, to get a speech at the RNC? Then Ron sat by in complete silence for days, while his official campaign website was used to defend that endorsement?
They have made the bed they are in, not the supporters.

Sink the ship, and start over. We know how to build a ship. The problem with the RNC ship is that it is rotten, and the crew does not care at all. The captain will not allow anything to change of any significance. Rand is kissing the captain's ring, and is sitting by silently while the captain makes sure any liberty minded passengers and crew are being walked off the ship.

[rich34]

Well its easy enough to sit here and say Ron/Rand should be taking down the party but do you really hear what you're saying? You guys really believe that's even remotely possible with the money that owns and backs it? What's being suggested is simply illogical. As Ron was trying to show the way the best we can do is ride one of the two vehicles that is currently the only two on the track and they will remain the only two on the track for quite some time. That's not saying I'm opposed to the idea being discussed I'm just trying to be real.

With that said looking at Rand and his dilemma I'm sure he's not all giddy about McConnell and may very well feel the same many here do. But if by backing McConnell could potentially be the difference between raising 40 million vs. 80 million then what would you choose? Maybe that is the case and Rand knows this. Maybe there's some sort of deal in place that if Rand helps get Mitch elected then Mitch will open him up to some big time donors? I understand principle but I also understand if you don't raise a shot ton of money you ain't going anywhere running for president. If this is the case is gladly take the gamble. Id love to see just what one of our guys especially Rand could do with 80 million dollars. But I reckon its whether or not you're an individual that's willing to gamble. But I can say now if Cruz does run Rand will have to majority out raise him to define who Rand is,. That could be the difference between solidify the tea party/liberty vote vs not being able to due to money. Id. rather Rand have the money if that's what this very well could be about, take the ga Besides that Duece. dude has never stood for a liberty candidate and of course he's going to oppose Rand by attacking his support for McConnell, hell. with him...mble and maybe win.

[jjdoyle]

Well its easy enough to sit here and say Ron/Rand should be taking down the party but do you really hear what you're saying? You guys really believe that's even remotely possible with the money that owns and backs it? What's being suggested is simply illogical. As Ron was trying to show the way the best we can do is ride one of the two vehicles that is currently the only two on the track and they will remain the only two on the track for quite some time. That's not saying I'm opposed to the idea being discussed I'm just trying to be real.

With that said looking at Rand and his dilemma I'm sure he's not all giddy about McConnell and may very well feel the same many here do. But if by backing McConnell could potentially be the difference between raising 40 million vs. 80 million then what would you choose? Maybe that is the case and Rand knows this. Maybe there's some sort of deal in place that if Rand helps get Mitch elected then Mitch will open him up to some big time donors? I understand principle but I also understand if you don't raise a shot ton of money you ain't going anywhere running for president. If this is the case is gladly take the gamble. Id love to see just what one of our guys especially Rand could do with 80 million dollars. But I reckon its whether or not you're an individual that's willing to gamble. But I can say now if Cruz does run Rand will have to majority out raise him to define who Rand is,. That could be the difference between solidify the tea party/liberty vote vs not being able to due to money. Id. rather Rand have the money if that's what this very well could be about, take the ga Besides that Duece. dude has never stood for a liberty candidate and of course he's going to oppose Rand by attacking his support for McConnell, hell. with him...mble and maybe win.

Please note, I did say, "If Ron Paul 2012 had been used to help sink the ship faster..."
I think the ship is already taking on water, but a few well aimed torpedoes could have helped it take on water, faster. Instead of helping Mitt Romney win the nomination, giving away half the Louisiana delegation to the RNC (assuring them of no brokered convention), and wasting supporters' time/money on two presidential campaigns, they could have actually had a strategy to educate the American public with ads on issues that mattered.

Instead, they wasted $40+ million in 2012 to help Mitt Romney win the nomination and get Rand a speech at the RNC? If what you say is true, about the money that owns and backs the Republican Party, what makes you think for one second they would let a true liberty candidate anywhere near the White House though? Do we think they are REALLY that stupid? I mean, if I was them, I would use Rand Paul (and anybody else) to get votes all day long, because in the end, more people in the Republican Party should mean more money/power for them...
But that doesn't mean that I would allow Rand Paul anywhere near the White House, if I really thought he was some stealth Liberty candidate. Or, as some others think he is, playing some game.

[LibertyEagle]

And what have our candidates been effective at doing exactly? How is the government smaller now, than before? Did they stop Obamacare? NDAA? Anything? If Ron Paul 2012 had been used to help sink the ship faster, then perhaps Rand wouldn't be kissing the likes of Mitch McConnell with an endorsement. Instead, they felt it was wise to use the supporters time/money, for a Mitt Romney endorsement from Rand on national TV, to get a speech at the RNC? Then Ron sat by in complete silence for days, while his official campaign website was used to defend that endorsement?
They have made the bed they are in, not the supporters.

Sink the ship, and start over. We know how to build a ship. The problem with the RNC ship is that it is rotten, and the crew does not care at all. The captain will not allow anything to change of any significance. Rand is kissing the captain's ring, and is sitting by silently while the captain makes sure any liberty minded passengers and crew are being walked off the ship.

There are only like what, THREE of them? You expect them to have already turned everything around? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even considering that, Amash got damned close in defunding the NSA spying and Rand has gone damn far in changing the conversation in this country. He is making more and more people think about things they never would have, had he not been there.

What we need are many more of them. THEY NEED HELP. Not some stupid agenda of destroying some inanimate object like the Republican Party.

[philipped]

I agree with Deace. We should NOT hold Rand by some pedestal nor let him think that he has the people on RPF and DP in the back of his pocket. Yes the movement has grown since 2012, but it's not where I personally believe it should be. In 2014, there needs to be at LEAST 3 new people in the senate that will align with Rand, Ted and Mike on 85%-95% of the issues. I think that is one of the things stopping Rand from flat out announcing his run. GOP needs to re obtain the majority in the senate OR get more "Tea Party" and "Liberty Republicans" in there on his side.

If McConnell has a primary contender who's a liberty candidate, get him out of there. Rand might consider him an ally but I'm pretty sure another Republican like him is better than an establishment ass wipe. When I discuss these issues with people I always go for the ideological perspective to show it's not just about the man, Rand is a politician, a REPRESENTATIVE of a group of people. It is US who needs to accept new views of thought to be able to shape who goes up to D.C. to represent us. 2014 will be interesting to see where the senate goes only because for the most part I believe that is what's keeping Rand from jumping in head first.

My $0.02.

[jjdoyle]

There are only like what, THREE of them? You expect them to have already turned everything around? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even considering that, Amash got damned close in defunding the NSA spying and Rand has gone damn far in changing the conversation in this country. He is making more and more people think about things they never would have, had he not been there.

What we need are many more of them. THEY NEED HELP. Not some stupid agenda of destroying some inanimate object like the Republican Party.

I didn't say turn everything around, but what have they done? What can they point to and show in particular? Anything they are directly responsible for?

Also, is Rand going to keep the Senate in DC for Christmas?

[rich34]

I didn't say turn everything around, but what have they done? What can they point to and show in particular? Anything they are directly responsible for?

Also, is Rand going to keep the Senate in DC for Christmas?


For one damn person I'd say he's doing pretty good. Yes Ron deserves more than half the credit, but Rand has brought a lot of his ideas into the mainstream. Without Rand many of the conversations taking place in Washington wouldn't be possible.

[ClydeCoulter]

Here's what I think, for what's it worth:

There are more people that align with freedom, at it's core, than most people know. That's why Ron was successful in getting grassroots monetary support, as well as enthusiastic support in sign waving, etc...

The media would tell us we are a small fringe of people. That's not true. I've talked to a lot of people who believe in the core principles, but see no hope of changing anything politically, nada, nothing. And that's exactly how the media wants it.

But, they are afraid. Afraid that we will find out that we are not alone. And, we have been slowly finding out.

Why was Ron Paul so surprised that he had so much support in 2008? Because they are disconnected also, he and Rand and all the rest in those positions. It literally freaks Ron out how many people will listen, but they are not just listening, they, the people, have been waiting for those in a position to make a difference to get it. And when they saw Ron's message and actions aligned with them , they supported it.

And if Rand's message and actions align then they will support him. They will not support a game player or a compromiser. You might, but they won't, not in large numbers.

I don't know this Deace guy, have never listened to him before. But, I think he is correct in that Rand or any other politician that wants the support of the people are going to have to stand for the principles that the people stand for, or it will fail at some point in time after enough discouragement.

We are tired of unfulfilled promises, of politicians chewing out (shouting down) corruption but only slapping it's hand, and of hope dashed. There will be no compromise with the people, they will either go back to sleep (mind their own business) or the politicians will have to tow the line and show real results. And, the former (go back to sleep) is what the PTB want of the people.

[jtstellar]

if i were in ky i would vote for bevin.. but i wouldn't bash rand as a traitor, in a sort of a wink-wink situation.. rand has pretty much let all the non-stupid people know already that he is really behind bevin idealogically, with the refusal to attack him and the soft "shut up" to jesse benton.. it's already a read-between-the-lines endorsement. to rand, an endorsement carries no meaning.. it's just a word and a political tool, people use it for different reasons and it has nothing to do with principles. it's interesting how people keep trying to endow some meaning into that. endorsement is for people too lazy to do political research on their own, and in this day and age, there are very little or at least it's trending that way

[ClydeCoulter]

if i were in ky i would vote for bevin.. but i wouldn't bash rand as a traitor, in a sort of a wink-wink situation.. rand has pretty much let all the non-stupid people know already that he is really behind bevin idealogically, with the refusal to attack him and the soft "shut up" to jesse benton.. it's already a read-between-the-lines endorsement. to rand, an endorsement carries no meaning.. it's just a word and a political tool, people use it for different reasons and it has nothing to do with principles. it's interesting how people keep trying to endow some meaning into that. endorsement is for people too lazy to do political research on their own, and in this day and age, there are very little or at least it's trending that way

Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. :)

Everything matters, in this world of deceit..

[jtstellar]

Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. :)

Everything matters, in this world of deceit..

lol trust me us gen y have a much more sensitive bs radar detector.. we grew up that way therefore aren't suffering from the jadedness aftermath as blow back from being lied to (and falling for) too much

[Peace&Freedom]

Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. :)

Everything matters, in this world of deceit..

You're both right. An endorsement doesn't matter substance-wise, if the real intent is to use it as a positioning tool, which does matter. Rand endorsed Romney in 2012 to (presumably) insulate himself and the movement from being scapegoated as a spoiler, or being blamed for Romney's defeat. That tepid 4-month endorsement is now long since over and done with, along with Mitt. It was a gambit move in a longer game, and in the bigger picture not something that defines Rand's own views, given his voting record in the Senate.

Likewise, Palin endorsed Rand's Senate bid in 2010 to shore up her rep as a Tea party heavyweight---but that doesn't mean she is a real pro-liberty person. Endorsements are part of the tactics of the calculated compromise game Rand is playing, but unlike hack pols, he is putting pragmatism at the service of principle, rather than the reverse. That doesn't mean this tactic is the BEST strategy, given our agenda, but is understandable as a means of getting around some problems a straightforwardly pure liberty political approach encounters.

[Bastiat's The Law]

if i were in ky i would vote for bevin.. but i wouldn't bash rand as a traitor, in a sort of a wink-wink situation.. rand has pretty much let all the non-stupid people know already that he is really behind bevin idealogically, with the refusal to attack him and the soft "shut up" to jesse benton.. it's already a read-between-the-lines endorsement. to rand, an endorsement carries no meaning.. it's just a word and a political tool, people use it for different reasons and it has nothing to do with principles. it's interesting how people keep trying to endow some meaning into that. endorsement is for people too lazy to do political research on their own, and in this day and age, there are very little or at least it's trending that way

As would I and everyone else here I'd venture to say. That being said, I think Deace exaggerates the Liberty Movement's ability to affect these races. That doesn't mean we should give in to cynicism or anarchist fantasies. On paper the Liberty Movement should have extraordinary political clout. We certainly have that potential with Ron raising $60+ million during the campaigns. So we've demonstrated we can do this and have impact, but the disconnect within the movement is keeping everyone plugged in and moving forward. We can't expect to change the country with a flash-in-the-pan Presidential run and then do next to nothing in the years following that.

Someone brought up our guys doing a pretty remarkable job being as outnumbered as they are in Congress. I certainly agree with this, most of them are doing a tremendous job. But how do we show that to the 85% of Paul supporters that tune out when Ron isn't running for President? A substantial portion of Paul supporters don't even know of Massie or Amash's efforts. They don't see how getting 10-15 of these guys elected every two years could fundamentally change this country in a blink of an eye. Say we actually elected Ron and got 8 years of him being President. Now imagine what he could have accomplished in that time. One could argue if we spent the same amount of time, money, and effort electing liberty candidates to Congress at the rate of 10-15 member per two-year cycle; we would likely be in the same place as if Ron were President. They would be fairly equivalent, Ron as President = 40-60 liberty candidates in office and maybe a half dozen Senators. I guess my point is why we're not as fired up working this avenue now that Ron is retired, especially since they'd lead to virtually the same outcome?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Its more nuance than that. Nobody here likes McConnell. Nobody here would vote for him if we lived in Kentucky. I have never seen anyone within the Liberty Movement advocate that. We can dispense with those notions right away.

My concern has always been resources (fund raising) and our enthusiasm levels. We get fired up for Ron and raise $40 million, but our midterm liberty candidates often die on the vine from lack of fund raising.

It's because they're all following the Rand Paul strategy of ingratiating themselves to the GOP establishment and playing nice, rather than flipping over the tables and taking a wrecking ball to DC. And a good chunk of the liberty movement is falling in line. You might want to check the forums more often, there actually are people who are going to vote McConnell on the grounds that it will benefit Rand.

If this isn't the show Deace made earlier in the year, it's almost the exact same thing. Still worth hearing, though, even if he acts as though there's some huge difference between the Huckabees and Romneys of the GOP.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Not to those who realize the only reason Rand is on the committees he is on is because of McConnell. If he wasn't on those committees, Rand would not have had the media platform that he has had; nor, would he have had the opportunities he has had to throw wrenches in the works.

Says the person who screams about globalists. Hey, guess what? You're willingly walking right into the game the globalists set up for you. You're literally supporting keeping them in power instead of putting them on their ass. The next time the globalists do something that pisses you off, yell at yourself for supporting their hold on power.

Neocons don't have a set ideology, they morph into whatever is popular at the moment to keep their hold on the reigns of power. People in this movement get too caught up on what neocons have historically believed, rather than the reasoning why they chose those paths in gaining power.

[Bastiat's The Law]

It's because they're all following the Rand Paul strategy of ingratiating themselves to the GOP establishment and playing nice, rather than flipping over the tables and taking a wrecking ball to DC. And a good chunk of the liberty movement is falling in line. You might want to check the forums more often, there actually are people who are going to vote McConnell on the grounds that it will benefit Rand.

If this isn't the show Deace made earlier in the year, it's almost the exact same thing. Still worth hearing, though, even if he acts as though there's some huge difference between the Huckabees and Romneys of the GOP.

I'd like to see evidence of that.

[Bastiat's The Law]

It's because they're all following the Rand Paul strategy of ingratiating themselves to the GOP establishment and playing nice, rather than flipping over the tables and taking a wrecking ball to DC. And a good chunk of the liberty movement is falling in line. You might want to check the forums more often, there actually are people who are going to vote McConnell on the grounds that it will benefit Rand.

If this isn't the show Deace made earlier in the year, it's almost the exact same thing. Still worth hearing, though, even if he acts as though there's some huge difference between the Huckabees and Romneys of the GOP.

Ron didn't flip over tables or take a wrecking ball to DC. For most of his career he was the outlier; the guy with the office in a broom closet. Ron's biggest accomplishment was injecting truth into the debates under the media spotlight. Bringing liberty to the forefront and articulating an all-encompassing vision of it. It galvanized a lot of people to be energized for a period of time, but where's the follow through? You can't expect to attain liberty through a drive-thru. It's closer to a lifelong endeavor and commitment. I think only about 10% of Paul supporters are in for the long haul.

[jtstellar]

let's put it this way.. an endorsement has meaning, in rand's head, only if his endorsement will actually drive even a minority portion of his ideological supporters behind ron's campaign to support mconnell. it bears so little guilty conscience on his part precisely because he knows his endorsement carries no weight. let's put it in another way to understand this even more easily--if rand were in the voting booth in a close election, it's doubtful he will even vote for mconnell, but mconnell will have his empty endorsement.

[jjdoyle]

It's because they're all following the Rand Paul strategy of ingratiating themselves to the GOP establishment and playing nice, rather than flipping over the tables and taking a wrecking ball to DC. And a good chunk of the liberty movement is falling in line. You might want to check the forums more often, there actually are people who are going to vote McConnell on the grounds that it will benefit Rand.

If this isn't the show Deace made earlier in the year, it's almost the exact same thing. Still worth hearing, though, even if he acts as though there's some huge difference between the Huckabees and Romneys of the GOP.

It is the show from earlier in the year, because he references football season about to start. Though, when some of us around these very forums were/are saying these things, we don't know what we're talking about?
When Steve Deace, who ignores history and lies about a candidate's positions (based I guess on his ignorance?), endorses big government progressives like Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich, why should we listen to him? Perhaps the ones that want to listen to him now, should ask themselves why they ignore(d) this same exact advice/suggestions of Ron Paul supporters in 2008, all the way through 2012.

When some around here won't even listen to their own that have been saying these exact things and calling out the fraud/scam that was Ron Paul 2012, during the election, seeing these type of things promoted is just bizarre. If not endorsing Mitch McConnell is the right way, as he says (and I agree), then not endorsing Mitt Romney was the right way. Ron Paul 2012 held the keys to make the RNC a headache for Romney and company, instead they gave them the keys. For what? A speech? Some future run, that doesn't even guarantee a victory?

Bastiat, do you honestly wonder why supporters fell by the wayside after the 2012 campaign? Seriously? Anybody paying attention that was a supporter can see that Ron Paul 2012 was completely dishonest with supporters, wasting not only their donations given, but also their time. You can only burn your supporters so many times.

When Doug Wead said they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, because Romney's campaign threatened to destroy the Ron Paul legacy, Ron Paul and Ron Paul 2012 effectively destroyed Ron Paul's legacy on their own.

The candidate that was supposed to the anti-establishment candidate, the one that couldn't be bought for his votes, the candidate that didn't endorse the Republican nominees in 2004 or 2008 (endorsing a third party candidate in 2008), allowed his campaign to be run to help Mitt Romney win the nomination, then sat by in complete silence when his heir to the throne endorsed the aristocrat Mitt Romney on national TV before all the peasants.
He allowed his website to be used to defend a lying endorsement of Mitt Romney, on national TV. And you wonder why some are sick of the "game"?

If you wonder why our troops might have gotten tired and left after 2012, it's because their leaders abandoned their positions and sold them out, for a seat at the rotten king's rotten table.

[jtstellar]

It is the show from earlier in the year, because he references football season about to start. Though, when some of us around these very forums were/are saying these things, we don't know what we're talking about?
When Steve Deace, who ignores history and lies about a candidate's positions (based I guess on his ignorance?), endorses big government progressives like Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich, why should we listen to him? Perhaps the ones that want to listen to him now, should ask themselves why they ignore(d) this same exact advice/suggestions of Ron Paul supporters in 2008, all the way through 2012.

When some around here won't even listen to their own that have been saying these exact things and calling out the fraud/scam that was Ron Paul 2012, during the election, seeing these type of things promoted is just bizarre. If not endorsing Mitch McConnell is the right way, as he says (and I agree), then not endorsing Mitt Romney was the right way. Ron Paul 2012 held the keys to make the RNC a headache for Romney and company, instead they gave them the keys. For what? A speech? Some future run, that doesn't even guarantee a victory?

Bastiat, do you honestly wonder why supporters fell by the wayside after the 2012 campaign? Seriously? Anybody paying attention that was a supporter can see that Ron Paul 2012 was completely dishonest with supporters, wasting not only their donations given, but also their time. You can only burn your supporters so many times.

When Doug Wead said they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, because Romney's campaign threatened to destroy the Ron Paul legacy, Ron Paul and Ron Paul 2012 effectively destroyed Ron Paul's legacy on their own.

The candidate that was supposed to the anti-establishment candidate, the one that couldn't be bought for his votes, the candidate that didn't endorse the Republican nominees in 2004 or 2008 (endorsing a third party candidate in 2008), allowed his campaign to be run to help Mitt Romney win the nomination, then sat by in complete silence when his heir to the throne endorsed the aristocrat Mitt Romney on national TV before all the peasants.
He allowed his website to be used to defend a lying endorsement of Mitt Romney, on national TV. And you wonder why some are sick of the "game"?

If you wonder why our troops might have gotten tired and left after 2012, it's because their leaders abandoned their positions and sold them out, for a seat at the rotten king's rotten table.

i wish the world was black and white and you could attribute everything to single causes and summarize the human ecosystem in a one page essay, but the truth is maybe they were just tired anyhow, and many felt like it was a good exit point to do so without feeling bad about themselves. the point should be and to me is the fact that you quit, and you quit, none of that reason later, not sure when it came upon us to babysit. don't got what it take, go back to burger flipping and your daily mundanes, don't let the door hit ya on the way out

[Christian Liberty]

As would I and everyone else here I'd venture to say. That being said, I think Deace exaggerates the Liberty Movement's ability to affect these races. That doesn't mean we should give in to cynicism or anarchist fantasies. On paper the Liberty Movement should have extraordinary political clout. We certainly have that potential with Ron raising $60+ million during the campaigns. So we've demonstrated we can do this and have impact, but the disconnect within the movement is keeping everyone plugged in and moving forward. We can't expect to change the country with a flash-in-the-pan Presidential run and then do next to nothing in the years following that.

Someone brought up our guys doing a pretty remarkable job being as outnumbered as they are in Congress. I certainly agree with this, most of them are doing a tremendous job. But how do we show that to the 85% of Paul supporters that tune out when Ron isn't running for President? A substantial portion of Paul supporters don't even know of Massie or Amash's efforts. They don't see how getting 10-15 of these guys elected every two years could fundamentally change this country in a blink of an eye. Say we actually elected Ron and got 8 years of him being President. Now imagine what he could have accomplished in that time. One could argue if we spent the same amount of time, money, and effort electing liberty candidates to Congress at the rate of 10-15 member per two-year cycle; we would likely be in the same place as if Ron were President. They would be fairly equivalent, Ron as President = 40-60 liberty candidates in office and maybe a half dozen Senators. I guess my point is why we're not as fired up working this avenue now that Ron is retired, especially since they'd lead to virtually the same outcome?

When you say "anarchists" do you mean anarcho-communists, or do you mean Rothbard-type ancaps? If the latter, I don't see what you're trying to accomplish with that attack. I understand that you have a different view, but I think right now you are defeating your own pragmatism by attacking idealists. What are you trying to accomplish here?

[jjdoyle]

i wish the world was black and white and you could attribute everything to single causes and summarize the human ecosystem in a one page essay, but the truth is maybe they were just tired anyhow, and many felt like it was a good exit point to do so without feeling bad about themselves. the point should be and to me is the fact that you quit, and you quit, none of that reason later, not sure when it came upon us to babysit. don't got what it take, go back to burger flipping and your daily mundanes, don't let the door hit ya on the way out

Who quit? The only people I see that quit, were Ron, Rand, and Ron Paul 2012 when they agreed to help Mitt Romney win the nomination without any waves at the RNC. The supporters didn't quit donating their time and money and efforts. They continued to go above and beyond, despite having to work with/against a dishonestly run campaign. The minute they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney though, behind closed doors without supporters knowing that, Ron Paul 2012 should have shuttered its doors. Which, from what we know, was January 2012 at the latest.

Instead, they continued to lie to supporters for February, March, April, May, into June, and all the way until August with campaign emails asking for more donations for a fight at the convention, when they had already agreed to make sure that fight didn't happen.

You're right though, Ron Paul 2012 didn't have what it took, and apparently some that were associated with it might be better off flipping burgers than being in politics. Supporters did more for Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, than both of his campaigns.

[Bastiat's The Law]

When you say "anarchists" do you mean anarcho-communists, or do you mean Rothbard-type ancaps? If the latter, I don't see what you're trying to accomplish with that attack. I understand that you have a different view, but I think right now you are defeating your own pragmatism by attacking idealists. What are you trying to accomplish here?

I mean those that attempt to dissuade others from being involved in the political action for fanciful notions that will never come to pass. Any anarchist worth their salt would be off living it; likely far, far away, and off the grid. I can respect that type of rugged individualism.

What I don't care for are the hipster-types that suggest that the solution is to run away at the first sight of resistance from the entrenched power players. If the GOP is corrupt or cheated you in your area; storm the Bastille with more troops. Period. It's the only way we win.

[Bastiat's The Law]

It is the show from earlier in the year, because he references football season about to start. Though, when some of us around these very forums were/are saying these things, we don't know what we're talking about?
When Steve Deace, who ignores history and lies about a candidate's positions (based I guess on his ignorance?), endorses big government progressives like Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich, why should we listen to him? Perhaps the ones that want to listen to him now, should ask themselves why they ignore(d) this same exact advice/suggestions of Ron Paul supporters in 2008, all the way through 2012.

When some around here won't even listen to their own that have been saying these exact things and calling out the fraud/scam that was Ron Paul 2012, during the election, seeing these type of things promoted is just bizarre. If not endorsing Mitch McConnell is the right way, as he says (and I agree), then not endorsing Mitt Romney was the right way. Ron Paul 2012 held the keys to make the RNC a headache for Romney and company, instead they gave them the keys. For what? A speech? Some future run, that doesn't even guarantee a victory?

Bastiat, do you honestly wonder why supporters fell by the wayside after the 2012 campaign? Seriously? Anybody paying attention that was a supporter can see that Ron Paul 2012 was completely dishonest with supporters, wasting not only their donations given, but also their time. You can only burn your supporters so many times.

When Doug Wead said they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, because Romney's campaign threatened to destroy the Ron Paul legacy, Ron Paul and Ron Paul 2012 effectively destroyed Ron Paul's legacy on their own.

The candidate that was supposed to the anti-establishment candidate, the one that couldn't be bought for his votes, the candidate that didn't endorse the Republican nominees in 2004 or 2008 (endorsing a third party candidate in 2008), allowed his campaign to be run to help Mitt Romney win the nomination, then sat by in complete silence when his heir to the throne endorsed the aristocrat Mitt Romney on national TV before all the peasants.
He allowed his website to be used to defend a lying endorsement of Mitt Romney, on national TV. And you wonder why some are sick of the "game"?

If you wonder why our troops might have gotten tired and left after 2012, it's because their leaders abandoned their positions and sold them out, for a seat at the rotten king's rotten table.
I don't buy your diatribe here. It's clear you have an ax to grind though.

[jjdoyle]

I don't buy your diatribe here. It's clear you have an ax to grind though.

I'm not selling anything, but you asked why people might be burnt out. I give you the very reasons some are (ones I talk to and know), and you don't buy it? I'm not surprised. You can try to deny the truth, but the facts are pretty obvious to anybody when they see them presented. There is another Ron Paul 2012 staffer around here that can't address them either though, because he's apparently trying to make sure he has a seat at Rand's 2016 table as well.

The only ax I'm grinding, is truth to power. I mean, do you really think that you can lie to supporters about being "in it to win it" and fighting all the way to the convention, then them realizing they were being lied to for months and the campaign was not serious about winning it, and it is going to encourage people to remain in politics? Begging them for more, more, more, then ending the campaign with more than a million cash-on-hand?

[philipped]

I'm not selling anything, but you asked why people might be burnt out. I give you the very reasons some are (ones I talk to and know), and you don't buy it? I'm not surprised. You can try to deny the truth, but the facts are pretty obvious to anybody when they see them presented. There is another Ron Paul 2012 staffer around here that can't address them either though, because he's apparently trying to make sure he has a seat at Rand's 2016 table as well.

The only ax I'm grinding, is truth to power. I mean, do you really think that you can lie to supporters about being "in it to win it" and fighting all the way to the convention, then them realizing they were being lied to for months and the campaign was not serious about winning it, and it is going to encourage people to remain in politics? Begging them for more, more, more, then ending the campaign with more than a million cash-on-hand?
So Ron Paul 2012 was a joke? It didn't work in anyway? Yes, it's main goal wasn't to win, but...shouldn't it be laying the groundwork for something to 2016? BABY STEPS people. Unless, you can prove that million cash on hand went directly in peoples pockets then maybe i'll shut up.

[jjdoyle]

So Ron Paul 2012 was a joke? It didn't work in anyway? Yes, it's main goal wasn't to win, but...shouldn't it be laying the groundwork for something to 2016? BABY STEPS people. Unless, you can prove that million cash on hand went directly in peoples pockets then maybe i'll shut up.

Yes, Ron Paul 2012 was a lying joke, to be more exact. They effectively helped to destroy the "Liberty" movement's forward momentum, because they wanted a seat at a rotten table, at the expense of their foot soldiers. Which is what Bastiat doesn't seem to understand, and was asking about. Between 2008 and 2012, despite 2008's campaign having issues, the liberty movement rallied behind Rand, and apparently had a hand in helping guys like Amash and Massie get up to D.C. But where did that grassroots' enthusiasm go? Probably out the window with the principles when Mitt Romney was endorsed and had that defended on Ron Paul 2012's website.

They were willing to allow their soldiers to not only be killed before them, but they even helped the king in some instances assassinate a certain number of them to make sure the king retained power without trouble, when they told the king which ones he could have.

Also, the million cash-on-hand, is still on hand (well, it was at the end of September, but they were only about $5,000 over, so with all their fees/salaries, it might be under now). They are paying a small salary to like two employees a month (Deana Watts and Lori Pyeatt), and then other little things each month. They're just sitting on it right now. If you donated to Ron Paul 2012, feel free to call them up and ask them for your donation back, you very well may get it.

But, if you want a link to them having more than a million cash-on-hand, it's here:
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00495820/890524/

[ClydeCoulter]

So, does anyone think Rand's endorsement of McConnell will have any effect on some of the "Tea Party (r)(tm)" types or that it might shore up any doubters in the GOP conservative group (non-liberty movement types)?

[Bastiat's The Law]

So, does anyone think Rand's endorsement of McConnell will have any effect on some of the "Tea Party (r)(tm)" types or that it might shore up any doubters in the GOP conservative group (non-liberty movement types)?

I think libertarians and tea party types still back Bevin. The rank-and-file GOP will likely back McConnell again. He still has his machine, his money and his network. We might give him a scare, but McConnell will likely win reelection. Right now I'm fixated on getting Greg Brannon elected in North Carolina. That's the Liberty Movement's best chance at picking up a seat and Brannon is arguably our best liberty candidate running this cycle. I think that's the smart money.

If we could raise $40 million like we did during Ron's campaign then I'd entertain the possibility of taking on McConnell. Where we sit now though, I'm not sure if we can even defeat Lindsey Graham and his war chest and he's universally hated by pretty much everyone!

[Christian Liberty]

I mean those that attempt to dissuade others from being involved in the political action for fanciful notions that will never come to pass. Any anarchist worth their salt would be off living it; likely far, far away, and off the grid. I can respect that type of rugged individualism.

What I don't care for are the hipster-types that suggest that the solution is to run away at the first sight of resistance from the entrenched power players. If the GOP is corrupt or cheated you in your area; storm the Bastille with more troops. Period. It's the only way we win.

I don't know what a "hipster type" is. I understand that the reality is that anarcho-capitalism won't happen overnight, and isn't likely to happen at all. The difference between what I think you believe (Maybe I'm wrong) and what I believe is that I don't think human nature prevents an anarcho-capitalist society from functioning. Even if it did, however, the goal is still no murder or theft, particularly institutionalized murder and theft, even if its impossible to completely prevent it.

At the end of the day though, how much a given person is willing to compromise is up to them. I don't particularly like libertarians who wouldn't at least vote for Ron (such as Stephan Molyneux) but they are entitled to do and advocate for what they want. On the other hand, I still get called a "perfectionist" by some because I didn't support Romney. There are of course different degrees of moderatism in between those two extremes. I honestly don't know exactly where the line should be drawn here, its more of a "by feel" thing than anything else. Foreign policy is a serious issue for me, and I weight that (And the civil liberties issues directly stemming from it) a little more heavily than economics. A tax increase may suck, but its nothing compared to a law that allows the government to make me "disappear" any time it wants to. That's why I'm so strict on the foreign policy issues, and that's the reason why I personally choose not to support people like Ted Cruz, I think that Israel, or more accurately, America's obsession to it that is ticking the Muslim world off, is far more a threat to our liberty in the grand scheme of things than the economy. Maybe I'm wrong here, I don't claim to be the most knowledgeable about strategy, but there's a huge difference between saying you won't compromise on X, and that you won't compromise on anything at all.

BTW: the thing you say isn't really unique to "anarchists". FSP-Rebel is (was? I haven't seen him around in awhile) one of the most pragmatic here, and he's an ancap.


I think libertarians and tea party types still back Bevin. The rank-and-file GOP will likely back McConnell again. He still has his machine, his money and his network. We might give him a scare, but McConnell will likely win reelection. Right now I'm fixated on getting Greg Brannon elected in North Carolina. That's the Liberty Movement's best chance at picking up a seat and Brannon is arguably our best liberty candidate running this cycle. I think that's the smart money.

If we could raise $40 million like we did during Ron's campaign then I'd entertain the possibility of taking on McConnell. Where we sit now though, I'm not sure if we can even defeat Lindsey Graham and his war chest and he's universally hated by pretty much everyone!

Its one thing to not focus on certain seats due to a lack of resources, its another thing entirely to outright endorse the establishment candidate in a given race (Due to a lack of resources, or any other pragmatic reason.) I'm OK with the former, and not really the latter. Rand Paul did the latter, and I disagree with him on that.

[acptulsa]

And what have our candidates been effective at doing exactly? How is the government smaller now, than before? Did they stop Obamacare? NDAA? Anything? If Ron Paul 2012 had been used to help sink the ship faster...

So, we need to stop doing the only thing we've done that has showed any promise in the last half century for slowing the slide into socialism just as it begins to gain a little momentum because it didn't stop the Titanic on a dime even as the crew were arguing about whether there's an iceberg at all?

There ought to be a special name for the type of trollish behavior that encourages a group to stop doing what's working and do something designed to scare off any new recruits in favor of avoiding alienating a very small group of original members...

[jjdoyle]

So, we need to stop doing the only thing we've done that has showed any promise in the last half century for slowing the slide into socialism just as it begins to gain a little momentum because it didn't stop the Titanic on a dime even as the crew were arguing about whether there's an iceberg at all?

There ought to be a special name for the type of trollish behavior that encourages a group to stop doing what's working and do something designed to scare off any new recruits in favor of avoiding alienating a very small group of original members...

Who is encouraging people to stop what's working? I asked an honest question. I mean, if we are going to point to candidates up there already, we should be able to point to SOMETHING they have done to encourage people to get and stay involved. It's probably not going to be an easy sell for the ones that came on board just during Ron Paul 2008 and Ron Paul 2012, and saw their efforts sold for an endorsement for a speech at the RNC, if we can't point them to obvious examples. For example, is Rand keeping the Senate in DC like he hinted at (or said) he might (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?435864-Paul-threatens-to-keep-Senate-from-Christmas-vacation-over-Fed-fight)? Or, was that just fluff talk for nothing? Did what he wanted (the vote on the Audit the Fed), actually happen?

The only groups I have seen completely discourage standing up and fighting the system, was Ron Paul 2012. Followed by politicians playing the game and endorsing incumbents, instead of "liberty" candidates when given the choice. Ron Paul 2012 gave away half the Louisiana delegation, then made sure that King Romney was not spoken of in any fashion, positive/negative, at the ending "rally" in Florida, despite Rick Santorum being made fun of? Rick Santorum, the candidate that dropped out of the 2012 race in April. 4-5 months before the rally?

I mean, if electing new "liberty" candidates is what is working, why the crap is Rand "playing the game" endorsing Mitch McConnell?

[twomp]

Rand Paul held a 13 hour filibuster that drew the nation's attention towards the President's power to drone people. Amash led the charge on the bill that nearly succeeded in defunding the NSA. Not big enough milestones by your standards but I sure am glad they are there in DC doing what they are doing.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I don't know what a "hipster type" is. I understand that the reality is that anarcho-capitalism won't happen overnight, and isn't likely to happen at all. The difference between what I think you believe (Maybe I'm wrong) and what I believe is that I don't think human nature prevents an anarcho-capitalist society from functioning. Even if it did, however, the goal is still no murder or theft, particularly institutionalized murder and theft, even if its impossible to completely prevent it.

At the end of the day though, how much a given person is willing to compromise is up to them. I don't particularly like libertarians who wouldn't at least vote for Ron (such as Stephan Molyneux) but they are entitled to do and advocate for what they want. On the other hand, I still get called a "perfectionist" by some because I didn't support Romney. There are of course different degrees of moderatism in between those two extremes. I honestly don't know exactly where the line should be drawn here, its more of a "by feel" thing than anything else. Foreign policy is a serious issue for me, and I weight that (And the civil liberties issues directly stemming from it) a little more heavily than economics. A tax increase may suck, but its nothing compared to a law that allows the government to make me "disappear" any time it wants to. That's why I'm so strict on the foreign policy issues, and that's the reason why I personally choose not to support people like Ted Cruz, I think that Israel, or more accurately, America's obsession to it that is ticking the Muslim world off, is far more a threat to our liberty in the grand scheme of things than the economy. Maybe I'm wrong here, I don't claim to be the most knowledgeable about strategy, but there's a huge difference between saying you won't compromise on X, and that you won't compromise on anything at all.

BTW: the thing you say isn't really unique to "anarchists". FSP-Rebel is (was? I haven't seen him around in awhile) one of the most pragmatic here, and he's an ancap.



Its one thing to not focus on certain seats due to a lack of resources, its another thing entirely to outright endorse the establishment candidate in a given race (Due to a lack of resources, or any other pragmatic reason.) I'm OK with the former, and not really the latter. Rand Paul did the latter, and I disagree with him on that.

FSP-Rebel is my favorite poster here, precisely because he doesn't sit on the sidelines and expect to be handed liberty on a silver platter. He's in the trenches engaging and interacting with others outside the choir.

Rand's endorsed to get on high-profile committees and raise his stature and resume. On the surface of it it looks like its purely for himself, but being on those committees makes securing the nomination easier. You could argue he took one for the team by endorsing now so he'll be able to grow the team exponentially later. What Rand does and what the Liberty Movement does doesn't always have to be in lockstep to be beneficial to both parties.

[Christian Liberty]

FSP-Rebel is my favorite poster here, precisely because he doesn't sit on the sidelines and expect to be handed liberty on a silver platter. He's in the trenches engaging and interacting with others outside the choir.


I think everyone here interacts with people "outside the chior." I certainly do. Just primarily educationally rather than politically.

My point, however, was simply to say that anarchists are not universally opposed to political involvement and vice versa.

Rand's endorsed to get on high-profile committees and raise his stature and resume. On the surface of it it looks like its purely for himself, but being on those committees makes securing the nomination easier. You could argue he took one for the team by endorsing now so he'll be able to grow the team exponentially later. What Rand does and what the Liberty Movement does doesn't always have to be in lockstep to be beneficial to both parties.

I think what Rand did was wrong. I've heard what Steve Deace has said about the issue in the past, and I think he was dead right. You can't beat them at their game, you've got to change the game. I understand that there were benefits to what Rand did, and I think he was wrong.

[acptulsa]

Who is encouraging people to stop what's working?

You are--by condemning the best member of the tiny liberty delegation, and the one doing the best job of tempting other jurisdictions to hire other liberty candidates, because he can't seem to lay hands on the other ninety-eight Senators and heal!! them in an instant, and force them to play our game so we don't have to play theirs, and for just generally trying to cause us to expect miracles from mere humans and convince us that playing nice didn't get us enough yet so we should piss the whole rest of the country off.

Which seems like trollish behavior to me. In any case, it's encouraging self destructive behavior. And Merry Christmas to you, too


I think what Rand did was wrong. I've heard what Steve Deace has said about the issue in the past, and I think he was dead right. You can't beat them at their game, you've got to change the game. I understand that there were benefits to what Rand did, and I think he was wrong.

There, see what I mean? If it weren't antisocial, unnecessarily offensive and divisive, and thoroughly trollish, would FF be doing it too?

[Matt Collins]

The GOP strung the religious right along for decades, mainly by giving them a seat at the table. We don't want a seat at the table, we want to dominate the political enviroment:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QCzww6EG7E

[Matt Collins]

It is no secret that MANY of Rand supporters here favor the "McConnell Strategy". Seriously, it is people like him that NEED to go, leaders of the establishment NEED to go.Favoring it and understanding it are two different things.

1 - Mitch does Rand more good in his Presidential run as minority leader than some guy on the street

2 - It would cost Rand a lot of money and a lot of political capital to take out Mitch leaving his warchest diminished for 2016

3 - Mitch needs Rand, he can't survive without him; Rand holds his future in his hands. Therefore Mitch is beholden to Rand (see #1)

4 - It helps create the narrative that Rand is a team player which prevents a fringe label from being hung around his neck like Ron had

etc, etc

[Christian Liberty]

There, see what I mean? If it weren't antisocial, unnecessarily offensive and divisive, and thoroughly trollish, would FF be doing it too?

Disagreeing with Rand is trolling?

[Matt Collins]

Then, agreed to help Mitt Romney win it, by never attacking him where/when it mattered. You're lying again.



If the enthusiasm for "liberty" politics and politicians failed after the 2012 campaign, look to the campaign that was supposed to be at the head of that movement, and completely wasted supporters time and money.And here you don't know what you're talking about.


The Ron Paul supporters did not lack enthusiasm, again, it lacked a campaign that harnessed and APPRECIATED that enthusiasm.To an extent, I can agree with this, but only outside of the target states. In the target states the campaign and the supporters worked very hard to get it done. In the non-target states in 2012 it was almost non-existent.




I can't remember seeing any Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich supporters doing sign waves on their lunch breaks. Renting booths at state fairs, for a them. Etc.Well, those activities don't win elections. Door-to-door, and voter ID (phonebanking) does in addition to direct mail.

[ClydeCoulter]

Favoring it and understanding it are two different things.

1 - Mitch does Rand more good in his Presidential run as minority leader than some guy on the street

2 - It would cost Rand a lot of money and a lot of political capital to take out Mitch leaving his warchest diminished for 2016

3 - Mitch needs Rand, he can't survive without him; Rand holds his future in his hands. Therefore Mitch is beholden to Rand (see #1)

4 - It helps create the narrative that Rand is a team player which prevents a fringe label from being hung around his neck like Ron had

etc, etc


If 3 is true then why would 2 be so hard?.

[Matt Collins]

So Ron Paul 2012 was a joke? It didn't work in anyway? Yes, it's main goal wasn't to win, but...shouldn't it be laying the groundwork for something to 2016? BABY STEPS people. Unless, you can prove that million cash on hand went directly in peoples pockets then maybe i'll shut up.

Some people can't see the forest for the trees, and have no ability to think strategically or long-term at all.

[Matt Collins]

Right now I'm fixated on getting Greg Brannon elected in North Carolina. That's the Liberty Movement's best chance at picking up a seat and Brannon is arguably our best liberty candidate running this cycle. I think that's the smart money. Very possible.

Don't forget about Broun, Stockman, and McGeehan as well.

[Matt Collins]

If 3 is true then why would 2 be so hard?.
Just because Rand could take out Mitch, doesn't mean it would be easy to do so.

[ClydeCoulter]

Just because Rand could take out Mitch, doesn't mean it would be easy to do so.

???


3 - Mitch needs Rand, he can't survive without him; Rand holds his future in his hands. Therefore Mitch is beholden to Rand (see #1)

[Matt Collins]

if i were in ky i would vote for bevin.. but i wouldn't bash rand as a traitor, in a sort of a wink-wink situation.. rand has pretty much let all the non-stupid people know already that he is really behind bevin idealogically, with the refusal to attack himYep, and the "stupid people" (as you describe) don't get it. Lots of people have an inability to read between the lines, even when it is spelled out for them.

[Matt Collins]

Who quit? The only people I see that quit, were Ron, Rand, and Ron Paul 2012 when they agreed to help Mitt Romney win the nomination without any waves at the RNC.This lie is getting old, you should give it up already.

There were waves at the RNC, you apparently weren't there to see it.

Oh, and Romney was going to win the nomination regardless by that point.



The minute they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney though, behind closed doorsAnother lie.





You need to watch this if you want to know what actually happened:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4pVMbY8kQA

[Matt Collins]

And what have our candidates been effective at doing exactly?


Search the Forums for Rand, Massie, Amash, and Mike Lee.




How is the government smaller now, than before? It's a 1000 story building when it should only be 10 stories. To get it back to 10 stories, the first thing we have to do is STOP the upwards construction. And you can't just take a wrecking ball to it, it's too big. Although it might collapse under its own weight eventually, but that would be disastrous so it would be better simply to stop the building, and start deconstructing.





Sink the ship, and start over. We know how to build a ship. The problem with the RNC ship is that it is rotten, and the crew does not care at all. The captain will not allow anything to change of any significance. Rand is kissing the captain's ring, and is sitting by silently while the captain makes sure any liberty minded passengers and crew are being walked off the ship.We can overrun the ship but that takes time to build support. You don't start a mutiny instantly, you have to work the crew and convince them to join you. And we don't even need to control the ship, we just need to be able to steer its direction a bit.

[Matt Collins]

The ONLY thing that will work, is a complete sinking of the RNC.Sorry, but that's not possible in the current political environment.


Instead of Ron Paul 2012 going for broke and trying to take down the RNC with the campaign (despite what their emails said), it decided to play nice with Mitt Romney, so Rand could get a speaking slot?Uh, no, not exactly. First off, they didn't play nice with Romney so Rand could get a speaking slot, and secondly, there was no way the Campaign could take down the RNC, not to mention it would be of no benefit to do so.

[Matt Collins]

Yes, Ron Paul 2012 was a lying joke, to be more exact. No, your posts are full of lies, and you're seen as a joker the more of this nonsense you spew. :rolleyes:



Also, the million cash-on-hand, is still on hand (well, it was at the end of September, but they were only about $5,000 over, so with all their fees/salaries, it might be under now). They are paying a small salary to like two employees a month (Deana Watts and Lori Pyeatt), and then other little things each month. They're just sitting on it right now. If you donated to Ron Paul 2012, feel free to call them up and ask them for your donation back, you very well may get it.

But, if you want a link to them having more than a million cash-on-hand, it's here:
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00495820/890524/
That's obviously the way Ron wants it.

[jjdoyle]

No, your posts are full of lies, and you're seen as a joker the more of this nonsense you spew. :rolleyes:

That's obviously the way Ron wants it.

Actually, my posts are full of facts, and opinions based on those facts.

Facts like:
1) Ron Paul 2012 never attacked only Mitt Romney with his own TV ad.
2) Ron Paul 2012 adviser Doug Wead admitted Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, BEFORE Michigan.
3) Ron Paul 2012 ran attack ads against Rick Santorum in Michigan though, helping Mitt Romney win the state.
4) Ron Paul 2012 was sending out emails continuously asking for donations, AFTER they had agreed to help Mitt Romney win the nomination.
5) RonPaul2012.com was used to defend an endorsement of Mitt Romney.

The campaign was a complete, joke. The fact you and Jesse Benton worked for it, probably is more than enough evidence to back up that claim though. I can only hope the investigation on the Kent Sorenson issue continues, like it apparently is, and we find out more who all was behind the idiotic decision to try and do under-the-table payments at the campaign and who all knew about it.

Also, that stupid video you run around posting, contains no new information. I watched it when they originally posted it, and if you were paying attention during the campaign with reading forums, articles, and news stories, he said nothing that was useful. It's a waste of time.

Again, if Bastiat is wondering why support/enthusiasm left, he only needs to look at Ron Paul 2012 and their complete dishonesty and disrespect of supporters' time and money. Ron Paul, Rand, Jesse Benton and Ron Paul 2012 didn't want to attend the Ron Paul rally in Florida put on by supporters, because some of the speakers? Yet, they wanted to attend the RNC...

Rand was standing with the neocons at the RNC, but not the supporters that helped give Ron Paul 2012 $40+ million? Is anybody really surprised some left after the campaign? Really? Again, the campaign killed any forward momentum they could have had, which is very unfortunate.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Very possible.

Don't forget about Broun, Stockman, and McGeehan as well.

Which is why Paul supporters and people within the Liberty Movement should remain vigilant and active during these midterm elections. We could change this country if we realized that this is precisely the time we get the best bang for the buck. All it takes is 500k and we get our people in. Comes down to how bad you want it.

[Matt Collins]

2) Ron Paul 2012 adviser Doug Wead admitted Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, BEFORE Michigan.That's either not what Doug said, or it's not what he meant. He has since corrected this misconception although I don't have a link to it at the moment.



3) Ron Paul 2012 ran attack ads against Rick Santorum in Michigan though, helping Mitt Romney win the state.We did not want Santorum winning anything if possible.



4) Ron Paul 2012 was sending out emails continuously asking for donations, AFTER they had agreed to help Mitt Romney win the nomination.The PCC never agreed to help Romney win the nomination. You are LYING every time you repeat this.




The campaign was a complete, joke.THis coming from someone who has probably never worked on a campaign in their life, and never taken any sort of education on electoral politics, or won an election. Sorry, you have no credibility

I mean you probably think sign waves help win elections, right? :rolleyes:


It's a waste of time.Reading your posts is a waste of time.


Rand was standing with the neocons at the RNC, but not the supporters that helped give Ron Paul 2012 $40+ million? Uh, maybe you missed the part where Rand spoke at the Sundome rally? :rolleyes:

[Peace&Freedom]

Which is why Paul supporters and people within the Liberty Movement should remain vigilant and active during these midterm elections. We could change this country if we realized that this is precisely the time we get the best bang for the buck. All it takes is 500k and we get our people in. Comes down to how bad you want it.

Comes down to meeting the normal criteria for contending for major office. According to records displayed at opensecrets.org for Congressional campaigns, that means raising at least $400,000 to $500,000 minimum in order to win a House seat, and at least $2 million or more, bare minimum, to win a Senate seat. Brannon, Broun, Stockman, and McGeehan etc have to meet these levels to be serious contenders, objectively speaking, or even more, since they are up against entrenched incumbents.

The political fundamentals of "wait for an open race, raise enough money, have a sufficient base to succeed" are still the fundamentals. This is why concentrating on higher percentage scenarios involving open seats, and focusing on primaries (of either major party) is much more likely to produce pick-ups for liberty. No matter "how bad you want it," a box of toothpicks, while it means you do technically have wood, is not enough to build a log cabin. The same goes for "really wanting to win" but then running against incumbents, with almost no established cash or base support. Many here may be election victory oriented by mindset, but their proposed process is third party in essence, and structured to lead to defeat.

[jjdoyle]

That's either not what Doug said, or it's not what he meant. He has since corrected this misconception although I don't have a link to it at the moment.

We did not want Santorum winning anything if possible.

The PCC never agreed to help Romney win the nomination. You are LYING every time you repeat this.

THis coming from someone who has probably never worked on a campaign in their life, and never taken any sort of education on electoral politics, or won an election. Sorry, you have no credibility

I mean you probably think sign waves help win elections, right? :rolleyes:

Reading your posts is a waste of time.

Uh, maybe you missed the part where Rand spoke at the Sundome rally? :rolleyes:

No, the Sundome rally was the Ron Paul 2012 campaign rally, where they censored speeches and made sure Mitt Romney was not mentioned from the stage. AT all.
But it was okay to mention Rick Santorum, who had dropped out of the race in April.

Ron Paul 2012 didn't want Rick Santorum to win anything, so it helped Mitt Romney win Michigan instead, helping him seal the nomination, as has been explained.

And here is Doug Wead, in his own words on the campaign's decision to not attack Mitt Romney, BEFORE MICHIGAN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3PwzZ--v94&feature=youtu.be

Actions, speak louder than words. Ron Paul 2012's own actions show they not only helped Mitt Romney win the nomination, starting with (at the very least) attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan. But then the grand finale, when RonPaul2012.com was used to defend an endorsement of Mitt Romney.

[Matt Collins]

And here is Doug Wead, in his own words on the campaign's decision to not attack Mitt Romney, BEFORE MICHIGAN:
The Campaign did indeed attack Romney throughout the race. And strategically deciding to go after a specific candidate doesn't mean that the PCC was colluding with or working for another candidate. :rolleyes:






No, the Sundome rally was the Ron Paul 2012 campaign rally, where they censored speeches and made sure Mitt Romney was not mentioned from the stage. AT all.HA HA HA, your ignorance is showing, you have ZERO idea of what you're talking about.


I produced the Sundome rally myself, and we didn't have any prohibitions on what was said from stage. We did ask each person what they were going to talk about so that we didn't end up with 8 hours of monetary policy, but other than that, we didn't censor anyone. Walter Block is proof of that (although we didn't know what he was going to say before he said it)


Nice try though, but you're wrong again, as usual.

[jjdoyle]

The Campaign did indeed attack Romney throughout the race. And strategically deciding to go after a specific candidate doesn't mean that the PCC was colluding with or working for another candidate. :rolleyes:

HA HA HA, your ignorance is showing, you have ZERO idea of what you're talking about.

I produced the Sundome rally myself, and we didn't have any prohibitions on what was said from stage. We did ask each person what they were going to talk about so that we didn't end up with 8 hours of monetary policy, but other than that, we didn't censor anyone. Walter Block is proof of that (although we didn't know what he was going to say before he said it)


Nice try though, but you're wrong again, as usual.

If you produced the Sun Dome rally, then you should know that Mitt Romney's name was not allowed to be mentioned from the stage, for whatever reason. While some thought it was smart to mention Rick Santorum on stage, despite the fact that Ron Paul delegates had come to Tampa, to fight the Romney nomination...

Clearly your production efforts and knowing why the delegates and supporters came to Florida, is about as good as the campaign's efforts throughout. Horrid. And yes, I did watch the entire, boring, Sun Dome rally.

You can sit and lie all you want, I wouldn't expect anything less from someone like yourself or even Jack Hunter. But, we all see how well that worked out for Jack Hunter, don't we? Jack thought it was smart to try and defend Rand on RonPaul2012.com, because he was trying to make sure he could get/keep a job with Rand...which, then hurt Rand (and will in 2016, just wait for it), because of his past.

The fact you repeatedly try to defend a lying campaign, is just amazing. Also, can you link me to any Ron Paul 2012 TV attack ad of just Mitt Romney, like they had produced to attack Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich? You can't. Because there isn't one.

So again, here is Doug Wead saying Ron Paul 2012 knew Mitt Romney had won the nomination before Michigan (despite the actual numbers not adding up at that point):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3PwzZ--v94

[Matt Collins]

If you produced the Sun Dome rally, then you should know that Mitt Romney's name was not allowed to be mentioned from the stage, for whatever reason.

Cite your source?


Oh wait, you can't!

Why?

Because you are lying again.





I handled the contracts for every single person on stage at the SunDome rally, including the musical acts. There was nothing in the agreements at all about whether or not they could talk about Romney :rolleyes:

[compromise]

Very possible.

Don't forget about Broun, Stockman, and McGeehan as well.

McGeehan is a black hole. He has no chance against Capito, don't waste your money.

McDaniel is much more productive. He just needs a little more support to tip him over Cochran. Taking out Graham is also a major priority for us and Bright looks like the only candidate who can pull it off.

[jjdoyle]

Cite your source?


Oh wait, you can't!

Why?

Because you are lying again.


I handled the contracts for every single person on stage at the SunDome rally, including the musical acts. There was nothing in the agreements at all about whether or not they could talk about Romney :rolleyes:

My source? My source is the SunDome rally...

Here's one video, of Jack Hunter talking, where he repeatedly mentions Santorum in it, even Ronald Reagan, George Bush, John McCain but not Mitt Romney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxaTvIsCbJ8

[Matt Collins]

My source? My source is the SunDome rally...

Here's one video, of Jack Hunter talking, where he repeatedly mentions Santorum in it, even Ronald Reagan, George Bush, John McCain but not Mitt Romney:That doesn't mean that there was a prohibition against mentioning Mitt Romney. :rolleyes:

Are you logically impaired? :confused:

[compromise]

If the campaign did indeed support Romney after they wrapped up in May, they were right to do so. Compared to the tyranny of Obama, Romney was a modest improvement. Also, we expect these guys to support Rand when we win the nomination in 2016. If they tear it down like you propose we should have in 2012, that could prove disastrous for Rand's candidacy.

[Matt Collins]

Compared to the tyranny of Obama, Romney was a modest improvement.
In my personal opinion, I don't think there would be any policy difference between Romney and Obama. However, Romney doesn't seem to have any core beliefs, so maybe he would've been easier to steer or restrain.

Of course Obama seems to have compromised on a lot of his alleged beliefs too :-/

[jjdoyle]

That doesn't mean that there was a prohibition against mentioning Mitt Romney. :rolleyes:

Are you logically impaired? :confused:

Well, they allowed RonPaul2012.com to be used to defend an endorsement of Mitt Romney, why would they then allow someone at the rally to attack Mitt Romney?
Ron Paul 2012's campaign actions:
1) Help Mitt Romney win the nomination, by attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, after his campaign threatened to destroy Ron Paul's name.
2) Coordinate with Mitt Romney's campaign on when candidates will be giving press conferences/speeches.
3) Drag supporters along on some fake delegate strategy.
4) Have Rand go on national TV and lie about Mitt Romney's positions on the Federal Reserve, then make sure to use RonPaul2012.com to DEFEND Rand's endorsement, without actually addressing any issues in his endorsement.
5) Hold a Ron Paul rally in Florida and encourage delegates to waste their time/money coming to Florida, after the campaign had already made sure King Romney's celebration ceremony was smooth, by giving away half the LA delegation.

No, I'm not logically impaired, but you sure seem to not care about the truth or why supporters may have lost enthusiasm after the fraud of a campaign that was Ron Paul 2012. Are you?

Oh, and can you please provide me the Romney only TV attack at that Ron Paul 2012 produced?

From what Doug Wead said though, there wasn't one...so maybe you are logically impaired, or just trying to act like Ron Paul 2012 wasn't completely dishonest with supporters for months?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3PwzZ--v94

[Matt Collins]

Ron Paul 2012's campaign actions:
1) Help Mitt Romney win the nominationThe PCC never helped Romney win, he won on his own, with the help of the media. You are an [mod delete]

[jjdoyle]

The PCC never helped Romney win, he won on his own, with the help of the media. You are an [mod delete]

Yeah, the PCC did help Mitt Romney win the nomination. They did so by wasting supporters' money attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, instead of Mitt Romney.

Even Rick Santorum saw it DURING the process:
http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/02/santorum-campaign-suggests-romney-may-have-done-deal-to-make-ron-paul-his-running-mate.html

And if Ron Paul 2012 KNEW that Mitt Romney had the nomination won before Michigan (despite the numbers not making any sense), why did they attack Rick Santorum in Michigan?

[Bastiat's The Law]

You need to watch this if you want to know what actually happened:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4pVMbY8kQA

That was some great inside baseball! Any other videos like that?

[twomp]

If the campaign did indeed support Romney after they wrapped up in May, they were right to do so. Compared to the tyranny of Obama, Romney was a modest improvement. Also, we expect these guys to support Rand when we win the nomination in 2016. If they tear it down like you propose we should have in 2012, that could prove disastrous for Rand's candidacy.

You are delusional and typical of a Team Red cheerleader. If Romney were president we would be knee deep in Syria right now. Instead we got them to get rid of their chemical weapons with not one american bomb dropped and no american blood. We are negotiating with Iran. If your boy Romney were there, none of this would happen.

[jjdoyle]

...

[jjdoyle]

You are delusional and typical of a Team Red cheerleader. If Romney were president we would be knee deep in Syria right now. Instead we got them to get rid of their chemical weapons with not one american bomb dropped and no american blood. We are negotiating with Iran. If your boy Romney were there, none of this would happen.

Where was Romney the governor? What happened in that state this year? I can only imagine the reaction that would have happened from the neocons with one in office. I mean, they freaking went to Iraq for no legitimate reasons after 9/11.

And the problem with that post anyway, is that it ignores that Ron Paul 2012 was helping Mitt Romney in Michigan, which was in February. Not May. The Michigan primary was before Super Tuesday.

And as I pointed out months ago, had Romney lost Michigan, or Ron Paul 2012 at the very least attacked him like they did Newt in Iowa, and Santorum elsewhere that was a complete waste of funds, a brokered convention was MUCH more likely to happen.

I posted this a few months back:
Here are the vote totals for candidates that had won the popular votes in states up until the Michigan and Arizona vote on February 28th (not counting Iowa since it ended in basically a tie for Romney and Santorum):
Mitt Romney had won 4 primaries/caucuses (New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Maine).
Rick Santorum had won 3 primaries/caucuses (Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota).
Newt Gingrich had won 1 primary/caucus (South Carolina).
Ron Paul 0.

Again, this is not delegate counts, but the popular vote as reported by the media.

It should be noted here, that Ron Paul lost Maine, by 2% points. Ron Paul 2012 never ran a single attack ad against only Romney in the state, and it was Ron's first chance outside of Iowa to really upset the apple cart with the popular vote totals reported by the media. Ron Paul 2012 had already run attack ads against just Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum, but NONE for just Romney.

Then, on February 28th, Mitt Romney won both Arizona and Michigan. Barely getting a victory over Rick Santorum in Michigan, by 3%, thanks in part to Ron Paul 2012 helping attack Rick Santorum with campaign funds running a TV attack ad against him.

With Romney winning both states on February 28th, that brought his total state victories to 6:
Romney - 6 states (New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Maine, Arizona, Michigan)
Santorum - 3 states (Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota)
Gingrich - 1 state (South Carolina)
Paul - 0 states

What was after that?
Wyoming's might have swung to Santorum, because he lost it only by 7% to Romney. Wyoming's is a weird one though, spread over a period of time not just one day from what I'm looking at (apparently something like Maine).
Then on March 3rd there was Washington, and Romney won that one with 38% of the vote to Ron Paul's 25% and Rick Santorum's 24%.

So, before Super Tuesday happened, this was is what the state totals were:
Mitt Romney - 8 (New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Maine, Arizona, Michigan, Wyoming, and Washington)
Rick Santorum - 3 (Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota)
Newt Gingrich - 1 (South Carolina)
Ron Paul - 0

Then after Super Tuesday, which had 10 states voting, the results were:
Romney - 14 (picked up Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Ohio, Vermont, and Virginia)
Santorum - 6 (picked up North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee)
Gingrich - 2 (picking up Georgia)
Ron Paul - 0

Why did Romney win the nomination? Because Ron Paul 2012 never ran a single attack ad against only him, in any state, trying to cause a brokered convention. Ron Paul 2012 helped Mitt Romney defeat Rick Santorum in Michigan, which gave Romney momentum, and taking momentum away from Santorum.

Had Romney lost Michigan to Santorum, Super Tuesday would have been an absolute massacre between Romney and Santorum with attack ads, because of how close the race would have still been.
Romney was pretty much guaranteed only a few wins on Super Tuesday, even if he had lost Michigan:
Idaho and Massachusetts

Newt Gingrich would have probably still won Georgia, and been the only state he grabbed that day like normal.

Rick Santorum though? He picked up North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Those were his only three. He could have probably picked up Alaska, which he lost by 4% points, if Romney had lost Michigan.
Santorum probably would have picked up Ohio as well, because he lost that one by 1% point.

The whole thing would have fallen apart and been a complete mess (brokered convention) if Ron Paul 2012 had not helped Mitt Romney win Michigan. OR, at the very least, tried to help Rick Santorum beat Mitt Romney in states like Ohio and Alaska on Super Tuesday with some attack ads.

Oh, and while Romney was having to spend money on Super Tuesday trying to destroy Rick Santorum in states, that would have given Ron Paul 2012 a chance to try and actually win Virginia. Causing more of a headache for Mitt Romney, especially if Newt and Santorum helped in any significant fashion.

Instead, the campaign helped Mitt Romney by never attacking only him in any state, like they did Perry, Newt, or Santorum. They agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, because they never did. They never released a single Mitt Romney only attack ad, and repeatedly used events to try and defend him...like they did with their Etch-A-Sketch ad making fun of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich instead.

Then again, anybody that has spent more than 5 minutes doing electoral work would have known and seen this immediately...and despite some of us calling/emailing and basically yelling and screaming for Ron Paul 2012 to attack Mitt Romney in a specific way, they didn't care or listen. They just wanted to drag supporters along, and act like they were serious, to keep on getting donations. Sadly, they apparently were more serious about helping Mitt Romney win the nomination without any waves, and getting Rand a speaking slot at the convention.

[ClydeCoulter]

The PCC never helped Romney win, he won on his own, with the help of the media. You are an [mod delete]

ha....haha.......hahahahahaha


http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/mitt%20romney%20vs%20ron%20paul.jpeg

[rich34]

What's done is done.. If anything hopefully this helps Rand with Mitt donors if what you're saying is true.

Also I can't imagine Romney backers being excited to support Christie holding hands with Obama the day before the election. Again hopefully this all heps Rand in the long run. l

[klamath]

You are delusional and typical of a Team Red cheerleader. If Romney were president we would be knee deep in Syria right now. Instead we got them to get rid of their chemical weapons with not one American bomb dropped and no american blood. We are negotiating with Iran. If your boy Romney were there, none of this would happen.And with your blue team blather Obama WAS going to drop bombs on Syria and only when he started seeing impeachment level of majority republican congressional votes against Syrian intervention did he decide to take a deal from the Russians. A change in Iranian leadership is what got the deal, because the Iranians themselves were sick of it.
No one knows what Romney would have done but we sure as hell know what Obama was going to do. He proved that with Libya.

[jjdoyle]

[mod delete]

Can you please provide me a link to the official Ron Paul 2012 Mitt Romney only TV attack ad, like they had for Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum? You keep spinning in circles like Bill O'Reilly in his no-spin zone, and not addressing the facts.
Ron Paul 2012 never aired one single Mitt Romney only TV attack ad, like they did against Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, even Rick Perry. Despite Mitt Romney being ahead of Ron Paul the entire time basically in all the polls.

Ron Paul 2012 ad against only Rick Perry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWTfc3P9xTk

Ron Paul 2012 TV ads against only Newt Gingrich:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL1nRkov7YQ

Ron Paul 2012 TV ad against only Rick Santorum:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bz1sWn0uno

Ron Paul 2012 TV ad against only Mitt Romney:
This space will be left blank forever, until Matt Collins stops his lying and provides a link to the official Ron Paul 2012 TV ad that attacked only Mitt Romney, like the ones above that targeted Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.

In other words, this space will be left blank, forever...because Matt Collins cannot provide that TV ad (even internet ad), because it never happened.

Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, and instead help Mitt Romney win the nomination by spending over $100K in attack ads against Rick Santorum in Michigan alone. Ron Paul 2012 forever destroyed the Ron Paul legacy, because instead of backing liberty supporters, they threw them under the bus. So, Rand could get a speech at the RNC? So campaign staff like Jesse Benton and Jack Hunter could get jobs after the campaign was closing down?

Ron Paul 2012 was 100% dishonest with supporters, from the moment they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney before Michigan, and kept on going asking for more money in emails.

[Matt Collins]

This has been explained ad nauseum to you JJDoyle. [deleted] there is nothing else I can say. So long...

[jjdoyle]

This has been explained ad nauseum to you JJDoyle. [deleted] there is nothing else I can say. So long...

You haven't explained anything, other than you can't comprehend the question:
"Can you please provide me a link to the official Ron Paul 2012 Mitt Romney only TV attack ad, like they had for Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum?"

And you can't understand that Doug Wead admitted Ron Paul 2012 wanted to be treated with kid gloves and agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, because Ron Paul would be attacked back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3PwzZ--v94#t=53

So, instead of dropping out of the race, in a fashion that would have been much easier to accept at the time, they continued to lie to supporters and waste their time and money for all of February, March, April, and May, at the very least.

Some of us were calling the fraud out as it was happening. Unfortunately, we were the minority at the time, but now many have come around and thanked me for trying to warn them at the time to not donate another dime.

To anybody reading this that donated to Ron Paul 2012, if you have fallen upon hard financial times (lost a job, bought too many Christmas gifts), make sure to contact Ron Paul 2012 and ask them for a refund of your donations. Instead of it sitting in a bank account slowly being widdled away with small paychecks to two staffers, you could get the money back and donate it to someone like Justin Amash, Massie, or even Mitch McConnell. I hear McConnell is one of us now, and worthy of endorsements.

[rich34]

You haven't explained anything, other than you can't comprehend the question:
"Can you please provide me a link to the official Ron Paul 2012 Mitt Romney only TV attack ad, like they had for Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum?"

And you can't understand that Doug Wead admitted Ron Paul 2012 wanted to be treated with kid gloves and agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, because Ron Paul would be attacked back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3PwzZ--v94#t=53

So, instead of dropping out of the race, in a fashion that would have been much easier to accept at the time, they continued to lie to supporters and waste their time and money for all of February, March, April, and May, at the very least.

Some of us were calling the fraud out as it was happening. Unfortunately, we were the minority at the time, but now many have come around and thanked me for trying to warn them at the time to not donate another dime.

To anybody reading this that donated to Ron Paul 2012, if you have fallen upon hard financial times (lost a job, bought too many Christmas gifts), make sure to contact Ron Paul 2012 and ask them for a refund of your donations. Instead of it sitting in a bank account slowly being widdled away with small paychecks to two staffers, you could get the money back and donate it to someone like Justin Amash, Massie, or even Mitch McConnell. I hear McConnell is one of us now, and worthy of endorsements.

I don't think it would have really changed the outcome any do you? With that said, I think at this point in time for Rand anyway it's probably best that Ron didn't single Romney out and attack him personally. Yes at the time, I was with you as far as attacking Mitt, but I'm glad he didn't now. Remember the big donor event that Rand and other 2016 hopefuls attended back in September or October? The article stated that Rand stayed 30 minutes after everyone else had left speaking to those folks, and they were quoted as saying that they came away from the meeting as very impressed with Rand? Who knows maybe some of those people are former Romney donors who could be willing to throw financial support behind Rand and by Ron not attacking him maybe that helps out a lot? Ron is a visionary, maybe he saw this coming. Knowing he couldn't win did the best he could for his son to setup him up nicely in 2016 with big money folks? I don't know, I'm just hoping because I think we'd all agree if Rand can't raise at least 60 to 70 million he don't have a snow balls chance in hell. What's done is done, lets hope it all works out in 16.

[jjdoyle]

I don't think it would have really changed the outcome any do you? With that said, I think at this point in time for Rand anyway it's probably best that Ron didn't single Romney out and attack him personally. Yes at the time, I was with you as far as attacking Mitt, but I'm glad he didn't now. Remember the big donor event that Rand and other 2016 hopefuls attended back in September or October? The article stated that Rand stayed 30 minutes after everyone else had left speaking to those folks, and they were quoted as saying that they came away from the meeting as very impressed with Rand? Who knows maybe some of those people are former Romney donors who could be willing to throw financial support behind Rand and by Ron not attacking him maybe that helps out a lot? Ron is a visionary, maybe he saw this coming. Knowing he couldn't win did the best he could for his son to setup him up nicely in 2016 with big money folks? I don't know, I'm just hoping because I think we'd all agree if Rand can't raise at least 60 to 70 million he don't have a snow balls chance in hell. What's done is done, lets hope it all works out in 16.

When they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, and instead help him win it by attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan (as I posted HERE, you might have missed that post (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?436227-Steve-Deace-quot-What-the-Liberty-Movement-could-learn-quot&p=5354160&viewfull=1#post5354160)), the campaign should have closed shop. By attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, they helped Mitt Romney win that state. If Romney had lost Michigan to Santorum, the entire race would have been a mess moving forward.

And no, I don't remember the big donor event, do you have a link? But hopefully for Rand's sake, they are on board with him and not simply playing a game...
Apparently, some around here think only Rand can play political games.

Either way, if you donated to Ron Paul 2012, you should ask them for a refund and give it to Rand's latest effort, or even better, someone like Greg Brannon. It's better used there, than sitting in some bank account paying two measly salaries of two staffers each month.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Don't get discouraged doyle, we've accomplished a lot and we're just beginning. Listen to what Tom Woods says here.


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

[jjdoyle]

Don't get discouraged doyle, we've accomplished a lot and we're just beginning. Listen to what Tom Woods says here.


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

I'm not discouraged, but I'm a realist. And being that you were the one that was wondering why some supporters get discouraged, I would point you (again) directly to the dishonest campaign. They basically abandoned supporters, and helped throw them under the Mitt Romney bus. I'll listen to this in a bit, since it's an hour. Not sure if I already have, I'll know once it gets rolling.

Also, being that you posted this video of Deace trying to make a case why Rand shouldn't endorse Ditch McConnell, I just find it ironic some trying to defend the way Ron Paul 2012 was used to defend a lying endorsement of Mitt.

Again, I have no problem with Rand playing the game, but he has repeatedly shown he has issues with knowing how to word things...and after $60+ million spent between two campaigns, I'm really tired of politicians not knowing how to word things.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I'm not discouraged, but I'm a realist. And being that you were the one that was wondering why some supporters get discouraged, I would point you (again) directly to the dishonest campaign. They basically abandoned supporters, and helped throw them under the Mitt Romney bus. I'll listen to this in a bit, since it's an hour. Not sure if I already have, I'll know once it gets rolling.

Also, being that you posted this video of Deace trying to make a case why Rand shouldn't endorse Ditch McConnell, I just find it ironic some trying to defend the way Ron Paul 2012 was used to defend a lying endorsement of Mitt.

Again, I have no problem with Rand playing the game, but he has repeatedly shown he has issues with knowing how to word things...and after $60+ million spent between two campaigns, I'm really tired of politicians not knowing how to word things.

The campaign was over after we lost Iowa.

[jjdoyle]

The campaign was over after we lost Iowa.

I don't disagree with that, at all. It was basically over the moment Ron Paul didn't want to sit down and address the newsletters issue, and throw the person under the bus that wrote them (assuming he didn't). But the fact the campaign didn't mind dragging supporters along on some false hope, is ridiculous. We had supporters donating time and money, above and beyond the other candidates. We had supporters getting assaulted and arrested though, while Ron Paul 2012 had already agreed to help King Romney win the nomination without any waves at the RNC.

The problem was/is, instead of the campaign respecting supporters' time and money, they continued to drag them along on some fake delegate strategy (the supporters' did their jobs, above and beyond).
If the campaign was serious about a brokered convention/delegate strategy after Iowa, attacking Mitt Romney in states like Michigan is one of the first things they would have done. Instead, they chose to help Mitt Romney win the nomination, and disrespected supporters (time and money) for all of February, March, April, and May. And let's not forget actually wasting their time/money going to Florida to be delegates, for a campaign that didn't care.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I don't disagree with that, at all. It was basically over the moment Ron Paul didn't want to sit down and address the newsletters issue, and throw the person under the bus that wrote them (assuming he didn't). But the fact the campaign didn't mind dragging supporters along on some false hope, is ridiculous. We had supporters donating time and money, above and beyond the other candidates. We had supporters getting assaulted and arrested though, while Ron Paul 2012 had already agreed to help King Romney win the nomination without any waves at the RNC.

The problem was/is, instead of the campaign respecting supporters' time and money, they continued to drag them along on some fake delegate strategy (the supporters' did their jobs, above and beyond).
If the campaign was serious about a brokered convention/delegate strategy after Iowa, attacking Mitt Romney in states like Michigan is one of the first things they would have done. Instead, they chose to help Mitt Romney win the nomination, and disrespected supporters (time and money) for all of February, March, April, and May. And let's not forget actually wasting their time/money going to Florida to be delegates, for a campaign that didn't care.

Romney didn't need our help, he was the presumptive nominee going into Iowa and emerged that way after Iowa. Santorum emerged as the Romney alternative. Ron's only path to the nomination was to be that alternative and to win early to establish credibility. That is why they focused attacks on the the new flavor of the month candidate that kept popping up. Everyone and their mother knew Romney would be in till the end no matter what happened. He had the establishment in every state sewed up and big money donors bankrolling his campaign. Plus the Romney family felt it was their destiny to ascend to power; pretty creepy dynamic when you look into it.

It wasn't false hope, everyone knew the odds and supporters knew that staying active and fighting the establishment in their area was next regardless whether or not Ron was the nominee. We had to put liberty-minded people in every position there is from top to bottom. There was good that came from staying in the fight, namely our people taking over the GOP in several states. That should be happening all over the country.

[Bastiat's The Law]

One other thing. Taking on the Romney machine in the early primary season would've been supremely stupid strategically and financially.

[jjdoyle]

Romney didn't need our help, he was the presumptive nominee going into Iowa and emerged that way after Iowa. Santorum emerged as the Romney alternative. Ron's only path to the nomination was to be that alternative and to win early to establish credibility. That is why they focused attacks on the the new flavor of the month candidate that kept popping up. Everyone and their mother knew Romney would be in till the end no matter what happened. He had the establishment in every state sewed up and big money donors bankrolling his campaign. Plus the Romney family felt it was their destiny to ascend to power; pretty creepy dynamic when you look into it.

It wasn't false hope, everyone knew the odds and supporters knew that staying active and fighting the establishment in their area was next regardless whether or not Ron was the nominee. We had to put liberty-minded people in every position there is from top to bottom. There was good that came from staying in the fight, namely our people taking over the GOP in several states. That should be happening all over the country.

The campaign didn't produce its first TV attack ad against Rick Santorum in Iowa, they waited until after Iowa to attack him. I think they even wasted money attacking him in South Carolina...
They were like freaking snails in reacting and getting stuff done properly. I was calling/emailing the campaign 2 weeks into December, telling them to attack Santorum. NOTHING.

In a last ditch effort, I contacted Rick Perry's campaign and sent them the same draft ad I had sent to Ron Paul 2012. You know, my enemy's enemy is my friend idea. Within 24 hours of Rick Perry's campaign getting it, they had a version up and going in Iowa. Unfortunately, that was only a few days before the caucus.

And no, it was a complete waste of the supporters' time in states like Maine and Louisiana. The campaign gave away half the delegates in LA. And the RNC didn't even recognize the delegates from Maine. So, those supporters unfortunately spent all that time/money, trying to do something for a campaign that didn't even care.

Oh, and if Romney was always the supposed nominee, then I guess that means when someone like Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee are the presumptive nominees, Rand Paul 2016 won't ever attack them...because after all, that doesn't make any sense at all. Do you not see the stupidity of that idea? You're just going to allow the presumptive nominee to waltz into the nomination, and with Ron Paul 2012, it was with the help of the campaign.

[Matt Collins]

One other thing. Taking on the Romney machine in the early primary season would've been supremely stupid strategically and financially.

Don't waste your time trying to explain it to him, he doesn't care. He only wants to be divisive and spew lies. Apparently he has an agenda of his own :rolleyes:

[jjdoyle]

Don't waste your time trying to explain it to him, he doesn't care. He only wants to be divisive and spew lies. Apparently he has an agenda of his own :rolleyes:

I didn't say I disagreed with that point, I guess you can't comprehend that because you are nothing more than a defender of a lying campaign. Trying to make sure you have a seat at the rotten table of liars, with your stupid plastic chicken dinners you always peddle.

You have an agenda, of making sure you collect a paycheck off the backs of others. I'm here for the grassroots, not sure why you are here...other than to continue to attack others that you can't address with legitimate points?

Ron Paul 2012 was dishonest with supporters, from the moment they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, and kept the campaign going.

Ron Paul 2012 didn't attack Rick Santorum in Iowa, the same way they helped destroy Newt. It was only after Iowa that they released a TV ad attacking Santorum. Which is interesting. It was only after Iowa that Santorum was really a threat to King Romney.

Ron Paul 2012 wasted over $100K running attack ads against Rick Santorum in Michigan, so they could help King Romney win the nomination.

[Bryan]

Let's please keep things civil and respectful.

Thanks!

[jjdoyle]

One other thing. Taking on the Romney machine in the early primary season would've been supremely stupid strategically and financially.

Also, when you say "early in the primary season", Michigan wasn't early. It was the perfect time.

There had already been 8 caucuses/primaries before Michigan, as I broke down a few months ago. And, Ron Paul 2012 never attacked only Mitt Romney in Texas or California, so they didn't want to attack him early...and they didn't attack him late? I guess this means Rand Paul 2016 will never attack anybody like Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee when they are the presumptive nominee?

"Here are the vote totals for candidates that had won the popular votes in states up until the Michigan and Arizona vote on February 28th (not counting Iowa since it ended in basically a tie for Romney and Santorum):
Mitt Romney had won 4 primaries/caucuses (New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Maine).
Rick Santorum had won 3 primaries/caucuses (Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota).
Newt Gingrich had won 1 primary/caucus (South Carolina).
Ron Paul 0.

Again, this is not delegate counts, but the popular vote as reported by the media.

It should be noted here, that Ron Paul lost Maine, by 2% points. Ron Paul 2012 never ran a single attack ad against only Romney in the state, and it was Ron's first chance outside of Iowa to really upset the apple cart with the popular vote totals reported by the media. Ron Paul 2012 had already run attack ads against just Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum, but NONE for just Romney.

Then, on February 28th, Mitt Romney won both Arizona and Michigan. Barely getting a victory over Rick Santorum in Michigan, by 3%, thanks in part to Ron Paul 2012 helping attack Rick Santorum with campaign funds running a TV attack ad against him.

With Romney winning both states on February 28th, that brought his total state victories to 6:
Romney - 6 states (New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Maine, Arizona, Michigan)
Santorum - 3 states (Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota)
Gingrich - 1 state (South Carolina)
Paul - 0 states

The simple math if Santorum had won Michigan:
Romney 5 states
Santorum 4 states
Gingrich 1
Paul 0

What was after that?
Wyoming's might have swung to Santorum, because he lost it only by 7% to Romney. Wyoming's is a weird one though, spread over a period of time not just one day from what I'm looking at (apparently something like Maine).
Then on March 3rd there was Washington, and Romney won that one with 38% of the vote to Ron Paul's 25% and Rick Santorum's 24%.

So, before Super Tuesday happened, this was is what the state totals were:
Mitt Romney - 8 (New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Maine, Arizona, Michigan, Wyoming, and Washington)
Rick Santorum - 3 (Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota)
Newt Gingrich - 1 (South Carolina)
Ron Paul - 0

Then after Super Tuesday, which had 10 states voting, the results were:
Romney - 14 (picked up Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Ohio, Vermont, and Virginia)
Santorum - 6 (picked up North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee)
Gingrich - 2 (picking up Georgia)
Ron Paul - 0

Why did Romney win the nomination? Because Ron Paul 2012 never ran a single attack ad against only him, in any state, trying to cause a brokered convention. Ron Paul 2012 helped Mitt Romney defeat Rick Santorum in Michigan, which gave Romney momentum, and taking momentum away from Santorum.

Had Romney lost Michigan to Santorum, Super Tuesday would have been an absolute massacre between Romney and Santorum with attack ads, because of how close the race would have still been."

[Matt Collins]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/834879_s.gif

[jjdoyle]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/834879_s.gif

Thanks for adding to the conversation!

Ron Paul 2012 was 100% dishonest with supporters the moment they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, because they might be attacked back.

If you donated to Ron Paul 2012, please contact the campaign and ask them for a refund of your donations. They are just sitting on funds, paying two staffers small amounts each month, and various other fees. Instead, get your donation back from Ron Paul 2012 that was supposed to be used to help Ron Paul win the nomination and presidency, and give it to somebody that can use it now, like Greg Brannon.

I'm just glad Ron Paul 2012 still has funds on hand, and apparently followed the life advice that Dave Ramsey likes to give out to mundanes, about living on less than you make. That fortunately means some around here might be able to get a refund, and give it other candidates that need it now.

[rich34]

I'm not selling anything, but you asked why people might be burnt out. I give you the very reasons some are (ones I talk to and know), and you don't buy it? I'm not surprised. You can try to deny the truth, but the facts are pretty obvious to anybody when they see them presented. There is another Ron Paul 2012 staffer around here that can't address them either though, because he's apparently trying to make sure he has a seat at Rand's 2016 table as well.

The only ax I'm grinding, is truth to power. I mean, do you really think that you can lie to supporters about being "in it to win it" and fighting all the way to the convention, then them realizing they were being lied to for months and the campaign was not serious about winning it, and it is going to encourage people to remain in politics? Begging them for more, more, more, then ending the campaign with more than a million cash-on-hand?

I understand people's frustration with the campaign not attacking Romney in 2012, but seriously, does anyone remember back in 08 when Ron simply walked into the convention and was followed by I'm assuming secret service types and Ron saying this on foxnews then going on saying that he was so uncomfortable that he wouldn't be going back? Then onto 2012 when he and his family was going to board that plane but was held up and harassed by the homeland peeps?

I suppose what I'm trying to say is I think there was definately a lot more going on behind the scenes than we realize in regards to harassment by government or other entities and maybe could have included death threats to him or worse his family. It's easy for us to ask Ron or his family to be sacrificial martyrs for the cause, but is that really fair or simply right for any of us to ask? Of course not. Sure I was as frustrated as anybody with the campaign failing to attack Romney, but when some of these attacks on him and his family came to light I understood and got over it.

Don't bother waisting your time, I know the counter to this is well the campaign should have been straight forward with people and shut the campaign down. Well I think even with this threat by Romney in place Ron and the campaign still had hopes of positioning itself as the main alternative to Romney but the media and Santorum made sure that didn't happen. So I think at the time still hoping to position himself as the anti Romney candidate it would have been premature to shut down the campaign. Hell as I was typing this I remembered what really to the wind out of taking it to the convention talk by the campaign was after the meeting with benarke in may of that year. I remember watching interviews of Ron after that meeting and hell he looked like he saw a flipping ghost. Ron nor the campaign never spoke of what all that meeting entailed. I thought then that some sort of threat was made to him or worse his family.

So to sum it up I think the campaign had initially still held out hope of being the anti Romney candidate without having Romney following through with whatever threat it made, but it just didn't work out as it hoped because of that **** **** Santorum playing to the social cons.

I think the best we can do is move on and look to the future because that's all we can change now, not arguing over the past.

[Matt Collins]

Ron Paul 2012 was 100% dishonest



You are LYING again!

[rich34]

When they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, and instead help him win it by attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan (as I posted HERE, you might have missed that post (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?436227-Steve-Deace-quot-What-the-Liberty-Movement-could-learn-quot&p=5354160&viewfull=1#post5354160)), the campaign should have closed shop. By attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, they helped Mitt Romney win that state. If Romney had lost Michigan to Santorum, the entire race would have been a mess moving forward.

And no, I don't remember the big donor event, do you have a link? But hopefully for Rand's sake, they are on board with him and not simply playing a game...
Apparently, some around here think only Rand can play political games.

Either way, if you donated to Ron Paul 2012, you should ask them for a refund and give it to Rand's latest effort, or even better, someone like Greg Brannon. It's better used there, than sitting in some bank account paying two measly salaries of two staffers each month.

See my post above why I think still it would have been premature closing up shop at the point you're suggesting. The campaign was still hoping to position itself as the only real alternative to Romney. I can live with that strategy. But with all I said above do you remember all the shit that was going on with Ron and the meeting with helicopter Ben in May of that year? That to me was when the campaign was over and watching Ron in interviews after that you could see through his body language that some sort of threat was made and if so how can you, I, or anyone ask Ron to be a martyr for your or anyone else's cause? You can't.. All we can do is change the future not the past... We ought to move on and do what we can to help Rand in his efforts to continue to bring about change that will help our cause.

[rich34]

You are LYING again!

Well I'm not so sure he's lying from *his point of view, but I do agree that I personally do not think the campaign was 100% dishonest as he's suggesting. I hope I have said or at least reminded some of folks of what was going on at the time and what the campaign was shooting for being the anti Romney candidate. Well shit they took a gamble and lost, oh well we knew going into it that there was going to be only a very small small chance of him winning the nomination anyway.

And actually if anyone couldn't see the way the media and cnn's fake poll in Iowa boosting Santorum to the front in literally a week or so time they along with the Republican Party were never going to let Ron win anyway. Rand's taking a different approach in trying to be "acceptable" to the GOP establishment after seeing first hand how his father was treated and yet he still gets attacked for "selling out." Bull shit! There's no point in arguing over this or using this issue to attack Matt for whatever personal disdain you have for him. So he worked for Ron's campaign, well hell good for him! How many others on here would love to be in that position and do the same? So he's angling for a possible job working on Rand's campaign? Same thing big fucking deal! Who among us wouldn't treasure the opportunity? We can't change the past but some how I don't think this is what it's about rather possibly a personal vandetta.

[jjdoyle]

Well I'm not so sure he's lying from *his point of view, but I do agree that I personally do not think the campaign was 100% dishonest as he's suggesting. I hope I have said or at least reminded some of folks of what was going on at the time and what the campaign was shooting for being the anti Romney candidate. Well shit they took a gamble and lost, oh well we knew going into it that there was going to be only a very small small chance of him winning the nomination anyway.

And actually if anyone couldn't see the way the media and cnn's fake poll in Iowa boosting Santorum to the front in literally a week or so time they along with the Republican Party were never going to let Ron win anyway. Rand's taking a different approach in trying to be "acceptable" to the GOP establishment after seeing first hand how his father was treated and yet he still gets attacked for "selling out." Bull shit! There's no point in arguing over this or using this issue to attack Matt for whatever personal disdain you have for him. So he worked for Ron's campaign, well hell good for him! How many others on here would love to be in that position and do the same? So he's angling for a possible job working on Rand's campaign? Same thing big fucking deal! Who among us wouldn't treasure the opportunity? We can't change the past but some how I don't think this is what it's about rather possibly a personal vandetta.

Could you provide a link to anything to back up your theories? Also, what convention are you talking about Ron going to in '08, followed by some secret service types? He didn't go to the RNC in '08, because he endorsed a third party candidate (Chuck Baldwin), and held the Rally for the Republic event nearby the convention.

AND if the supposed death threats were real from the powers that be, as you suggest, then what makes you think Rand or ANY real liberty candidate has a chance to get near the White House?

Also, not sure where I have attacked anybody, unless you think addressing the actual points brought up and providing history/facts/links is attacking people. Perhaps you can show me where I repeatedly call someone a liar? Slow? Or, the like?

It is a fact Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney before Michigan, and instead wasted at least $100K of supporters' money helping Mitt Romney win that state by attacking Rick Santorum there instead.

And if you're wondering, since you did ask, I wouldn't treasure working on a political campaign with people that actively lie to supporters. If Jesse Benton is anywhere near Rand Paul 2016, that is a huge issue. Hopefully, Rand has learned from the mistakes of Ron Paul 2012, but I don't see it. Especially considering some he hired on as his staff after Ron Paul 2012, that used the campaign website to defend a lying endorsement of Mitt Romney.

Oh, and if you think it's a personal vendetta against Matt, you're wrong. Maybe for Matt it is, since he can't address the actual campaign lies and repeatedly tries to defend a complete fraud that it was/is (because it's still sitting on money, paying staffers).
This is simply about Ron Paul 2012 being dishonest with supporters, and helping destroy forward momentum by actively helping Mitt Romney win the nomination without any waves at the RNC.

If you donated to Ron Paul 2012, again, make sure to contact them and ask them for a refund. There are candidates that could use the money now.

[rich34]

Could you provide a link to anything to back up your theories? Also, what convention are you talking about Ron going to in '08, followed by some secret service types? He didn't go to the RNC in '08, because he endorsed a third party candidate (Chuck Baldwin), and held the Rally for the Republic event nearby the convention.

AND if the supposed death threats were real from the powers that be, as you suggest, then what makes you think Rand or ANY real liberty candidate has a chance to get near the White House?

Also, not sure where I have attacked anybody, unless you think addressing the actual points brought up and providing history/facts/links is attacking people. Perhaps you can show me where I repeatedly call someone a liar? Slow? Or, the like?

It is a fact Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney before Michigan, and instead wasted at least $100K of supporters' money helping Mitt Romney win that state by attacking Rick Santorum there instead.

And if you're wondering, since you did ask, I wouldn't treasure working on a political campaign with people that actively lie to supporters. If Jesse Benton is anywhere near Rand Paul 2016, that is a huge issue. Hopefully, Rand has learned from the mistakes of Ron Paul 2012, but I don't see it. Especially considering some he hired on as his staff after Ron Paul 2012, that used the campaign website to defend a lying endorsement of Mitt Romney.

Oh, and if you think it's a personal vendetta against Matt, you're wrong. Maybe for Matt it is, since he can't address the actual campaign lies and repeatedly tries to defend a complete fraud that it was/is (because it's still sitting on money, paying staffers).
This is simply about Ron Paul 2012 being dishonest with supporters, and helping destroy forward momentum by actively helping Mitt Romney win the nomination without any waves at the RNC.

If you donated to Ron Paul 2012, again, make sure to contact them and ask them for a refund. There are candidates that could use the money now.

Sure I'll try and find you a link for everything I said which is true, I have no reason to lie about anything I said. I will say I did do a quick google search for the Ron Paul treatment in 08 and couldn't find anything, but yes Ron Paul did go to the convention. Not as a speaker, but he did show up to speak with his delegates and supporters who did attend. After making the rounds he went on foxnews or cnn and spoke to them and in that interview he mentioned getting followed around by security making him feel uncomfortable. He went onto bitch about how he as a republican congressman regardless of his status running for president had a right to be there by default. He then said that he would not be coming back and spoke of his own convention he was having across town.

As for 2012, yes there were even threads on this forum speculating and talking about possible threats to he and his family. And no they weren't just threads there were several comments made by Ron himself that if you read between the lines could get what he was saying. Here's a link I found about the meeting with Bernanke and yes my memory severed me correct as it was dated May 10th 2012. Here's a small message from the article:

"The Fed chief and lawmaker had “sort of an open discussion,” Mr. Paul said, while declining to provide any details of the conversation. “It was off the record,” he said. The Fed declined to comment on the meeting."

So Ron declined to give any insight as to what was said saying it was off the record, along with the Fed simply declining to even comment. Interesting..

But it wasn't just this, in the interviews given after this meeting took place, you could just see the despair in his face and voice. That's when I realized no brokered convention was ever going to occur. So sure, based on this interview alone it would simply be speculation on my part that any kind of threat was made, but remembering and watching all the interviews given afterwards and then this which is what I was saying based off memory:

"Ron, Carol, and one of their granddaughters left the GOP snake pit yesterday afternoon, but the State was not yet through with them. At the little airport in Clearwater, 8 TSA agents descended on them and ordered them not to board their private plane. First, the pilots, the airplane, and the passengers would have to be screened in great detail, because Romney might be nearby. After a long examination of the pilots and their credentials, the agents said they had to check the plane for explosives. One of the pilots noted that the plane, full of gas, was already a bomb. Then Carol Paul, who has a heart pacemaker, refused to be screened, and an aide started taking video of the whole rotten proceeding. At that point, the TSA backed down and let them through."

http://deadlinelive.info/2012/08/29/tsa-homeland-security-harass-ron-and-carol-paul-leaving-tampa-fl/

I don't have the time right now, I'm getting ready to head to a family members for New Year's Eve, but I promise when I get the time I'll try and do a more thorough investigation of everything I said just so you know where I'm coming from.

"The same dichotomy playing out everywhere else between Romney and an anti-Romney is happening here, but in Maine, the non-Romney candidate is Ron Paul," Quatrano said."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/politics/gop-february/

Again I'm doing my best to find references very quickly with my wife at my heels but here's another one that I'm trying my best to show you what I'm saying. But I really gotta go now the wife is getting pissed... :-(

[jjdoyle]

You are LYING again!

Bill O'Reilly, is that you? Ignoring actual facts/history, to start screaming and yelling when you the facts and history don't match up to your talking points? LOL!

Again, Ron Paul 2012 was 100% dishonest with supporters from the moment they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney in February (at the latest), and instead helped him win the nomination by attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan instead of attacking Mitt Romney.



"Ron, Carol, and one of their granddaughters left the GOP snake pit yesterday afternoon, but the State was not yet through with them. At the little airport in Clearwater, 8 TSA agents descended on them and ordered them not to board their private plane. First, the pilots, the airplane, and the passengers would have to be screened in great detail, because Romney might be nearby. After a long examination of the pilots and their credentials, the agents said they had to check the plane for explosives. One of the pilots noted that the plane, full of gas, was already a bomb. Then Carol Paul, who has a heart pacemaker, refused to be screened, and an aide started taking video of the whole rotten proceeding. At that point, the TSA backed down and let them through."

http://deadlinelive.info/2012/08/29/tsa-homeland-security-harass-ron-and-carol-paul-leaving-tampa-fl/

I don't have the time right now, I'm getting ready to head to a family members for New Year's Eve, but I promise when I get the time I'll try and do a more thorough investigation of everything I said just so you know where I'm coming from.

"The same dichotomy playing out everywhere else between Romney and an anti-Romney is happening here, but in Maine, the non-Romney candidate is Ron Paul," Quatrano said."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/politics/gop-february/

Again I'm doing my best to find references very quickly with my wife at my heels but here's another one that I'm trying my best to show you what I'm saying. But I really gotta go now the wife is getting pissed... :-(

First, I hope you and your family had a happy New Year's Eve/Day!

Second though, the airport incident that supposedly happened in Florida, was exactly that...in Florida. After the campaign had already thrown supporters under the bus, so that would have probably been the TSA being the TSA. How many TSA agents do you think could identify every member of Congress? If your average TSA employee is like your average American, they are as clueless and just "following orders" at their jobs like most.

And another thing, if "...and an aide started taking video of the whole rotten proceeding.", did that video ever get published? Again, that doesn't really matter to me since this incident was after Ron Paul 2012 had tossed supporters under the Romney 12 bus, but I find it odd they make that claim, but I can't recall that video being published?