Beyond 2008

[Meistro1]

I sincerely believe Ron Paul has a shot at the presidency. Right now, I figure him around 10% to win the nomination and 8% to win the presidency (I see him winning virtually any matchup aside from Paul vs Obama and I think he'd have a good shot in that).

Whether he wins or loses, I think we should think about the future as well. How can we carry on the Ron Paul Revolution on into the next congressional races? Senate races? The next presidential bid?

What are your ideas?

[Meistro1]

(for clarification, that puts him at around 80% to win the presidency IF nominated).

[Richie]

Nomination is the difficult part. If he's nominated, I have no doubt that he would the election by a landslide. The Republicans know this, which is why they're going to do everything within their grasp to prevent it. Including - rigging the primary. I really hate to discuss rigging elections. It's something I don't want to think about. But not thinking about it isn't going to fix it.

[isufferfromronpaulfever]

I really hate to discuss rigging elections. It's something I don't want to think about. But not thinking about it isn't going to fix it.

I fully agree and if that is the case... well... we're attacking a battleship from our canoe. :(

[mport1]

The Libertarian Party. Unless we can find another libertarian like Dr. Paul that can sneak in as a Republican.

[Thor]

The Libertarian Party. Unless we can find another libertarian like Dr. Paul that can sneak in as a Republican.

The Libertarian Party is a waste. They go no where. Hell they aren't even supporting Dr Paul as that Phillies guy has his Google Adwords ads all over this forum.

I had great hope for the LP when I found out about them in 1996. 10 years and nothing doing....

[mdh]

The Libertarian Party is a waste. They go no where. Hell they aren't even supporting Dr Paul as that Phillies guy has his Google Adwords ads all over this forum.

I had great hope for the LP when I found out about them in 1996. 10 years and nothing doing....

There are a lot of good folks in the LP. George Phillies does NOT speak for the majority of the Libertarian Party. Instead, look at Steve Kubby (if you want a 2008 candidate who is on the level and supports Dr. Paul), or Michael Badnarik or Aaron Russo, both of whom were contenders for the nomination in the 2004 election cycle.

[0zzy]

He should run for governor ? :) Maybe if the federal courts tried to force something upon Texas he'd make Texas an independent nation and it'll start other countries from leaving the United States until they get state rights and then there will be a civil war and revolutionary war at the same time which will lead to global chaos !

Hrm.. maybe a bad plan.

[Thor]

There are a lot of good folks in the LP. George Phillies does NOT speak for the majority of the Libertarian Party. Instead, look at Steve Kubby (if you want a 2008 candidate who is on the level and supports Dr. Paul), or Michael Badnarik or Aaron Russo, both of whom were contenders for the nomination in the 2004 election cycle.

Russo is a great guy and probably would have done better than Badnarik. But the LP did not endorse Russo. He was not 100% libertarian enough. You have got to tow the line 100% in your beliefs or your not going to get the nod. And what did Badnarik do? nadda, yet again...

They might be good people, but they can't do diddly. 35 years and they are no better off then when they first showed up as the supposed "3rd party".

Ron Paul has distanced himself from the LP because of the hard line attitude and go no where performance. Is he a libertarian, yes, for sure. Is he a Libertarian? not really.... (that is Phillies point in his ads) And it is far better that way.

Heck, maybe Ron Paul will create a new party out of all this that does not have the LP hard line attitude and go no where results and "image" in the political world. (Yes, the LP has been branded by some of the people they put up for office)

The new party might be the R3VOLution Party.

[mdh]

Russo is a great guy and probably would have done better than Badnarik. But the LP did not endorse Russo.

I think Aaron could have possibly done better in the generals, but Michael was certainly not a bad pick either. Both have since gone on to do really awesome stuff, regardless.


He was not 100% libertarian enough. You have got to tow the line 100% in your beliefs or your not going to get the nod. And what did Badnarik do? nadda, yet again...

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I assure you there's lots more going on behind the scenes that has little to do with ideology. It's unfortunate.


They might be good people, but they can't do diddly. 35 years and they are no better off then when they first showed up as the supposed "3rd party".

I'm not sure about that - votes-wise and candidates and offices wise, the LP is actually truly the *third* party now, albeit a really distant third.


Ron Paul has distanced himself from the LP because of the hard line attitude and go no where performance. Is he a libertarian, yes, for sure. Is he a Libertarian? not really.... (that is Phillies point in his ads) And it is far better that way.

I agree that it's better than way only because of the fact that running as a Republican eliminates our two biggest presidential race gripes - ballot access and real debate access. You'll remember that Dr. Paul in fact has run for president as a Libertarian, even! Dr. Paul is certainly one of us (again, Phillies doesn't speak for the majority of us in the LP).


Heck, maybe Ron Paul will create a new party out of all this that does not have the LP hard line attitude and go no where results and "image" in the political world. (Yes, the LP has been branded by some of the people they put up for office)

The new party might be the R3VOLution Party.

I do not see it happening. He'll stay a Republican to keep his congressional seat until he retires from politics altogether.

You say that the LP has garnered some bad rep because of a few national candidates, etc, but what you fail to realize is that divisions exist in every party. Joseph Biden is a blatantly pro-war candidate for the Dems' presidential nomination. On the Republican side, you run the gammet from would-be theocrat Brownback to libertarian Paul to cross-dressin' Rudy.

Candidates should be judged individually. Parties only muck up the whole thing, in my opinion, anyway - but as they go, the LP is by far the best there is, and I doubt you could really run an organization of the size and scope of the LP and do so with fewer problems than the LP has. That's what it comes down to.

[Thor]

This thread was about beyond 2008. I think a new party might be what could come out of this. Revolution Party, Revolutionary Party, whatever.

Should Ron Paul leave the GOP. No way. Not at all. But for beyond 2008 and the group that has formed here, win or loose, a new party with a fresh start and new image might be a good way to keep all this energy flowing.

I will be interested in the LP if they ever break 2% in a national election and put someone out there who could actually win, not the LP that keeps sticking to principles and putting up someone that very few can connect with and going into it knowing that they are going to get 0.5 - 1 %, yet again. Flip Flop Mitt has camera appeal. That alone will push him far along. Hopefully not too far, but that is a lot of what he is riding on. Americans like the pretty people.

And my comment about image was not about the national elections. It was actually more aimed at the local elections. Some real "interesting" people have run for local office on the LP ticket.

[mdh]

This thread was about beyond 2008. I think a new party might be what could come out of this. Revolution Party, Revolutionary Party, whatever.

Should Ron Paul leave the GOP. No way. Not at all. But for beyond 2008 and the group that has formed here, win or loose, a new party with a fresh start and new image might be a good way to keep all this energy flowing.

I think that the LP already exists and is a perfect home for many of the folks of this movement. Dividing such like-minded folks seems counter-productive.


I will be interested in the LP if they ever break 2% in a national election and put someone out there who could actually win, not the LP that keeps sticking to principles and putting up someone that very few can connect with and going into it knowing that they are going to get 0.5 - 1 %, yet again.

Well, there're a lot of folks with the "if they can do..." attitude, and really it seems unfortunate to me. My attitude is one of "if I can do... - then I will be happy in and of myself". It's nice that you want the LP to do something, but if you're not willing to put your own energy into making it happen, why should anyone else?

[Akus]

He needs to retire if he loses and pass the torch to one of his kids.

Or he needs to join the Constitution party, as the Libertarians are too all over the place to get their crap together, and run as an independent and be a pain the posterior for both donkeys and elephants.

[Thor]

I already put my energy and $ into the LP. And in 10 years, nadda.

I think splitting from the LP, if even from a pure marketing and image thing, would be a great way to actually break out of the rut that has plagued them for so long.

At the end of the day, I want Freedom and Liberty. And the LP ain't gonna do it. They have had 35 years and have not done anything really.

With the way things are going with National ID cards, the Patriot Act, etc, the door is shutting and shutting fast. And the LP knew long ago all this was going to happen. Not is specific terms, but in general terms. And yet they sit at 1%.

We need a new face. Ron Paul is leading that. But beyond that, we can't go back to the same old, same old and expect change.

And BTW, of course I knew RP ran as a Libertarian. And I also know he does not mention them at all if he can help it unless he is pressed on it.

[Syren123]

The most long lasting change has to happen from within individual states. Kind of like infiltrating the apple and eating it from the inside out.

Taking on the behemoth of the established parties head on is futile! (Resistance is Futile lol). People should take the example of the New Hampshire Free State Project and change their locales from the INSIDE. Read "101 Reasons to Move to New Hampshire" (www.freestateproject.org) - it talks about the size of the districts, how elections are winnable, how lots of FSPers and their supporters are already in govt in NH....interesting.

Small to medium population states also have this potential of replacing crony politicians with libertarian/constitution minded candidates. The big corrupt states like CA are already wholely owned subsidiaries of special interests so no need to bother with them for the moment.

Just a suggestion. Work locally. Run for office yourself.

[foofighter20x]

I fully agree and if that is the case... well... we're attacking a battleship from our canoe. :(

At least we got a torpedo (that would be Dr Paul). :D

[Matt Collins]

we're attacking a battleship from our canoe. :(I think some colonists tried that in the late 1700s against the British battleships and won.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Elections of libertarians and other Paul-like candidates will never happen unless America as a whole changes its views on what the role of government should be, and what kind of society we would like to live in.

The best thing that can come out of the Ron Paul movement (other than winning the 08 election) is that a lot of people who were motivated to start spreading the message of freedom to others now, will continue to do so after the election is over.

Some of the young Ron Paul supporters just may grow up to run the country some day.

[bygone]

Truth sits upon the lips of dying men.

[USPatriot36]

If Ron Paul wins the Primary or comes in a close second, then I think our plan would be to take over the Republican Party. (Especially if Ron Paul feels up for another run in 2012.) If we don't do well, then we may have to look for another party.

If either the Libertarians or the Constitutional party adopt Ron Pauls views exactly as he has laid them out, then I can see going with whichever one does. Where these two parties diverge from Paul is where they are wrong on the issues. His platform is right for America and that is why it gathers support from all over the spectrum. Though most Americans will not agree with his platform 100 percent, I think a majority of Americans will see his platform as close enough to their liking that it is something they can support.

Assuming neither party is wise enough to embrace Ron Paul's platform then we will be in a tough spot. Starting a new party will be a long shot because we will have our supporters drawn to the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian and Constitutionalist parties. Starting a new party would require a leader like Ron Paul to gather around and Ron Paul isn't getting any younger.

We could try a two prong effort to infiltrate both the Republican and Democratic parties. Electing people with Ron Paul beliefs to the House from whatever party they come from. In the long run, taking over the House is necessary regardless of who the President is. It is called the PEOPLE'S House because it is the branch of government that is suppose to reflect the will of the PEOPLE.

The entire House is up for election every two years. We could immediately begin working on House elections at whatever point Ron Paul Wins or Loses the election. If we lose in 2008 then we start working on 2010 immediately instead of letting the Revolution fall apart waiting on 2012.

[nakor667]

I agree, retaking the Republican Party back from the neocons should be our top priority, and frankly the only way for the Republicans to regain any political clout aside from another attack.

If we can't kick them out, the next option would be to split the conservative base off and form our Revolutionary Party, ideally absorbing the libertarians and constitutionalists along the way. This could take awhile though.

More short term would be the Free State Project: http://www.freestateproject.org/
Large numbers of die hard followers move to an area, become a political majority, and lead by example.

Even further down the road, if we want to bypass Washington DC entirely, we can begin preparations for a new Consitutional Convention...



(amazed by the enthusiasm of RP supporters. Religions have been started on less than this)

[mport1]

The LP already has a party in place. Why try to replace it with a new party? As long as we all jump on board, we can change the LP for the better.

[mtmedlin]

The LP already has a party in place. Why try to replace it with a new party? As long as we all jump on board, we can change the LP for the better.

Momentum without taint. Libertarians are tainted with the image of the "wasted vote" because they consistently nominate the "Best Libertarian" instead of the most electable libertarian. I loved Harry Browne but I knew that he wasn't going to win. I think that there is a large segment of people who are politically in the center and Ron Paul has the capability to unite several small groups (Libertarians, Constitution Party etc.) and bring in the disenfranchised Dems. and Reps.
I have also thought about forming just a PAC (The Constitutionalist PAC) that endorses candidates of any party that agree and have shown support for a set of pre-determined values. That way if there was a Dem. who was more like Ron Paul then he could say "Iam a Constitutionalist Democrat". Then have them vote together on issues forming a coalition of "Constitutionalists" Once there were enough of them elected into the House or Senate. They could form a new party together in a large combined news conference.

I know its grandiose but I think overall it would be easier to use the two party system against itself to attain power.

[ZackM]

I think this might be the best bet ... they seem to have some organization in nearly every state.

http://www.rlc.org

I'm strongly considering joining this group. This is the GOP organization that Ron Paul has served as national chair, and will probably give him an official endorsement. It seems to be THE libertarian wing of the Republican party. If all the meetup groups joined and became active in their local RLC chapter, it would go a long way to getting more liberty minded individuals in office.

If 10's of thousands of "new" republicans register this year to vote for Ron Paul, it seems logical to me that they should stay registered and fight from within. The LP hasn't been able to do much from outside the two party system. I say give it a shot from within.

If die-hard grass roots efforts can get RLC republicans nominated in congressional races (which is a heckuva lot easier than gettin ga presidential nomination) there's a real chance to win elections.

[winston_blade]

Third parties are a waste of time and money. They don't have a shot. Instead, run as a Republican or Democrat. That is the only way anyone has a chance of being elected. If Ross Perot can't do it on his own, no one can.

[mdh]

Third parties are a waste of time and money. They don't have a shot. Instead, run as a Republican or Democrat. That is the only way anyone has a chance of being elected. If Ross Perot can't do it on his own, no one can.

Did you learn this from government schools? :)

Seriously, defeatism never won anything.

[Richie]

I think this might be the best bet ... they seem to have some organization in nearly every state.

http://www.rlc.org

I'm strongly considering joining this group. This is the GOP organization that Ron Paul has served as national chair, and will probably give him an official endorsement. It seems to be THE libertarian wing of the Republican party. If all the meetup groups joined and became active in their local RLC chapter, it would go a long way to getting more liberty minded individuals in office.

If 10's of thousands of "new" republicans register this year to vote for Ron Paul, it seems logical to me that they should stay registered and fight from within. The LP hasn't been able to do much from outside the two party system. I say give it a shot from within.

If die-hard grass roots efforts can get RLC republicans nominated in congressional races (which is a heckuva lot easier than gettin ga presidential nomination) there's a real chance to win elections.

I've given the RLC a lot of thought as well. They definitely have the right idea. But look at their endorsements for 2006. It's literally EVERY Republican.

[1000-points-of-fright]

If RP joined the Constitution Party I would have a hard time supporting him. Those people walk too close to the theocratic edge for my tastes.

But getting back to the subject.. beyond 2008. Say he wins. Awesome. But how much of his vision can he actually implement? What happens in 2012 if he chooses not to run for a second term? He will be 73 when he takes office. What's to stop the old guard from thwarting him at every turn and returning to power in 2012 or 2016?

These are the questions we need to be preparing for in addition to just getting him elected. Just because he becomes president doesn't mean we'll be living in a constitutional paradise. We need to encourage more local and state candidates to back up a President Paul to ensure that the government keeps going in the right direction and make it more difficult for the current status quo to return.

[nullvalu]

If RP joined the Constitution Party I would have a hard time supporting him. Those people walk too close to the theocratic edge for my tastes.

Agreed, I was really interested in them, but a bit turned off after reading their stance on issues.. Not that I disagree with them, but just that every paragraph all but quotes a verse from the Bible.

[ZackM]

I've given the RLC a lot of thought as well. They definitely have the right idea. But look at their endorsements for 2006. It's literally EVERY Republican.

I thought that at first, but look a little closer. In 2006 they endorsed a grand total of "nearly 100" republicans at all levels of government. That's not very many.

In the US House for example, I counted a total of 33 endorsements (out of 435 seats), and that included some folks who lost in the primary.

On the senate side, they had 12 endorsements, including primaries.

For an actual GOP organization to endorse congressional candidates in less than 10% of all races is pretty remarkable.

http://www.republicanliberty.org/candid/

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

If every person involved in Ron Paul's campaign would just register as a Republican and get involved in Republican politics, the party would change in less than a year.

It's all a numbers game. There aren't THAT many people who are really involved in politics. A block of 50-75 people at a county convention could influence who gets elected to leadership positions. A block of 500-750 at a state convention could topple current leadership.

Everyone in a meet-up group should pledge to join the local Republican party. If the 100 or so involved in a city's meetup joined the county's Young Republican organization, for example, #1 the YR group would welcome the membership, #2, in a YR group, Ron Paul's ideas would be received better, and #3, by numbers, you'd get that YR group as a Ron Paul group. YRs become ORGANIZATION REPUBLICANS.

Become a precinct chair, or a precinct captain. I'm the "de-facto" chair for Precinct 65 in Mecklenburg County, NC, because we don't have an official one. Ask, and you'll receive. It's not going to be all that difficult to take the party over at the grass roots. Use the energy that's already been used to spread Dr. Paul's message. Heck, it would actually be easier.

[Syren123]

LOL! Looks like even the RLC can get flim-flammed by a charlatan posing as a liberty republican. Take for example, Jeff Flake of AZ, the illegal alien amnesty loving liberal traitor and co-author of the wholesale government giveaway that was the Flake-Gutierrez bill. Either he really was at one time a liberty repub conservative and was abducted by aliens, or he drank some lobbyist kool-aid and went to the dark side. Either way, he should be BANNED from any further rlc endorsement and voted out on his ass in 2008.

[freelance]

I suggest that we centralize in some kind of DailyKos-type site (they seem to illustrate it best) and shoot for a yearly conference the way they do. What I like about their site is that members of Congress post occasionally.

[TeeJay]

I favor joining the Republican Liberty Caucus en masse.

http://www.rlc.org/

Its a great name and good organization to promote liberty and constitutionalist minded candidates.

I believe Ron Paul was a past chairman. It seems to be a good fit with the Ron Paul REVOLUTION. Resistance by the outnumbered Neo-cons would be futile. :D