Why Ron Paul Should Not Run for President Again I AM JUST POSTING THIS PIECE-I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT
Why Ron Paul Should Not Run for President Again
I AM JUST POSTING THIS PIECE-I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT
I wish Ron Paul had won the Republican nomination in 2008. I wish Paul had won the general election and was president right now. But he’s not, and by the time the 2012 primaries start, he will be 76 years old. This is past the age of almost any contender for the presidency that I am aware of. (In all of American history, I think only one major party contender was older than that–Mike Gravel in 2008.)
Of course, it is seriously unlikely that Paul would get elected if he did run a second time, so there is arguably no danger in him running what would effectively be another educational campaign. I think the problem is that it gives the impression that the liberty movement is solely focused and led by Ron Paul, which is not the case…or at least I sure as hell hope not. We need to put forth some new blood, which we are already seeing in Congressional and Senate races, most notably Paul’s son Rand in Kentucky. This must eventually be reflected at the top of ticket as well, whether it be in 2012 or later.
There might already be an good candidate out there to pickup where Paul leaves off in former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Johnson appears to be interested in running, and he lines up with Paul the vast majority of the time. Furthermore, he is from the Mountain West where libertarian ideas are most popular, which could deliver whole chunk of delegates.
The great danger here is that the liberty movement could be reduced to infighting if both Paul and Johnson run. The ideal situation in my mind is for Paul to endorse Johnson for president and then proceed to campaign around the country for him during the primaries. Any successful movement needs leaders (pl.). Repeatedly running the same candidate–no matter how ideal–only shows weakness.
Filed under: Uncategorized
One Response to “Why Ron Paul Should Not Run for President Again”
1.
Thomas, on November 18th, 2009 at 2:40 am Said:
This would be a disaster. Ron Paul is best known for his defence of strict constitutionalism and opposition to foreign wars and the Fed. Johnson is best known for his support of drug legalisation. This would allow the “liberty movement” to be tarred and feathered with the brush of social decadence. You would lose most all paleoconservative votes.
If there be no alternative, it is best that Paul run again and that he himself make some effort to groom a future spokesman.
http://www.amconmag.com/postright/2009/11/17/why-ron-paul-sh...
Johnson has no shot, Ventura is an idiot, Dr. Paul is the Man!
This is non-sense. We will not know if Ron Paul can win or not until he runs again, should he decide to. What we do know is that there is nobody who can represent the liberty movement on a national level as well as Dr. Paul. For that reason he has been very clear he is leaving the door open and will consider it.
I pray that he does run again. The only person who maybe I could support if Ron does not run is the Judge.
Gary Johnson has no shot! NONE. ZIP. And moreover, a large part of the coalition Ron Paul has put together will NEVER support Johnson based on his position on certain issues. I also do not believe Dr. Paul would endorse him. I am glad Gary Johnson is on our side, but I could NEVER vote for him at the top of a presidential ticket. Ventura is a self centered idiot with no grasp of economic issues whatsoever. He was a disaster as gov. and has made himself nothing more than a joke since. These two guys cannot represent us like Dr. Paul can.
I believe our only shot to have any chance at making a real difference is for Ron to run again. I will love him all the same, and understand, if he passes, but think its his destiny and he will do it.
RON PAUL 2012
Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!
Ron Paul is old and another campaign will age him.
Out of consideration for his health, I wouldn't pressure him in the slightest bit to run again. It's his call entirely, and I get annoyed when his fans hammer on him about running. It's disrespectful.
That being said, it sure would be interesting!
The more real conservative candidates, the more truth gets out
I encourage *every* real conservative out there to run.
BTW: I was impressed with Gary Johnson.
I like to post things that are positively what I want to say
NOT what I don't want to have spread around.
The only person I know right now that I could get behind with the same force as Ron Paul is Judge Napolitano.
2012 Will Be Much Better Than 2008
When Ron Paul ran in 2007-8, he was not anywhere remotely close to being household name. He was on nobody's radar screen. Very few people had ever even heard of him.
But he burst upon the scene during the Republican debates by the sheer talent and originality of his performance. From there an Internet wave helped propell him to a point where this underdog eventually caught up to the so-called "top-tier" candidates in fundraising....but by that time that happened, the Iowa and New Hampshire races were already upon us, and the Media had had a free reign of 16-months aggressively promoting Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, and even Fred Thompson -- such that there was just too much ground to be made up. The Media and public expectations had already been set. It was too late.
But 2011-2012 will be a different story.
Today, Ron Paul is seen as a sage and authentic alternative voice by much of Cable Media (still ignored by CBS, NBC, ABC). Today Ron Paul is on TV on a regular basis, and seen as the "guy who was right" about many issues. Even his son, Rand Paul is now in position today to win a National U.S. Senate seat.
So unlike 2007-8, Ron Paul will be a factor right from the very beginning. He can and will be competitive right away on a fundraising level. He will draw far greater crowds and enthusiasm right from the beginning (instead of during the middle of the race). As a consequence, the major Media this time will have to talk about him. They will be forced to cover him. And they will even have to include his name in polling, as the crowd sizes and competitive fundraising make it unignorable that Ron Paul has arrived as a "major candidate".
Once again, there is no one to touch him during the debates. He will outshine whatever competition he faces (Romney?, Pawlente?). Everytime that Ron Paul is on TV in these forums, he educates a little bit more and influences a little bit more. His movement has substantial upside, far, far more than any other National candidate.
While the RNC and GOP Leadership will try hard to derail his candidacy, they may also just realize as well that Ron Paul will be the only actual chance that the GOP has to go toe-to-toe against the charismatic Obama and win in the fall.
The point is, that it is NOT true that it is "unlikely Paul will win". The Ron Paul movement will be bigger than ever this time around. The crowds and the money will be in place right from the very beginning. The Media will be forced to recognize him. If Rand Paul wins the Senate seat, that will even enhance the credibility of his candidacy. And finally, a War and Terror weary American public is not going to want to listen to the likes of Romney, Guilinani, Pawlente, etc, babble on about even more War and Torture. That whole 2004 mentality is long gone.
The time is right for a major Ron Paul swing. He was right about the War. He was right about the Federal Reserve. He was right about Gold. No longer are these issues considered "crazy" or "goofy". The ideas that Paul stands for have been also gaining considerable traction on their own.
Mark my words, if Ron Paul organizes very early, and puts in place Statewide Campaign offices early on, and camps out in Iowa and New Hamspire and South Carolina .... he may just be unstoppable -- whether the RNC likes it or or not.
I'm sure that they'll try to recruit Jeb Bush or Dick Cheney or Lindsey Graham at the 11th hour to steal it away from Paul. But if he gets the momentum early, he will be unstoppable. You just can't beat something with nothing.
And Ron Paul is something big.
It will only get bigger.
Agreed. Ron will do better this time around.
He'll most likely have a staff more prepared to handle the money and support of millions.
.
I like your response, a lot!
If Ron Paul is to be a serious candidate he must
1) Begin now. He can't be like other candidates and begin in 2011. The MSM will shut him out just like they did last time. He can't reach the people through them.
2) Make up his mind whether he wants to be a member of Congress or a serious candidate. He can't be a weekend candidate.
3) let it be known directly or indirectly (there may be legal reasons for not making a formal announcement) that he's running. Let us know, like yesterday, his decision so we can support another if he's not interested.
RON PAUL 2012
IT'S HIS DESTINY!
Even if he doesn't win (God forbbid, it may still be our last chance) the AWAKENING that has occurred from his last run, will be nothing like his next run ... then the stage is set for future generations ... WILL WE BE READY?
I'm not reading the article,
I'm not reading the article, but I will say that Ron Paul not running in 2012 will feel as though the wind was taken out of our sails. That's what it would feel to me. Absent another candidate to energizes this revolution better than Ron Paul, it would simply not be the same with another candidate - at least not at this point.
...
I believe they should all
I believe they should all run .. if they want to that is .. Ron Paul, Stossel, Napolitano, Johnson ... it would be great ...
remember there were more than 10 stupid candidates in the GOP primary ... they all ended up endorsing one stupid candidate with a retarded philosophy ...
look at it this way if you will ...
if the liberty vote gets fractioned by having multiple people run ...as 1 drops out .. he will endorse another liberty candidate ... now imagine what impact having endorsements from 4 or 5 dropout candidates will have instead of getting none
they should all run ... and if they are good quality candidates such as the ones mentioned they will endorse eachother ...giving us maybe 25 to 30% of the vote .. imagine?
I agree except, I don't
want several third party candidates running against each other in the general election. At the point that we get to the general election, then I only want ONE liberty candidate. For that matter, even in the primary, they should all drop out at the last minute if they are not the most popular and endorse one candidate at the Big Party favorite in the liberty movement or else they will negate each other even in the primary. So for a while, yes, but at a certain point endorse.
well my point is based on
well my point is based on those who are intending to run on a traditional Republican Platform ... unfortunately to do so and become successful means that you have to run in the Republican Party ... this is a simple and short easy debate that all of us can have really quickly.
Party Primaries ... not multiple parties with multiple primaries ... or anyway that is my view ... i don't hate or look down on third parties or candidates .. i'm looking at real prospects here ... if there is no good candidate i will search for one in any party ...
as for your point about general elections ... of course .. there can only be one liberty candidate.
hmm...
I tend to find this a very appealing idea.
Ron Paul 2012
www.josiahgarber.com/blog
www.heirloomgardenpro.com
www.mennonitesforronpaul.com
i appreciate your
i appreciate your kindness
it seems my idea is very popular ... it is based on free market competition ... for some reason people seem to think if the field is too crowded it is a bad idea ... i say the more people out there ... the better it is for all of us
I agree. They all run,
I agree. They all run, initially, building their own groups of support and passing their supporters on to the next liberty candidate who they endorse when they drop out. This could stack up nicely for the remaining liberty candidate.
...
I like your idea.
I think all of us should run, swamp the field with Liberty candidates. That would be a dream come true.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
thank you .. i will be one
thank you .. i will be one of those candidates in 2016 ... not for the presidency however lol ... for US Congress .. House
Maybe, the Judge Nap.
should run for prez and Dr. Paul vice-prez. I could go for that.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
I agree with the piece but not the title
We don't know who else will run, so everything is hypothetical. But I agree with the logic of the piece. What if Gary Johnson strongly considers a run? Or John Stossel? Or Andrew Napolitano?
Ron Paul running under those circumstances could pose a problem. Obviously, having more than one of those candidates running could be a big problem. But the hidden problem is this: what if they're considering running, but Ron Paul jumps into the race in January or February 2011? It would basically keep them out.
I think Ron Paul, for all his campaign flaws, is a good strategist at heart. He doesn't want to run for the sake of running. He ran last time to bring his issues to the forefront because, if he did not run, no one else would voice those issues. I'm sure he's in contact with these figures, and I hope they come up with a good plan for getting a liberty-minded Republican into the race who will have the best chance to succeed.
So, I disagree with the title. I'm not saying Ron Paul shouldn't run, per se. But imagine the shake-up that a John Stossel or Gary Johnson could have on the race. Both would make great candidates. Both (and this isn't a shot at Ron Paul, just a reality check) are better debaters than Ron Paul. Neither has the high "negatives" of Ron Paul (face it, there are a lot of Republican primary voters who have their heads in the sand and will never vote for Ron Paul).
Running one of these candidates, if it's done right, can have all the benefits of a Paul candidacy (the movement getting behind them just like we did for Ron Paul) without the drawbacks (Paul's negatives) and with the added benefits of (relative) youth, executive experience (in Johnson's case), huge name recognition (in Stossel's) and TVQ. :)
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995
You
state:
"...Both (and this isn't a shot at Ron Paul, just a reality check) are better debaters than Ron Paul. Neither has the high "negatives" of Ron Paul (face it, there are a lot of Republican primary voters who have their heads in the sand and will never vote for Ron Paul)..."
Sure sounds like a shot at Ron Paul to me! I think Ron Paul is an excellent debater. I guess reality is in the eye of the beholder, then. And define "the high negatives of Ron Paul" of which you speak!
Berwick, Columbia County, Pennsylvania
Ron Paul 2012 - The People's Choice
rEVOLution SuperPAC: http://www.revolutionpac.com/
WTP Federal Lawsuit to BAN ALL ELECTRONIC VOTING
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2011-07-26...